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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's a fair point but I think it's more likely that they gilded the lily a bit than that they fabricated the whole thing. Quite apart from anything else, if you were going to invent an ID procedure, why would you place it in such an unlikely setting?

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a fair point but I think it's more likely that they gilded the lily a bit than that they fabricated the whole thing. Quite apart from anything else, if you were going to invent an ID procedure, why would you place it in such an unlikely setting?

Good question Colin. Why would they invent this? Why risk being called a liar? We know how important reputation was to people like Anderson.

[Bridewell]

I think now I understand what you meant in # 537: that Swanson had not sought a conviction, and that he was not telling the truth about that.

If Anderson and Swanson did not tell the truth about such an important detail, why should we believe anything else in their story?

That's a fair point but I think it's more likely that they gilded the lily a bit than that they fabricated the whole thing. Quite apart from anything else, if you were going to invent an ID procedure, why would you place it in such an unlikely setting?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Are you saying you think the identification of Kosminski at a place on the coast did not happen?

It may have happened, or it may have happened at another seaside home. I believe Adam Wood has proposed an alternative [ I have just started reading his book on Swanson and the murders ]. My own personal view [ and I could be wrong ], is that seaside home could be seaman's home and the attempted ID happened in Whitechapel. What I don't believe however is that Swanson was completely wrong and there was no ID and nothing of a tangible nature behind it.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you were researching this series of murders from scratch and you could interview one police officer about the case, to me it is difficult to look beyond Swanson. After all he was the man in charge of the investigation.
And here is someone who wasn't seeking any sensational exposure for his biography etc. He is also someone who never gave any detailed interview regarding the crimes to any newspaper or magazine . He made a few private notes for personal consumption .
But his thoughts should be discarded, especially regarding an attempted ID which apparently was mythical .
I believe the saying is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, instead of trying to make sense of what Swanson wrote.

Regards Darryl

Are you saying you think the identification of Kosminski at a place on the coast did not happen?

[Darryl Kenyon]

If you were researching this series of murders from scratch and you could interview one police officer about the case, to me it is difficult to look beyond Swanson. After all he was the man in charge of the investigation.
And here is someone who wasn't seeking any sensational exposure for his biography etc. He is also someone who never gave any detailed interview regarding the crimes to any newspaper or magazine . He made a few private notes for personal consumption .
But his thoughts should be discarded, especially regarding an attempted ID which apparently was mythical .
I believe the saying is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, instead of trying to make sense of what Swanson wrote.

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Thank you for checking the source material and confirming I was right. As you have clearly demonstrated, Anderson did not say that Kosminski's family "refused to co-operate with the police in any way".

Nor would the police tying Kosminski's hands behind his back evidence non-co-operation by the family.

How did the police send Kosminski to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant? With difficulty, as Swanson said.

Why would they have allowed him to return home to after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer? This is explained by Swanson. The witness refused to testify. They had no basis to charge Kosminski. Legally they could not prevent him from going to live with his brother.

Why would they have kept him under surveillance? Perhaps to ensure that he didn't murder any more women, do you think?

Why would they then re-arrest him? Swanson doesn't mention an arrest.

Why would they take him to a workhouse? MEPO 8/17: Metropolitan Police: Instruction Book for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force 1893 - When a prisoner is taken to a workhouse by direction of the Divisional Surgeon, the police are to give intimation to the Workhouse Authorities that the person is a prisoner and will be taken charge of by police when in a fit condition to leave the Workhouse, and a request is to be made that due notification may be sent to the Police prior to the discharge of the prisoner.

In 1894, Macnaghten stated in his official Scotland Yard report that it was possible that Jack the Ripper had been incarcerated in an asylum. So he clearly did NOT believe, while serving in the Metropolitan Police as Chief Constable, that the Ripper was never placed in an asylum, otherwise he wouldn't have signed off on his report. You will have to explain why he said something different in his book 20 years later.

