The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think you should.

Yes I have seen some of your, should I say strange answers on the JFK thread.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Do we have anyone here an expert in French Law of the late 1880's? I doubt it very much. But Anderson did allude to it in his memoirs.

In 1907 Anderson gave an interview saying that " The evidence must be available when the accused is placed under arrest "
He then goes on to say " Not so in some countries where they can seize a criminal and build up a case against him , holding the suspect at their leisure "

It seems likely that Anderson bemoaned the fact that they couldn't hold his suspect because they didn't have enough evidence to , and had to let him go. Perhaps a positive ID may have been enough evidence to hold the suspect longer while they tried gathering more proof, or even to charge him.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So undiscovered is such an unusual word it must be Anderson and only Anderson who uttered the phrase . I give in

I think you should.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

So undiscovered is such an unusual word it must be Anderson and only Anderson who uttered the phrase . I give in

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Unsolved does not mean the murderer was not identified. Unsolved means the case is still open or that no conviction occured. The murderer not being identified is much different- depending on how you view the identification.

I think you are mistaken about what Anderson meant.

He used the same word - undiscovered - to describe the case in 1892 as he did in 1910.

He claimed in 1892 that the crimes were undiscovered and in 1910 that it was not true that they were undiscovered.

Since he was obviously referring in 1910 to identification of a suspect as the murderer, his use of the word undiscovered refers to the unmasking of the culprit, regardless of whether the case is still open or any conviction has been secured.

And that means he did not know the identity of the murderer in September 1892.

And that means that the identification of Kosminski did not take place.

[Sunny Delight]

Please see my replies below.

Unsolved does not mean the murderer was not identified. Unsolved means the case is still open or that no conviction occured. The murderer not being identified is much different- depending on how you view the identification.

The case was not solved in 1892 which is what Anderson said. This also speaks to many peoples interpretation that over the years Anderson through his own confirmation bias began to almost fantasise that the ID had been cut and dry and that two things prevented the murderer being caught. 1) The witness would not testify against the murderer because he was a fellow Jew and 2) The British Judicial system was too lenient and meant they had to leave the case Unsolved. If however it was more like the French system it would have been so much different.

Do we have anyone here an expert in French Law of the late 1880's? I doubt it very much. But Anderson did allude to it in his memoirs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Anderson stated in September 1908 that he would not accept responsibility for the fact that the murderer was not identified.

Anderson said that he told William Harcourt who was then Home secretary that he would not accept responsibility for the non detection of the murderer in the Daily Chronicle piece .
William Harcourt had been dead for four years in 1908 . He was obviously talking about a conversation from his past


I am indebted to you for pointing that out.

I would point out also that Harcourt was Home Secretary BEFORE the murders occurred, which serves only to cast further doubt on Anderson's reliability.

Henry Matthews was Home Secretary at the time of the murders.

The important thing, however, is that at some time following the murders, when the police had evidently all but given up on solving them, Anderson was of the view that they were UNSOLVED.


He stated in 1892 that the Whitechapel Murders were unsolved

"I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man," observes the C.I.D. chief, "for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred."

The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs.

"There," says the Assistant Commissioner, "there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."


Again my interpretation of the interview is that it is the journalist who is saying that the crimes had not been solved.

It looks to me as if Anderson is hinting at Kosminski .

You may interpret the interview differently than I have, but interpretation it is, on both our parts.


I don't think so.

Eighteen years later, Anderson wrote:

'And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I may say at once that " undiscovered murders " are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper " crimes are not within that category.'

How can you possibly explain why the interviewer should have used the same curious word 'undiscovered' 18 years before Anderson used it in his memoirs and mistakenly attributed it to him?

It is not a matter of interpretation, but obvious that Anderson really did say what was attributed to him in that interview.

And that means he did not know the identity of the murderer in September 1892.

And that means that the identification of Kosminski did not take place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

William Harcourt was Home Secretary between 28 April 1880 and 23 June 1885.

He was not Home Secretary during the Whitechapel Murders.

Why would Anderson have been telling William Harcourt anything about the murders in 1888?

I was about to point that out in my reply to Darryl, which I have almost finished composing!

[rjpalmer]

Anderson said that he told William Harcourt who was then Home secretary that he would not accept responsibility for the non detection of the murderer in the Daily Chronicle piece .
William Harcourt had been dead for four years in 1908 . He was obviously talking about a conversation from his past

William Harcourt was Home Secretary between 28 April 1880 and 23 June 1885.

