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

[Darryl Kenyon]

The only reliable part of the MM is in the Aberconway version where he exonerates Kosminski,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Aren't you picking and choosing a bit there Trevor ?

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Aren't you picking and choosing a bit there Trevor ?

Regards Darryl

No, because most seem to want to believe in the content of the marginalia, and MM clearly exonerates the Kosminski he had referred to in his original Memo so I am sure you can see why the marginalia is unsafe to rely on because it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clearly, Sagar`s suspect was nothing more than a person of interest and may not have even been Kosminski! and it still doesn't explain the fact that no one directly involved in the case knew of the ID parade or the important ID of the killer as described in the marginalia, which as I keep saying is unsafe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I know you keep saying this Trevor but you've yet to provide a sensible reason for doing so.

[Sunny Delight]

But there is no evidence to support what MM wrote, and no evidence to support what Swanson or Anderson wrote.

The only reliable part of the MM is in the Aberconway version where he exonerates Kosminski, and he wouldn't have written that if Kosminski had been identified in the way described in the marginalia.

MM was Swanson`s immediate superior so if this mythical ID parade did happen as described in the marginalia then MM would have known as he would have had to sanction it and be aware of the result.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think most would suggest the identification was nowhere near as conclusive as Anderson alluded too. Swanson's notes are a little more coy although he does seem to agree with Anderson. So they both are adamant an ID took place. Then MM in the Aberconway draft describes Kosminski as 'strongly resembling' the man see by the City PC. So if the City PC or City PC witness someone saw Kosminski as strongly resembling the man he saw that night. So MM also must br aware of an ID although he is much more reticent on its conclusiveness. So here we have three very senior Policemen all alluding to or describing an ID taking place. The fact that MM in the draft talks of Kosminski looking like someone seen close to Mitre Square and then Swanson years later notating that Kosminski was the suspect is telling.

Put it all together and it adds up particularly on what we know of Kosminski in regards his admittance to the workhouse, release and subsequent readmittance months later not to mention Kosminski's obvious fragile mental state.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no evidence to support what MM wrote, and no evidence to support what Swanson or Anderson wrote.

The only reliable part of the MM is in the Aberconway version where he exonerates Kosminski, and he wouldn't have written that if Kosminski had been identified in the way described in the marginalia.

MM was Swanson`s immediate superior so if this mythical ID parade did happen as described in the marginalia then MM would have known as he would have had to sanction it and be aware of the result.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, what is the evidence behind your claim that MM would have had to "sanction" an ID parade?

While it's true that the formal command structure within CID could be said to have been Assistant Commissioner - Assistant Chief Constable - Chief Inspector, Swanson would nevertheless have reported directly to the AC (Robert Anderson) in the usual way, would he not?

Hence, if Swanson conducted the ID parade and reported the result to Anderson, MM wouldn't necessarily have been in the loop.

At the same time, MM wrote in his memo that "There were many circumstances connected with[Kosminski] which made him a strong suspect". Why might he not have been referring to a witness identification in this statement?

After all, a positive identification by a single witness itself isn't proof of guilt, as any detective worth his or her salt would know. I'm sure you would agree with that, right?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, what is the evidence behind your claim that MM would have had to "sanction" an ID parade?

MM was Swansons immediate supervising officer he could not have failed to have had knowledge of what is described in the marginalia and without a doubt been aware of it taking place.

While it's true that the formal command structure within CID could be said to have been Assistant Commissioner - Assistant Chief Constable - Chief Inspector, Swanson would nevertheless have reported directly to the AC (Robert Anderson) in the usual way, would he not?

No not at all, that is not how the chain of command works Anderson and MM would have been ensconced in Scotland Yard whilst Swanson would have been working out of the police stations and both Anderson and MM would have been kept informed of all developments by Swanson

Hence, if Swanson conducted the ID parade and reported the result to Anderson, MM wouldn't necessarily have been in the loop.

But no police officer who was either interviewed or wrote their memoirs states that the identity of the killer was known, and in fact the likes of Abberline, Reid and Dew say that same that the identity of the killer was unknown and refute what Anderson wrote in his book

At the same time, MM wrote in his memo that "There were many circumstances connected with[Kosminski] which made him a strong suspect". Why might he not have been referring to a witness identification in this statement?

If that had been the case why does he then tend to exonerate him, you dont exonerate someone who has been positively identified as being a killer

After all, a positive identification by a single witness itself isn't proof of guilt, as any detective worth his or her salt would know. I'm sure you would agree with that, right?

That is the case in todays world of policing, at least without corroboration, but if you believe the marginalia the police were prepared to go to trial with what they had should the witness have consented to give evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Trevor, what is the evidence behind your claim that MM would have had to "sanction" an ID parade?

MM was Swansons immediate supervising officer he could not have failed to have had knowledge of what is described in the marginalia and without a doubt been aware of it taking place.

That's very different from MM having to sanction an ID parade, which is what you said. While I agree that it seems likely that MM would have known about the parade after the event, we should be careful about making assumptions. If Swanson reported to Anderson directly, as the evidence suggests he did, it's not impossible that information wasn't passed on to MM.

While it's true that the formal command structure within CID could be said to have been Assistant Commissioner - Assistant Chief Constable - Chief Inspector, Swanson would nevertheless have reported directly to the AC (Robert Anderson) in the usual way, would he not?

No not at all, that is not how the chain of command works Anderson and MM would have been ensconced in Scotland Yard whilst Swanson would have been working out of the police stations and both Anderson and MM would have been kept informed of all developments by Swanson

There are plenty of examples of reports by Chief Inspector Swanson addressed to the AC CID in the 1890s, just like all reports from detective inspectors were. Show me evidence of Swanson reporting to MM. Show me evidence of Swanson "working out of the police stations". He was a Scotland Yard chief inspector wasn't he?

