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

[Sunny Delight]

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

So you believe Anderson was not being truthful and that Swanson expanded on Andersons falsehood with a falsehood of his own. How did McNaughten know that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square? How did McNaghten know what Kosminski looked like?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think you're missing the point.

Swanson's loyalty to Anderson is admirable, but as I pointed out, he could not name names or give dates to back up anything Anderson had claimed.

The witness is unnamed.

Not a single policeman or witness to the transportation, identification or surveillance of Kosminski is given.

There is nothing to support the contention that Swanson was relating anything with which he had any personal familiarity and much to suggest he was not.

He cannot get the name of the workhouse right and he gets Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades, compared with which my slip about a former Home Secretary looks insignificant - but I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.

Worst of all, Swanson thinks the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified, whereas we know that he was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year later.

Swanson swallowed Anderson's tale and Anderson himself gave away the fact it was nothing more than a tale when he had to remove all mention of Kosminski's incarceration.

He said in 1892 the murderer had not been identified and confirmed it in 1908 and then announced in 1910 that he had known his identity all along.

The whole Anderson-Swanson story has been exposed as another Anderson's fairy tale.

As has been pointed out to you by others PI Swanson did not need to name dates etc Who was he expecting to read it. This was not a published HO document.

PS When are you going to admit you are wrong . I have pointed out to you that Harcourt was dead in 1908 . Anderson was recalling a tale from years earlier that is fact . When are you going to accept this .

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

Perhaps you should have checked first regarding Harcourt before stating that Anderson said the murders where unsolved in 1908 . Not forgetting the fact that at least since 1895 Anderson had been alluding otherwise . Or was it a simple mistake you made like Anderson could have when recalling something from 20 yrs earlier regarding that interview.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course it didn't . That's why Swanson references it in his own copy of a book for his own consumption. Who was he trying to kid ? And what would he be gaining from it ?

I think you're missing the point.

Swanson's loyalty to Anderson is admirable, but as I pointed out, he could not name names or give dates to back up anything Anderson had claimed.

The witness is unnamed.

Not a single policeman or witness to the transportation, identification or surveillance of Kosminski is given.

There is nothing to support the contention that Swanson was relating anything with which he had any personal familiarity and much to suggest he was not.

He cannot get the name of the workhouse right and he gets Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades, compared with which my slip about a former Home Secretary looks insignificant - but I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.

Worst of all, Swanson thinks the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified, whereas we know that he was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year later.

Swanson swallowed Anderson's tale and Anderson himself gave away the fact it was nothing more than a tale when he had to remove all mention of Kosminski's incarceration.

He said in 1892 the murderer had not been identified and confirmed it in 1908 and then announced in 1910 that he had known his identity all along.

The whole Anderson-Swanson story has been exposed as another Anderson's fairy tale.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And this from someone who mentions an article from 1908 believing it to be a recent conversation of Anderson's with someone who had been dead for four years

I would have thought the fact that Anderson thought he had a conversation with the Home Secretary about the Whitechapel Murders when that Home Secretary was in office BEFORE the murders took place would alert you to the obvious fact that Anderson is a completely unreliable witness, whose confusion is proven not only by that glaring error.

As for me, I would remind you that I was born in a later century, and suggest it would be unreasonable to expect me to recall which Home Secretary Anderson had a conversation with and when.

That was his affair and this latest revelation is one more nail in the coffin of the entire Anderson - Swanson fantasy.

[Darryl Kenyon]

And that means that the identification of Kosminski did not take place.[/B]

Of course it didn't . That's why Swanson references it in his own copy of a book for his own consumption. Who was he trying to kid ? And what would he be gaining from it ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Then perhaps you have noticed that I am still waiting for a response there to my # 1666.

If the arguments I employ are so questionable, why cannot one of my adversaries come up with a refutation?

They cannot - because I rely on hard facts.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think you should.

And this from someone who mentions an article from 1908 believing it to be a recent conversation of Anderson's with someone who had been dead for four years

[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.