As for Anderson's error, it was corrected in his book. Any normal person will understand that writing 20 years after an event from memory, it's possible to make small errors of detail or chronology. But the whole point is that Anderson's account is corroborated by Swanson in the marginalia. That's why Swanson's marginalia is so important. Swanson was the Chief Inspector of C.I.D. at Scotland yard who had been given charge by the Commissioner in 1888 of all the evidence in the Ripper case and is a very credible source. If you don't believe Swanson, it's difficult to know who or what you will believe.

Very interesting point about the workhouse Herlock, thank you

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way.

(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice ... he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

(ANDERSON)





If [Kosminski's family] were not [cooperative], then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)




How could the police have taken Kosminski from London to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant; why would they have allowed him to return home after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer; why would they have kept him under surveillance for a few days; why would they then re-arrest him, and why would they then take him to a workhouse?





Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. He says no such thing


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



I [do not] believe that [the Whitechapel Murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum


(Macnaghten, Days Of My Years, Chapter IV)





Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)





Sir Robert Anderson made an error when he wrote that Kosminski was already incarcerated in an asylum at the time of his identification?

If he could not get such basic details right about what had happened in the most sensational identification in British criminal history, then what reliance can be placed on anything else he claims to have happened?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness identifying him?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness refusing to testify against the suspect?

How about Anderson making an error about it being a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew?

Thank you for checking the source material and confirming I was right. As you have clearly demonstrated, Anderson did not say that Kosminski's family "refused to co-operate with the police in any way".

Nor would the police tying Kosminski's hands behind his back evidence non-co-operation by the family.

How did the police send Kosminski to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant? With difficulty, as Swanson said.

Why would they have allowed him to return home to after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer? This is explained by Swanson. The witness refused to testify. They had no basis to charge Kosminski. Legally they could not prevent him from going to live with his brother.

Why would they have kept him under surveillance? Perhaps to ensure that he didn't murder any more women, do you think?

Why would they then re-arrest him? Swanson doesn't mention an arrest.

Why would they take him to a workhouse? MEPO 8/17: Metropolitan Police: Instruction Book for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force 1893 - When a prisoner is taken to a workhouse by direction of the Divisional Surgeon, the police are to give intimation to the Workhouse Authorities that the person is a prisoner and will be taken charge of by police when in a fit condition to leave the Workhouse, and a request is to be made that due notification may be sent to the Police prior to the discharge of the prisoner.

In 1894, Macnaghten stated in his official Scotland Yard report that it was possible that Jack the Ripper had been incarcerated in an asylum. So he clearly did NOT believe, while serving in the Metropolitan Police as Chief Constable, that the Ripper was never placed in an asylum, otherwise he wouldn't have signed off on his report. You will have to explain why he said something different in his book 20 years later.

As for Anderson's error, it was corrected in his book. Any normal person will understand that writing 20 years after an event from memory, it's possible to make small errors of detail or chronology. But the whole point is that Anderson's account is corroborated by Swanson in the marginalia. That's why Swanson's marginalia is so important. Swanson was the Chief Inspector of C.I.D. at Scotland yard who had been given charge by the Commissioner in 1888 of all the evidence in the Ripper case and is a very credible source. If you don't believe Swanson, it's difficult to know who or what you will believe.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way.

(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice ... he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

(ANDERSON)





If [Kosminski's family] were not [cooperative], then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)




How could the police have taken Kosminski from London to the Seaside Home without an arrest warrant; why would they have allowed him to return home after his identification as the Whitechapel Murderer; why would they have kept him under surveillance for a few days; why would they then re-arrest him, and why would they then take him to a workhouse?





Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



False. He says no such thing


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)



I [do not] believe that [the Whitechapel Murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum


(Macnaghten, Days Of My Years, Chapter IV)





Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.


(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1, # 568)



And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version


(Herlock Shomes, # 570)





Sir Robert Anderson made an error when he wrote that Kosminski was already incarcerated in an asylum at the time of his identification?

If he could not get such basic details right about what had happened in the most sensational identification in British criminal history, then what reliance can be placed on anything else he claims to have happened?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness identifying him?

How about Anderson making an error about a Jewish witness refusing to testify against the suspect?

How about Anderson making an error about it being a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor, you have an astounding capacity for not directly addressing what I say in my posts but changing the subject to something else.

You want to go back to the topic of corroboration now?

Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.

But Anderson doesn't name Kosminski does he and if you are referring to Magnahten he in the Aberconway version tends to exonerate him, why would he exonerate a killer who had been positively identified, and a point you keep ignoring is that MM was Swansons boss yet he makes no mention of this ID procedure can you explain those two anomalies in suggesting that the Marginalia is to be relied on?

I already demonstrated some time ago - without any opposition from you - that the Aberconway version is a draft while the filed version is the final official version. The final official version doesn't give any details but says that there were "many circumstances" connected with Kosminski "which made him a strong suspect". That is entirely consistent with what Swanson tells us in the marginalia, which simply gives more details about those circumstances

So we have three of the most senior officials at Scotland Yard - Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Inspector - all telling us the same thing. In circumstances where Scotland Yard's 'Suspects' file no longer exists, it's hard to know what better corroboration you could want.

But they are not all telling the same thing are they? Swanson purportedly names Kosminski. Anderson doesn't name anyone and MM exonerates Kosminski.


How can you possibly say that MM exonerates Kosminski when he describes him as a "strong suspect" in the final version of his report which was filed at Scotland Yard? Do you just see what you want to see and ignore everything else you don't like?

I know that Anderson doesn't name anyone (and he explained why) but that's precisely what Swanson did in the marginalia. He provided the identity of Anderson's suspect.

And you nor anyone else can explain why according to the marginalia Kosminski was watched day and night by City police, when Major Smith is emphatic that he had clues as to the identity of the killer


I assume you mean "no clues". He actually said "no...idea". There isn't any contradiction between the City Police keeping a suspect (who they never saw murdering anyone) under constant surveillance and Smith saying that he had no idea who the murderer was. Unless you think that every suspect is automatically guilty

There is corroboration to show no organs were taken away by the killer of Kelly but that is not for this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No there isn’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you have an astounding capacity for not directly addressing what I say in my posts but changing the subject to something else.

You want to go back to the topic of corroboration now?

Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.

But Anderson doesn't name Kosminski does he and if you are referring to Magnahten he in the Aberconway version tends to exonerate him, why would he exonerate a killer who had been positively identified, and a point you keep ignoring is that MM was Swansons boss yet he makes no mention of this ID procedure can you explain those two anomalies in suggesting that the Marginalia is to be relied on?

So we have three of the most senior officials at Scotland Yard - Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Chief Inspector - all telling us the same thing. In circumstances where Scotland Yard's 'Suspects' file no longer exists, it's hard to know what better corroboration you could want.

But they are not all telling the same thing are they? Swanson purportedly names Kosminski. Anderson doesn't name anyone and MM exonerates Kosminski.

And you nor anyone else can explain why according to the marginalia Kosminski was watched day and night by City police, when Major Smith is emphatic that he had clues as to the identity of the killer

That strikes me as way better corroboration of something than a single newspaper interview of an elderly H Division detective uncorroborated by a single Scotland Yard official, or any other known police official, whose recollection is in direct contradiction of an official autopsy report, don't you think?

There is corroboration to show no organs were taken away by the killer of Kelly but that is not for this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

(Trevor Marriott)



Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.


(Herlock Shomes)



Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned the Seaside Home.

So what?

Neither mentioned CID surveillance.

So what?

Macnaghten never mentioned any identification of Kosminski.

So what?

Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum and that he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski.

False. He says no such thing. On the contrary, he says in the official version of the report that the murderer either committed suicide or was confined by his relations in a lunatic asylum. And in the official version of the report there is no mention of an inclination to exonerate Kosminski.

Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned Kosminski's hands ever having been tied behind his back, and neither did the workhouse.

So what?

Macnaghten never mentioned a Jewish witness in connection with Kosminski.

So what?

Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.

And that was removed from the version in his book suggesting he had made an error in the earlier magazine version

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way, yet Swanson has Kosminski taken to the workhouse, conveniently shortly after CID had put the Kosminski residence under surveillance.

False. Anderson does not say that Kosminski's family refused to co-operate with the police in any way. But if he had done there is no contradiction with that and Swanson saying that Kosminski was taken to the workhouse after having been placed under surveillance.

