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

[Lewis C]

That's right.

Anderson claimed that in or shortly after October 1888:

the conclusion we came to was that [the murderer] and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;

He claimed further:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

Anderson never explained whom exactly he meant by we and our.

The only person who has been suggested as having belonged to that circle of people supposedly in-the-know is someone who was reported in the press in 1895 to have believed that the murderer was already dead, and we know that the only Scotland Yard suspect who was dead was Druitt, who had been named by Macnaghten as a suspect the previous year, and was evidently not Jewish.

We know that Inspector Abberline continued to look for Gentile suspects and personally believed that the murderer was a Gentile.

Does anyone seriously believe that he was looking for Gentile suspects, even though the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

Why would Anderson not have informed him of the supposed breakthrough?

Maybe this is the best way to reconcile everything. When Anderson said "we" and "our", he's referring to a very small number of people.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

He did not have to do anything.

He'd probably said all he wanted to say on the subject. Not responding does not indicate anything about his veracity or recollection, since we don't know why he did not respond.

I think it's important to realize that the various senior police officials had differing theories about who the killer was, or who was the best suspect. So just because Anderson wrote something that differs from what Abberline, Reid or someone else said, that does not necessarily make any of them wrong, liars or untrustworthy.

It just means they did not agree. Again, maybe Reid didn't know what Anderson knew, or Anderson thought that Reid did not know what he (Anderson) knew or vice versa.
Or they had different ideas about what constituted a good suspect or a good witness and therefore different evaluations about how strong the "Polish Jew" theory was - Anderson rating it highly while Reid dismissed it.
Their disagreement does not mean the Seaside ID could not have happened.

Anderson claimed in 1910 that the police concluded in or shortly after October 1888 that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

He never named any other police officer who was a party to that conclusion, not even after being challenged by Reid.

If what Anderson claimed was true, then Inspector Abberline could hardly have failed to know about it at the time.

Otherwise, we are expected to believe that Anderson and (according to believers in the Swanson marginalia) Swanson had narrowed down the pool of suspects to Polish Jews, but were allowing Abberline to continue to look for Gentile suspects, without telling him of the supposed breakthrough in the investigation.

As for the alleged seaside identification: if it really had happened, why was Anderson unaware in 1910 that it took place at the seaside?

And, once again, why the secrecy?

Why did Macnaghten, Reid, Abberline, and Smith not know about it?

And whereas the press heard about the attempted identifications of Sadler and Grainger, why did they never hear about the identification of the Polish Jew?

There would have had to be two closely-guarded secrets - about two breakthroughs in the investigation, including the identification of the murderer - with no explanation ever provided by either Anderson or Swanson for the secrecy.

The explanation is quite simple: the two breakthroughs never happened.

[Kattrup]

That is all he had to do.

Hi PI

He did not have to do anything.

He'd probably said all he wanted to say on the subject. Not responding does not indicate anything about his veracity or recollection, since we don't know why he did not respond.

I think it's important to realize that the various senior police officials had differing theories about who the killer was, or who was the best suspect. So just because Anderson wrote something that differs from what Abberline, Reid or someone else said, that does not necessarily make any of them wrong, liars or untrustworthy.

It just means they did not agree. Again, maybe Reid didn't know what Anderson knew, or Anderson thought that Reid did not know what he (Anderson) knew or vice versa.
Or they had different ideas about what constituted a good suspect or a good witness and therefore different evaluations about how strong the "Polish Jew" theory was - Anderson rating it highly while Reid dismissed it.
Their disagreement does not mean the Seaside ID could not have happened.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In 1891, some police thought that Thomas Sadler might be the Ripper, and in 1895, some police thought that William Grainger might be. Neither Sadler nor Grainger was a Polish Jew, so that would support Reid's bolded position.

That's right.

Anderson claimed that in or shortly after October 1888:

the conclusion we came to was that [the murderer] and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;

He claimed further:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

Anderson never explained whom exactly he meant by we and our.

The only person who has been suggested as having belonged to that circle of people supposedly in-the-know is someone who was reported in the press in 1895 to have believed that the murderer was already dead, and we know that the only Scotland Yard suspect who was dead was Druitt, who had been named by Macnaghten as a suspect the previous year, and was evidently not Jewish.

We know that Inspector Abberline continued to look for Gentile suspects and personally believed that the murderer was a Gentile.

Does anyone seriously believe that he was looking for Gentile suspects, even though the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

Why would Anderson not have informed him of the supposed breakthrough?

[Lewis C]

I don't think there was a misunderstanding.

