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

[Bridewell]

Well, what are the chances of those in charge of a London lunatic asylum, on being informed that a person in their care is suspected of being the infamous homicidal maniac known as the Whitechapel Murderer, giving permission for him to be transported 50 miles to a place where people are convalescing in order to meet someone who is already in London?

Another problem is that, according to Swanson, Kosminski was not yet incarcerated in an asylum.

Are you saying that everything he claimed happened after the alleged identification - the return to his brother's house, the surveillance, the tying of his hands behind his back, and being taken to a workhouse - never happened?

I'm not saying anything of the sort. My point was that there was no need to involve the magistracy in a matter of this nature - for the reasons which I stated. I made no reference to things which did or didn't happen subsequently and, just to reassure you on that point, I don't intend to do so.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

- We don't know if the Police took Kosminski. Swanson actually states he was 'sent by us with difficulty'. Sent being the key word. So it seems likely they didn't take him. How he was transferred we do not know.

Then it is not believable.

- With no other evidence apart from an ID which would not be sworn too what else could they do?

I was responding to Shomes' assertion that police did arrest him later and asking how it was possible that they could not arrest him even after they had evidence that he was the Whitechapel Murderer.

- Kosminski had just been, according to senior Police officers, identified as JTR by a witness. They had to release him as there was no evidence other than an ID that would not be sworn too. Of course they would put 24hr surveillance on him- he had been identified as JTR (we can argue whether even the ID would have been satisfactory).

My question was: why would they have put him under round the clock surveillance about two years after the last murder?

- Again we don't know Police tied his hands behind his back just that he was escorted with his hands tied behind his back. By whom we don't know.

I was responding to Shomes' assertion that it was the police who tied his hands behind his back.
My response was to ask how they could have done that if he was not under arrest!

- We don't know it was Police who took him to the Workhouse either.

Again, I was responding to Shomes' assertion that it was the police who were in charge of him when he was taken to the workhouse.

[Sunny Delight]

Readers are being expected to believe that:


The police were able to take Kosminski against his will from London to the coast without an arrest warrant.

The police had no legal alternative but to allow him to return home after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer.

Kosminski was placed under surveillance in case he committed a murder some two years since the last was committed.

Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back by the police even though he was not under arrest.

Kosminski was taken by the police to a workhouse even though he was not under arrest.


I suggest such a sequence of events is not credible.

- We don't know if the Police took Kosminski. Swanson actually states he was 'sent by us with difficulty'. Sent being the key word. So it seems likely they didn't take him. How he was transferred we do not know.

- With no other evidence apart from an ID which would not be sworn too what else could they do?

- Kosminski had just been, according to senior Police officers, identified as JTR by a witness. They had to release him as there was no evidence other than an ID that would not be sworn too. Of course they would put 24hr surveillance on him- he had been identified as JTR (we can argue whether even the ID would have been satisfactory).

- Again we don't know Police tied his hands behind his back just that he was escorted with his hands tied behind his back. By whom we don't know.

- We don't know it was Police who took him to the Workhouse either.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende was also a commercial traveler by trade in the cigarette business. How do you know that his trade had not taken him to Brighton or somewhere else with a seaside home at the time of the ID ? And it was of the upmost importance that the ID was done quickly [ time constraints ] before Lawende was due back in London ?

Regards Darryl

I suggest that he was not in fact a commercial traveller, as has sometimes been reported, but a cigarette maker.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that Swanson fabricated anything.

The question is whether what he wrote is believable.

The fact that he would not make any public statement, in spite of the fact that the man he was defending had practically been accused of making things up, and in spite of his own belief that he could not be sued by the man he named as the suspect, suggests that he was not confident that the contents of his marginalia would stand up to critical scrutiny.

Swanson provides no inside information that would indicate that he is describing true events and events with which he was connected.

He provides not a single date and not a single name, other than Kosminski's - which had already been mentioned by Macnaghten.

He does not name the witness nor any policeman involved in any of the events he relates.

That would be understandable had he made his story public, but the fact that he kept it private and still provided no such names suggests he did not possess such inside information.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Because the vast majority of Jews lived in London.

Because it is hardly likely that a Jewish person from another part of the country came to Whitechapel, Spitalfields, or the City of London to watch prostitutes being murdered in the early hours.

Because there is no hint anywhere in Swanson's marginalia that the witness lived outside London.

Because Anderson hinted that the witness was based in London.

Because if the witness lived in Brighton, there were only about 150 Jews living there at that time.

Lawende was also a commercial traveler by trade in the cigarette business. How do you know that his trade had not taken him to Brighton or somewhere else with a seaside home at the time of the ID ? And it was of the upmost importance that the ID was done quickly [ time constraints ] before Lawende was due back in London ?

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How do you know the witness was in London ?

Regards Darryl

Because the vast majority of Jews lived in London.

Because it is hardly likely that a Jewish person from another part of the country came to Whitechapel, Spitalfields, or the City of London to watch prostitutes being murdered in the early hours.

Because there is no hint anywhere in Swanson's marginalia that the witness lived outside London.

Because Anderson hinted that the witness was based in London.

Because if the witness lived in Brighton, there were only about 150 Jews living there at that time.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I really don't understand what you are saying. Is it your contention that Swanson fabricated the entire incident in a private note, in a personal copy of a book, which he isn't known to have shown anyone during his lifetime and which was only discovered by his family many years after his death?