He was not Home Secretary during the Whitechapel Murders.

Why would Anderson have been telling William Harcourt anything about the murders in 1888?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Anderson stated in September 1908 that he would not accept responsibility for the fact that the murderer was not identified.

He stated in 1892 that the Whitechapel Murders were unsolved, but in 1910 claimed they had been solved.


.

Anderson stated in September 1908 that he would not accept responsibility for the fact that the murderer was not identified.

Anderson said that he told William Harcourt who was then Home secretary that he would not accept responsibility for the non detection of the murderer in the Daily Chronicle piece .
William Harcourt had been dead for four years in 1908 . He was obviously talking about a conversation from his past

He stated in 1892 that the Whitechapel Murders were unsolved

"I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man," observes the C.I.D. chief, "for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred."

The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs.

"There," says the Assistant Commissioner, "there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."

Again my interpretation of the interview is that it is the journalist who is saying that the crimes had not been solved.
It looks to me as if Anderson is hinting at Kosminski .

You may interpret the interview differently than I have, but interpretation it is, on both our parts.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please show me where this is concrete fact rather than your interpretation of interviews .



Regards Darryl

I note that my critics do not apply the same standard to Anderson.

He can state that it is merely a definitely ascertained fact that a Polish Jew was the Whitechapel Murderer, in the absence of a scintilla of evidence, and not so much a murmur of disquiet is forthcoming from my critics.

But as soon as I state something, the well-worn challenge invariably appears - that it is merely my interpretation!


Anderson stated in September 1908 that he would not accept responsibility for the fact that the murderer was not identified.

He stated in 1892 that the Whitechapel Murders were unsolved, but in 1910 claimed they had been solved.

It could not be clearer that what he wrote in 1892 and 1910 cannot be reconciled.

That in itself proves him to be a wholly-unreliable source, but just eighteen months before he claimed that the murderer had been a Polish Jew, Anderson was stating that the murderer had not been detected.

And those are concrete facts.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Anderson stated in 1892 that the murderer had not been identified and stated it again in 1908.

Please show me where this is concrete fact rather than your interpretation of interviews .



Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

So all three were misinformed - perhaps by the same source. Doesn't prove that what they wrote was fiction.


I had written: 'All three - Macnaghten, Anderson, and Swanson - thought that the incarceration took place about two years earlier than it did.'

That proves that they were not familiar with Kosminski's real history.

And that suggests that there is not much of a case against him.

That means what they wrote was not reliable, whether one calls it fiction or not.



The surveillance by City CID is what you are referring to is it? The City of London where he was caught walking a dog without a muzzle? That City of London? I wonder who caught him doing that. Could it perhaps have been the City of London officers who were conducting the surveillance who caught him doing that in the City of London?


I am amazed that you would suggest that anything of the kind happened.

First, why would officers keeping a suspect under surveillance to see whether he is about to commit a murder stop him in connection with a petty offence?

I am sure that Trevor Marriott can tell you the likelihood of something like that having happened.

Secondly, according to Swanson, Kosminski was placed under surveillance shortly after his identification.

Are you saying that the identification had already taken place by the time Kosminski was stopped while walking his dog?

You mean that a man who had just been identified as the Whitechapel Murderer was stopped for walking a dog without a muzzle?

And since, according to Swanson, Kosminski was shortly afterwards sent to an asylum, he should be put away shortly after appearing in court.

But he is not until more than a year later.

And you scoff about fiction.

[Bridewell]

I'm sorry if I have misrepresented what you meant, but I was referring to your comment in # 584:

If Kosminski was incarcerated in a mental institution all you would need would be the acquiescence of those in charge of that institution.

I suppose your remark was hypothetical, which is why you used the conjunction if.

I think what I meant was that if, as Anderson originally related, Kosminski was already in an asylum, the police would not have been able to take him anywhere without a warrant, which I suggested would not have been forthcoming.

I just cannot see a hospital or institution of that kind allowing the police to take a patient on a 100-mile return trip without a warrant.

We were probably at cross purposes then. I guess it depends on the circumstances of his detention at the mental health institution. I confess that I don't know what the prevailing rules were as the Mental Health Acts I worked with were obviously many years in the future when these events took place.

[Bridewell]

If Kosminski was indeed under arrest and this enabled the police to take/send him to the coast, then why was he allowed to return home and then re-arrested, having his hands tied behind his back?

I don't know. Why would I?