I understood Reid to include the claimed identification in his challenge.

Even if Anderson did not read the Morning Advertiser, he must have heard about the interview.

Anderson did not need to name the suspect in order to make some attempt at substantiating the claims he had made.

For example, Reid specifically challenged him on his claim that in 1888, the police came to the conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Anderson did not even respond by referring to a single other policeman who had been a party to that conclusion.

That is all he had to do.

In 1891, some police thought that Thomas Sadler might be the Ripper, and in 1895, some police thought that William Grainger might be. Neither Sadler nor Grainger was a Polish Jew, so that would support Reid's bolded position.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ah, thank you, I thought you intended challenged on the ID taking place. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Again, not responding to stuff like Reid could have many many reasons and is not something that can be used as basis for anything. Maybe Anderson didn’t read the Morning Advertiser, maybe he was sick at the time, or too busy, or traveling.
maybe he thought or knew that Reid didn’t know anything about the suspect.
Anderson originally wrote that although he could name the suspect, he chose not to because no good would come of it and the traditions of his old department would suffer.
How, then, would you have him respond to Reid and publicly prove that the suspect was a Polish Jew?

Or maybe he just thought that some minor comment from a former subordinate did not merit a response.

Who knows? His lack of response is not indicative of anything.


As for his trustworthiness in general, I at present have no strong opinions about that at the moment, sorry.

I don't think there was a misunderstanding.

I understood Reid to include the claimed identification in his challenge.

Even if Anderson did not read the Morning Advertiser, he must have heard about the interview.

Anderson did not need to name the suspect in order to make some attempt at substantiating the claims he had made.

For example, Reid specifically challenged him on his claim that in 1888, the police came to the conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Anderson did not even respond by referring to a single other policeman who had been a party to that conclusion.

That is all he had to do.

[Kattrup]

Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew; that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders.

(Detective Inspector Reid, Morning Advertiser, 23rd April 1910)

Ah, thank you, I thought you intended challenged on the ID taking place. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Again, not responding to stuff like Reid could have many many reasons and is not something that can be used as basis for anything. Maybe Anderson didn’t read the Morning Advertiser, maybe he was sick at the time, or too busy, or traveling.
maybe he thought or knew that Reid didn’t know anything about the suspect.
Anderson originally wrote that although he could name the suspect, he chose not to because no good would come of it and the traditions of his old department would suffer.
How, then, would you have him respond to Reid and publicly prove that the suspect was a Polish Jew?

Or maybe he just thought that some minor comment from a former subordinate did not merit a response.

Who knows? His lack of response is not indicative of anything.


As for his trustworthiness in general, I at present have no strong opinions about that at the moment, sorry.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, I think we disagree. I forget the very public challenge you’re referring to, could you refresh my memory?
At any rate, not elaborating in a manner convenient to us a century later is not indicative of falsehood.

Two senior police officers agreed the ID happened. The fact that the process, as described in the very lacking sources we have available, seems unorthodox, does not invalidate that. Which is of course why it’s still being discussed

Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew; that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders.

(Detective Inspector Reid, Morning Advertiser, 23rd April 1910)


It is not as though this is the only murder case in which Anderson alleged that Polish Jews perverted the course of justice in order to protect a Polish Jewish murderer.

In both cases, he described witnesses who he alleged refused to cooperate with the police as 'low class Polish Jews'.

And in both murder cases, he alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew, even though he knew that according to the best eyewitness evidence, the murderer in both cases had fair hair.

What does that tell you about his own reliability as a witness to what really happened?

[Kattrup]

There are simply too many important details which Anderson or Swanson could have provided but did not, e.g. the identity of the witness, how the suspect could have been forcibly transported without being arrested, incriminating evidence, why the suspect was never interrogated, why the suspect was not arrested after being identified, how the witness could possibly have discovered the suspect's religious affiliation, and why the suspect was allowed to go home after being identified as the Whitechapel murderer.

The disagreement between Anderson and Swanson about whether the suspect was living at home or in an asylum is not a minor discrepancy.

The fact that when Anderson was publicly challenged, he chose to say nothing, does indeed suggest that he was unable to substantiate his claims.

It is not, as you say, simply the case that Anderson did not substantiate the claims he made.

He had mentioned no arrest or even interrogation of the suspect, nor any incriminating evidence against him.

When challenged, he chose to say nothing.

Well, I think we disagree. I forget the very public challenge you’re referring to, could you refresh my memory?
At any rate, not elaborating in a manner convenient to us a century later is not indicative of falsehood.