While you may not understand how police procedure worked in the nineteenth century, you're not qualified in any way, whereas Swanson was literally expert in the subject. He knew more about police operations than any person living today could ever dream of. If he tells us something happened a certain way, we can be sure that such a thing was entirely possible and realistic. I'm sorry that he didn't explain everything to your satisfaction but he didn't need to.

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

No magistrate would have authorised Kosminski's transportation to a place 50 miles from London in order to meet someone who was also based in London!

How do you know the witness was in London ?

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Readers are being expected to believe that:


The police were able to take Kosminski against his will from London to the coast without an arrest warrant.

The police had no legal alternative but to allow him to return home after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer.

Kosminski was placed under surveillance in case he committed a murder some two years since the last was committed.

Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back by the police even though he was not under arrest.

Kosminski was taken by the police to a workhouse even though he was not under arrest.


I suggest such a sequence of events is not credible.

Any refutation of the points I made above that rests on the argument that Swanson must have known what he was talking about and must have known all about the correct legal procedures, and that therefore what he wrote in the marginalia must be true, is a circular argument and therefore invalid.

Anderson knew all about legal procedures, but that did not prevent him from making the almighty howler of claiming that police were trying to obtain a murder conviction of a man who was caged in a lunatic asylum, in order, according to Swanson, to have him hanged.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it was in order to explain why no-one apparently knew of the identification.

Had it taken place at a London police station, as it surely would have, then how could it have been kept secret?

There were reports of Grainger's attempted identification and they didn't come to us from anyone's marginalia!

I would suggest, nevertheless, that it is not credible that the police would have put convalescents at risk of being attacked by the Whitechapel Murderer.

The difficulty to which Swanson refers is an impossibility.

No magistrate would have authorised Kosminski's transportation to a place 50 miles from London in order to meet someone who was also based in London!

And he would not have authorised the transportation of a man suspected of being a homicidal maniac to a place where people were convalescing.

My answer in #586 applies here too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Readers are being expected to believe that:


The police were able to take Kosminski against his will from London to the coast without an arrest warrant.

The police had no legal alternative but to allow him to return home after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer.

Kosminski was placed under surveillance in case he committed a murder some two years since the last was committed.

Kosminski had his hands tied behind his back by the police even though he was not under arrest.

Kosminski was taken by the police to a workhouse even though he was not under arrest.


I suggest such a sequence of events is not credible.

I really don't understand what you are saying. Is it your contention that Swanson fabricated the entire incident in a private note, in a personal copy of a book, which he isn't known to have shown anyone during his lifetime and which was only discovered by his family many years after his death?

While you may not understand how police procedure worked in the nineteenth century, you're not qualified in any way, whereas Swanson was literally expert in the subject. He knew more about police operations than any person living today could ever dream of. If he tells us something happened a certain way, we can be sure that such a thing was entirely possible and realistic. I'm sorry that he didn't explain everything to your satisfaction but he didn't need to.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not sure why you think a magistrate would be involved. If Kosminski was incarcerated in a mental institution all you would need would be the acquiescence of those in charge of that institution. If staff from that institution accompanied him and were present throughout he wouldn't technically even leave their custody.

Well, what are the chances of those in charge of a London lunatic asylum, on being informed that a person in their care is suspected of being the infamous homicidal maniac known as the Whitechapel Murderer, giving permission for him to be transported 50 miles to a place where people are convalescing in order to meet someone who is already in London?

Another problem is that, according to Swanson, Kosminski was not yet incarcerated in an asylum.

Are you saying that everything he claimed happened after the alleged identification - the return to his brother's house, the surveillance, the tying of his hands behind his back, and being taken to a workhouse - never happened?

[Bridewell]

I think it was in order to explain why no-one apparently knew of the identification.

Had it taken place at a London police station, as it surely would have, then how could it have been kept secret?

There were reports of Grainger's attempted identification and they didn't come to us from anyone's marginalia!

I would suggest, nevertheless, that it is not credible that the police would have put convalescents at risk of being attacked by the Whitechapel Murderer.

The difficulty to which Swanson refers is an impossibility.

No magistrate would have authorised Kosminski's transportation to a place 50 miles from London in order to meet someone who was also based in London!

And he would not have authorised the transportation of a man suspected of being a homicidal maniac to a place where people were convalescing.

I'm not sure why you think a magistrate would be involved. If Kosminski was incarcerated in a mental institution all you would need would be the acquiescence of those in charge of that institution. If staff from that institution accompanied him and were present throughout he wouldn't technically even leave their custody.

[Bridewell]

Swanson is categoric in the marginalia that Kosminski was positively identified as the Ripper despite there being no corroboration to this mythical ID procedure

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anderson claimed that the murderer had been identified but that the witness refused to swear to it. Swanson then adds "because the suspect was also a Jew and because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind".

That looks like corroboration to me. Swanson places the ID at The Seaside Home; Anderson is silent on the location. You may not believe an ID procedure took place, and you may be quite right not to believe it, but your claim that it is uncorroborated is disingenuous.

(And of course a witness account doesn't have to be corroborated in order to be true; it just helps if it is).