If Anderson was right, then why were Kosminski's family so co-operative?

What co-operation are you talking about?

If they were not, then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.



Is that believable?

Yes. Isn't that what police do in order to detain or restrain violent criminals or lunatics?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place.

(Herlock Shomes)



That is a fallacy.

If Swanson wrote the marginalia, that does not prove that what he wrote is true.

They contain mistakes, including a serious one, namely that Kosminski died about three decades before he did.




The marginalia is unsafe to rely on and maybe you should have a go at answering the questions posed by PI in post 559

(Trevor Marriott)




What an odd list of questions, and you forgot to ask why he didn't identify the Seaside Home.

Are you aware that Swanson was a private citizen writing a private note in the marginalia of a book with limited space, not a formal report as a serving officer to the commissioner?

(Herlock Shomes)



Well, he did identify it, by referring to it as 'the Seaside Home' and not 'a Seaside Home'.

If his comments were so private, why did he name the suspect, the area where he lived, the workhouse to which he was sent (incorrectly), the CID's involvement, and the religion of the witness?

Oh, you know which one it is, do you? Do tell. I've always wanted to know.

As for lack of space, the book ran to more than 300 pages.

300 pages of text! He ran out of room in the margin on page 138 where he wrote his note and had to continue on the endpaper. That's the very last page of the book. But in responding to this you've totally ignored the other point I made which is that he wasn't writing an official report to the commissioner. He had no need to put in all the additional stuff you personally, in 2023, seem to think should be in there

If he could find space to name the suspect, why could he not find space to name the witness?

He didn't need to name the witness. He didn't even need to name Kosminski but thankfully he did.

If he was really involved in the events he described, why could he not mention a single date of one of them?

That fact that no dates are mentioned does not mean for one second that he "could not mention a single date".

If other policemen were involved, as he claimed, why could he not remember any of their names?

The fact that no other officers are mentioned in the marginalia does not mean for one second that he "could not remember any of their names".

If the note was so private, he could not have been worried about being sued or causing embarrassment to anyone.

Why are you responding to an objection that I haven't even raised? Where did I mention any fear of being sued or causing embarrassment?

So why did he write his notes in such a way that no witness to the events he described is identified?

What are you talking about? Why should he have done? I repeat that it was not a formal report to the commissioner. It was a private note.

The most important witness in British criminal history is left unnamed and all the policemen involved in the transportation, identification and surveillance of the suspect remain unidentified, even though - according to Shomes - Swanson had no expectation that anyone would ever read his notes!

I never said that Swanson had no expectation that anyone would ever read his notes. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I merely said it was a private note.

If he was just talking to himself, as it were, he might as well have filled in some of those details.

Or he might not. So you've got absolutely nowhere.

And those details are precisely the details that someone unfamiliar with the events described would NOT have known of.

He wasn't writing a formal report to the commissioner. He didn't need to include every single detail. He was writing a private note

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The marginalia is not only lacking in detail it is also lacking in any form of corroboration

(Trevor Marriott)



Well an official memo by the Chief Constable at Scotland Yard corroborates Swanson in that it states that Kosminski was regarded within Scotland Yard as a "strong suspect". Anderson's memoir corroborates that a Polish Jew was identified as JTR by a Jewish witness.


(Herlock Shomes)



Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned the Seaside Home.

Neither mentioned CID surveillance.

Macnaghten never mentioned any identification of Kosminski.

Macnaghten thought Kosminski was such a strong suspect that he stated his belief that the murderer had never been incarcerated in an asylum and that he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski.

Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson mentioned Kosminski's hands ever having been tied behind his back, and neither did the workhouse.

Macnaghten never mentioned a Jewish witness in connection with Kosminski.

Anderson originally had Kosminski in an asylum when the identification took place, which contracts Swanson's account.

Anderson has Kosminski's family refusing to co-operate with the police in any way, yet Swanson has Kosminski taken to the workhouse, conveniently shortly after CID had put the Kosminski residence under surveillance.

If Anderson was right, then why were Kosminski's family so co-operative?

If they were not, then it would have had to have been the police who tied his hands behind his back.

Is that believable?