Two senior police officers agreed the ID happened. The fact that the process, as described in the very lacking sources we have available, seems unorthodox, does not invalidate that. Which is of course why it’s still being discussed

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not aware that Swanson was unable to explain it? Do you simply mean that he didn’t explain it?

The fact that A&S did not disagree about the it happening lends credibility to the episode happening. Minor discrepancies are well known to occur when different people discuss events, even more so after a 20-year interval.

Whatever smart remark some actor in a movie may have said, e silentio-arguments remain invalid.

Arguing that “Anderson should have replied! Since he didn’t, that means he knows his story was a lie” or “I would expect them to have mentioned more details about the ID, if it had happened” is an invalid argument.
If someone in 100 years were to probe the important emails I write at work, I’m sure they could find fault with them for not mentioning stuff that I deem irrelevant or assume already well established and known by the recipient.
That, however, does not mean that I am lying or hiding something.

There are simply too many important details which Anderson or Swanson could have provided but did not, e.g. the identity of the witness, how the suspect could have been forcibly transported without being arrested, incriminating evidence, why the suspect was never interrogated, why the suspect was not arrested after being identified, how the witness could possibly have discovered the suspect's religious affiliation, and why the suspect was allowed to go home after being identified as the Whitechapel murderer.

The disagreement between Anderson and Swanson about whether the suspect was living at home or in an asylum is not a minor discrepancy.

The fact that when Anderson was publicly challenged, he chose to say nothing, does indeed suggest that he was unable to substantiate his claims.

It is not, as you say, simply the case that Anderson did not substantiate the claims he made.

He had mentioned no arrest or even interrogation of the suspect, nor any incriminating evidence against him.

When challenged, he chose to say nothing.

[Kattrup]

Well, Kattrup, it looks as though you are defending Swanson's inability to explain how he could have transported the Whitechapel murderer from his home in London to the seaside without arresting him by relying on Anderson's claim that the suspect was already in an asylum!

Does not the fact that Anderson and Swanson could not even agree on where the suspect was to begin with cast doubt on whether the episode happened at all?

Excuse my flippancy, but your comment that Anderson and his supporters may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges reminds me of the closing remarks of the judge, as impersonated by the late Peter Cook:

You will have noticed that three of the defendants have chosen very wisely to exercise their inalienable right not to go into the witness box to answer a lot of impertinent questions.

I will merely say that you are not to infer anything from this other than that they consider the evidence against them so flimsy that it was scarcely worth rising from their seats and wasting breath denying these ludicrous charges.

I’m not aware that Swanson was unable to explain it? Do you simply mean that he didn’t explain it?

The fact that A&S did not disagree about the it happening lends credibility to the episode happening. Minor discrepancies are well known to occur when different people discuss events, even more so after a 20-year interval.

Whatever smart remark some actor in a movie may have said, e silentio-arguments remain invalid.

Arguing that “Anderson should have replied! Since he didn’t, that means he knows his story was a lie” or “I would expect them to have mentioned more details about the ID, if it had happened” is an invalid argument.
If someone in 100 years were to probe the important emails I write at work, I’m sure they could find fault with them for not mentioning stuff that I deem irrelevant or assume already well established and known by the recipient.
That, however, does not mean that I am lying or hiding something.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, Kattrup, it looks as though you are defending Swanson's inability to explain how he could have transported the Whitechapel murderer from his home in London to the seaside without arresting him by relying on Anderson's claim that the suspect was already in an asylum!

Does not the fact that Anderson and Swanson could not even agree on where the suspect was to begin with cast doubt on whether the episode happened at all?

Excuse my flippancy, but your comment that Anderson and his supporters may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges reminds me of the closing remarks of the judge, as impersonated by the late Peter Cook:

You will have noticed that three of the defendants have chosen very wisely to exercise their inalienable right not to go into the witness box to answer a lot of impertinent questions.

I will merely say that you are not to infer anything from this other than that they consider the evidence against them so flimsy that it was scarcely worth rising from their seats and wasting breath denying these ludicrous charges.

[Kattrup]

You described those five points as a heap of unsupported speculation.

They are evidently not, as they are in fact correct!

I concede that I was too brief in characterizing them as such; I meant that the conclusions that Trevor Marriott so evidently wished to draw from those claims were unsupported.
That is, throwing up a list of random facts to support his position, when those facts do not support it at all.

They also DO have a bearing on whether the ID took place, for the following reasons:

(1) If the identification procedure did take place, then Anderson or Swanson should be able to indicate who the witness was, in private if not in public.