Hence, if Swanson conducted the ID parade and reported the result to Anderson, MM wouldn't necessarily have been in the loop.

But no police officer who was either interviewed or wrote their memoirs states that the identity of the killer was known, and in fact the likes of Abberline, Reid and Dew say that same that the identity of the killer was unknown and refute what Anderson wrote in his book


Nor did Swanson say that the identity of the killer "was known" in the marginalia. He simply stated that Kosminski was identified and that, after that identification, no other murders took place - but he wouldn't have known that until years later. The witness identification might not have convinced anyone other than Anderson. Swanson's personal view isn't entirely clear from the marginalia. Also, Abberline, Reid and Dew might not have been privy to the information about the ID parade. It might have been kept a close secret known only to a small number of very senior officers in Scotland Yard at the time.

At the same time, MM wrote in his memo that "There were many circumstances connected with[Kosminski] which made him a strong
suspect". Why might he not have been referring to a witness identification in this statement?

If that had been the case why does he then tend to exonerate him, you dont exonerate someone who has been positively identified as being a killer

What do you mean by "tend to exonerate him"? MM's report in the Metropolitan Police file states that "any" of the 3 men he named might have been JTR and that many circumstances made Kosminski a strong suspect. I thought you agreed that a positive identification by a single witness isn't sufficient. Perhaps MM didn't think it was sufficient.

After all, a positive identification by a single witness itself isn't proof of guilt, as any detective worth his or her salt would know. I'm sure you would agree with that, right?
That is the case in todays world of policing, at least without corroboration, but if you believe the marginalia the police were prepared to go to trial with what they had should the witness have consented to give evidence

I think you've misunderstood the marginalia. It was the witness who thought the police would go to trial on the basis of his identification which is why he refused to co-operate any further. Maybe the police would have charged Kosminski, maybe they wouldn't. But that really doesn't matter. If MM didn't think that a single identification was sufficient to prove the case, especially in light of the private information he obtained about Druitt, it would explain his memorandum. It's not necessarily inconsistent.

[Scott Nelson]

At the same time, MM wrote in his memo that "There were many circumstances connected with[Kosminski] which made him a strong suspect". Why might he not have been referring to a witness identification in this statement?

Yes, that and other circumstances. Many City of London Police files were destroyed and some could have contained follow-up information on the Mitre Square murder.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, that and other circumstances. Many City of London Police files were destroyed and some could have contained follow-up information on the Mitre Square murder.

If Aaron Kosminski is the City Suspect, I am the Pope.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, that and other circumstances. Many City of London Police files were destroyed and some could have contained follow-up information on the Mitre Square murder.

But you don't know that, and it still doesn't explain why none of the officers who were directly involved knew anything about this mythical ID parade and the positive ID of the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you've misunderstood the marginalia. It was the witness who thought the police would go to trial on the basis of his identification which is why he refused to co-operate any further. Maybe the police would have charged Kosminski, maybe they wouldn't. But that really doesn't matter. If MM didn't think that a single identification was sufficient to prove the case, especially in light of the private information he obtained about Druitt, it would explain his memorandum. It's not necessarily inconsistent.

Your replies are full of maybe`s and what if`s let's stick to the facts as we know them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you've misunderstood the marginalia. It was the witness who thought the police would go to trial on the basis of his identification which is why he refused to co-operate any further. Maybe the police would have charged Kosminski, maybe they wouldn't. But that really doesn't matter. If MM didn't think that a single identification was sufficient to prove the case, especially in light of the private information he obtained about Druitt, it would explain his memorandum. It's not necessarily inconsistent.

As you know there is a chain of command within the police service which was the case back then, Part of this chain of command is related to the submission of paperwork and reports which might include a request for extra manpower to facilitate an Id parade. So, for example, Swanson submits a report to his immediate superior when the reads it and if it is felt it should be referred to that person's immediate superior then it is forwarded and so on.

Conversely, if a senior officer at the top wanted a line of enquiry pursued then a report would be generated and go down the chain of command in the opposite direction

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your replies are full of maybe`s and what if`s let's stick to the facts as we know them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I used the word "maybe" in one of five responses. It was in response to your claim that the police were prepared to take Kosminski to trial, which is not a fact as we know it. Hence, we can only say that they might have been prepared to go to trial, or rather that they might have been prepared to produce their witness to a magistrate for him to make a decision about whether Kosminski should go to trial.

The bottom line here is that we have the head of the CID, his assistant chief constable and the chief inspector on the JTR investigation ALL telling us that there was good reason to suspect Kosminski of being Jack the Ripper. That is the uncomfortable FACT that you don't seem willing or able to confront.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you know there is a chain of command within the police service which was the case back then, Part of this chain of command is related to the submission of paperwork and reports which might include a request for extra manpower to facilitate an Id parade. So, for example, Swanson submits a report to his immediate superior when the reads it and if it is felt it should be referred to that person's immediate superior then it is forwarded and so on.

Conversely, if a senior officer at the top wanted a line of enquiry pursued then a report would be generated and go down the chain of command in the opposite direction

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Having told me to "stick to the facts as we know them", you then provide a completely evidence free post with not a single fact in it relating to how Scotland Yard operated in the nineteenth century!

As I keep saying, Swanson reported directly to Anderson. That was his reporting line.

But it doesn't matter because MM himself tells us that Kosminski was a strong suspect.

This means that the three top Scotland Yard officials within CID at the time all tell us that there was reason to suspect Kosminski of being JTR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Aaron Kosminski is the City Suspect, I am the Pope.

I think Trevor would make a good Pope, Roger. After all, he’s infallible.