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

[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?

[Bridewell]

That does not look like corroboration to me.

As I noted previously, Swanson provides no inside information to corroborate anything he relates.

He can't corroborate himself. He corroborates Anderson. He doesn't have to provide "inside information" as he's writing his own notes in a copy of Anderson's book.

He does not name the suspect nor any policeman involved in the identification or surveillance, and does not give the date on which any event occurred.

Why should he? He's writing his own notes in a copy of Anderson's book.

Between them, Anderson and Swanson created a fable which lacks any factual basis.

Two highly respected senior officers and both lying. Any "factual basis" for that beyond your own surmise?

Neither of them mentioned any identification evidence against Kosminski - such as the fair hair, salt-and-pepper jacket, and appearance of a sailor mentioned by Lawende - nor any search of his home, nor states when he became a suspect.

Why should they? They weren't writing what they did for you and me.

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

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

Two of them - Anderson and Swanson - thought that the murders ended because of Kosminski's identification or incarceration, whereas we know that Kosminski was walking a dog without a muzzle in the City of London more than a year after the last murder at a time when, according to Swanson, he would have required round the clock surveillance in order to stop him eviscerating gentile women.

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?

It is a wonder that anyone takes their writings seriously.

I'm sure that if they had known you would disapprove they wouldn't have bothered.

[Trevor Marriott]

True, but since we have nothing to indicate he didn't, and the handwriting experts final evaluation is that he did, isn't this just a hypothetical suggestion? As in, if we didn't know what we know, this could have been the case? Of course, since everything we have indicates he did write all of the marginalia, to assert this is to risk being accused of clutching at straws isn't it?

- Jeff

I am quite definitely not clutching at straws the content of the marginalia is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

True, but since we have nothing to indicate he didn't, and the handwriting experts final evaluation is that he did, isn't this just a hypothetical suggestion? As in, if we didn't know what we know, this could have been the case? Of course, since everything we have indicates he did write all of the marginalia, to assert this is to risk being accused of clutching at straws isn't it?

- Jeff

Well, the case against Swanson's marginalia does not depend on proving them or parts of them to have been written by someone else.

It is quite obvious that Swanson has a problem with dates.

First, he does not give any.

Secondly, he has Kosminski dying about three decades too soon.

Thirdly, he has the identification taking place soon after the last murder, and the incarceration shortly after the identification, which means the incarceration taking place two years earlier than we know it did and the identification taking place at the Seaside Home before it actually opened.

Those who claim that he meant the identification took place in July 1890 or February 1891 have never explained how Swanson could have thought that it coincided with the cessation of the murders - and they never will.

Swanson evidently wrote his marginalia as a defence of Anderson.

If Anderson was wrong when he claimed in his memoirs in 1910 that the Polish Jew/Kosminski had been identified as the murderer, then the marginalia are unsupportable.

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

There have been reports that by the time he wrote his memoirs, he was showing signs of confusion and was unable to state correctly which party prominent politicians belonged to.

Have any of Anderson's supporters been able to explain why he reported, also in 1908, that a broken clay pipe was found in the fireplace at Miller's Court, when all Inspector Abberline found there were burnt clothes?

Was he confusing the murder of Kelly with that of McKenzie, who smoked a clay pipe and was murdered nine months later?

Is this the quality of recollection to be expected of someone who is able to state that the identification of a Polish Jew as the Whitechapel Murderer was a definitely ascertained fact?

Would someone recollecting an actual identification be so confused about what had actually occurred that he would first claim that the suspect was in an asylum when the identification took place and then, just months later, leave out all reference to the incarceration of the suspect?

Like Swanson, Anderson gives no dates or details of any search of the suspect's home, nor of any incriminating evidence discovered, that might have led to his becoming a suspect in the first place.

How could they have, when Kosminski had never even been a suspect before his incarceration?

[JeffHamm]

It does sit right if Swanson didn't pen all of the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True, but since we have nothing to indicate he didn't, and the handwriting experts final evaluation is that he did, isn't this just a hypothetical suggestion? As in, if we didn't know what we know, this could have been the case? Of course, since everything we have indicates he did write all of the marginalia, to assert this is to risk being accused of clutching at straws isn't it?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Why is that relevant though? It’s not a fact, it’s simply your opinion. How can you or any of us have any knowledge of what a Victorian asylum would or wouldn’t do?

[Trevor Marriott]

You are completely right Herlock . Why fabricate a supposed ID in private notes in his personal copy of a book and then as far as we are aware never show said notes to anyone. It just doesn't sit right .

Regards Darryl

It does sit right if Swanson didn't pen all of the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did I? I thought I replied to a post of yours claiming that Kosminski was in an asylum and that those in charge of it would be unlikely to let him go into somebody else's care without a warrant. In fact I've checked my post and that is exactly what I did. Swanson can be right because I'm not contradicting him. Goodnight.

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.