How do you know they were not able to do so? They may have simply chosen not to.

(2) If the identification procedure took place as a result of Kosminski's having become a suspect, then Anderson or Swanson should have been able to say why he became a suspect.

How do you know they were not able to do so? They may have simply chosen not to.

(3) If the prosecution of the suspect really depended upon the witness' being prepared to testify against him, then what the witness saw must have been dramatic and worthy of mention; yet neither Anderson nor Swanson states what the witness saw.
All Anderson says is that the witness had a good view of the murderer.
That casts doubt on the identification story.

It does not; it is unknown if the witness must have seen something dramatic; perhaps the police primarily needed to place the suspect at the scene (if for instance the suspect had denied being in the area). One must also recognize that police officers may have a tendency to overemphazise the importance of single witnesses.

Not stating what the witness saw does not imply anything about what the witness saw. Even if the witness saw something "worthy of mention" - worthy, to who and by what scale? - why would they bother to mention it? Perhaps mentioning what the witness saw would have identified the witness, thus committing an indiscretion.

(4) The fact that not a single police officer came forward to support Anderson when he was practically accused of having made up the identification story, and that he himself made no response, suggests that the identification did not actually happen.

No it does not; others may have been unaware of the criticism or they may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges, or not their place to do so. Ditto Anderson.

(5) In order for the identification to have taken place at the seaside, the suspect would have had to be arrested.
If he was positively identified by the witness, then he would have been arrested immediately and certainly before the witness would have had a chance to change his mind or to learn that the suspect was Jewish.

The fact that Anderson and Swanson imply that no such arrest took place suggests that the identification could not have taken place.

It suggests no such thing. I do not believe that assumption is necessarily correct; as was stated the suspect was an inmate of an asylum and there may have been other ways to commandeer his presence than an arrest.
And another assumption: he would have to be arrested immediately after identification; if he was already committed to an asylum, there'd be no need to arrest him.

All of the above points are arguing on the basis of an absence - because something was NOT said or mentioned, we can conclude that....

That is an invalid argument. So we return to the outset, Trevor Marriott posted a heap of (facts that he intends to use fallaciously to bolster his) unsupported speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

Thanks for replies. I probably should not have interjected as my purpose was not to enter into a discussion for or against the Seaside Home ID taking place, but merely to point out an unproven assumption in your argumentation.
Whether introduced by yourself or others.

You are of course correct that Anderson states the witness did not know beforehand that the suspect was Jewish.

Since we have practically no info about the ID, assuming for a moment that it took place, I think it’s useless to speculate about how the witness learned the suspect was Jewish. What I wrote were just scenarios to show that the witness could have learned about it, either through police, through viewing or hearing the suspect, or indeed from some other source, like servants’ gossip.

They were not meant as scenarios to be argued against, because it’s all pure speculation, so my argument was just that we can imagine many different ways for the witness to have gained that knowledge.

Therefore, the claim that the witness learned the suspect was a Jew after identifying him is, in my opinion, not a good argument against the ID taking place at all.

Points taken, Kattrup.

I think that a more important question than how the witness would have learned that the suspect was Jewish is why the police would have failed to arrest the suspect following the identification.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

None of these claims have any bearing on whether the ID took place or not, which is why Trevor Marriott’s post was unsupported.

They were also irrelevant to the post I made.

You described those five points as a heap of unsupported speculation.

They are evidently not, as they are in fact correct!

They also DO have a bearing on whether the ID took place, for the following reasons:

(1) If the identification procedure did take place, then Anderson or Swanson should be able to indicate who the witness was, in private if not in public.

(2) If the identification procedure took place as a result of Kosminski's having become a suspect, then Anderson or Swanson should have been able to say why he became a suspect.

(3) If the prosecution of the suspect really depended upon the witness' being prepared to testify against him, then what the witness saw must have been dramatic and worthy of mention; yet neither Anderson nor Swanson states what the witness saw.
All Anderson says is that the witness had a good view of the murderer.
That casts doubt on the identification story.

(4) The fact that not a single police officer came forward to support Anderson when he was practically accused of having made up the identification story, and that he himself made no response, suggests that the identification did not actually happen.

(5) In order for the identification to have taken place at the seaside, the suspect would have had to be arrested.
If he was positively identified by the witness, then he would have been arrested immediately and certainly before the witness would have had a chance to change his mind or to learn that the suspect was Jewish.

The fact that Anderson and Swanson imply that no such arrest took place suggests that the identification could not have taken place.