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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

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.

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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

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

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

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

If other policemen were involved, as he claimed, why could he 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.

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

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!

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

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, why do you keep quoting from a press release when you must be aware that the full report of Dr Davies dated 3 Nov 2006 doesn't actually say that the second set of notes were made some years later?

You also ‘forget’ to mention Dr. Davies second report where he said that there was simply no evidence of forgery. Only you could evaluate that as somehow inconclusive. It’s the opposite of inconclusive. You also ignore the very obvious point that the man who you suspect of ‘adding a bit’ was the General Manager of a string of companies who had just received his share of an inheritance. So hardly a Mike Barrett-type figure desperate for a few quid. So why would he have bothered adding something? How much could anyone have reasonably been expected to have been paid for this book? A few hundred pounds perhaps. So we have no possible, reasonable motive from a man who, I think it’s fair to say, wasn’t a Ripperologist - the relevance of this last point being that we would have to ask how he could have known that some researcher hadn’t discovered that the man at the ID wasn’t actually Kosminski? How would his bit of forgery have looked then?

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place. It’s just that we are short on detail but a lacking of detail or background information doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. That’s purely an assumption on your part.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Davies report is not as conclusive as you suggest and I refer to A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007 which quoted Dr Davies on his findings: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

And I am still waiting for Adam Wood or Paul Begg to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty on the marginalia despite making this request several times in the past nothing has been forthcoming and I wonder why after Paul Begg commissioned that report there was a need later to get Dr Davies involved for a further examination?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, why do you keep quoting from a press release when you must be aware that the full report of Dr Davies dated 3 Nov 2006 doesn't actually say that the second set of notes were made some years later?

You also ‘forget’ to mention Dr. Davies second report where he said that there was simply no evidence of forgery. Only you could evaluate that as somehow inconclusive. It’s the opposite of inconclusive. You also ignore the very obvious point that the man who you suspect of ‘adding a bit’ was the General Manager of a string of companies who had just received his share of an inheritance. So hardly a Mike Barrett-type figure desperate for a few quid. So why would he have bothered adding something? How much could anyone have reasonably been expected to have been paid for this book? A few hundred pounds perhaps. So we have no possible, reasonable motive from a man who, I think it’s fair to say, wasn’t a Ripperologist - the relevance of this last point being that we would have to ask how he could have known that some researcher hadn’t discovered that the man at the ID wasn’t actually Kosminski? How would his bit of forgery have looked then?

The marginalia is clearly genuine and as such it proves that the ID took place. It’s just that we are short on detail but a lacking of detail or background information doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. That’s purely an assumption on your part.

[Trevor Marriott]

The evidence of Swanson's family is that he did have all his faculties in old age.

and the same could be said of Insp Reid!

As I keep having to tell you, the fact that Grainger was reportedly subjected to an ID procedure is wholly irrelevant because this would have been conducted by officers from H Division who might well have known nothing about an identification some years earlier, especially if conducted by the City Police, but, even if they did, might have been wholly unimpressed by it.

But we have no knowledge as to when this mythical ID procedure is alleged to have taken place. and as I keep saying something as game-changing as the ID of Jack the Ripper would have been common knowledge amongst the police from all divisions

You are nevertheless correct to say that Swanson's memory as to certain details of events 20 years earlier could have been wrong. Of course that's true and, indeed, he seems to have muddled the Stepney Workhouse with the Mile End Workhouse. But as to the fact of an identification, he was corroborating Anderson and his claim that Kosminski was a JTR suspect is independently corroborated by Macnaghten's 1894 memo.

But Anderson mentions no name of the suspect and MM exonerates Kosminski in the Aberconway version hardly supportive evidence to show the accuracy of the marginalia

You repeatedly ignore Dr. Davies report on the marginalia where he stated that there was no evidence of forgery. It doesn’t become ‘unsafe’ purely because you dispute the contents. The evidence (Davies plus what we know of the books history) tells us it’s genuine…..the identification story should be judged in light of that.

Dr Davies report is not as conclusive as you suggest and I refer to A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007 which quoted Dr Davies on his findings: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

And I am still waiting for Adam Wood or Paul Begg to publish the first forensic report by Dr Totty on the marginalia despite making this request several times in the past nothing has been forthcoming and I wonder why after Paul Begg commissioned that report there was a need later to get Dr Davies involved for a further examination?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But in line with the marginalia which is unsafe we know Grainger was subjected to an Id procedure and Swanson could not have penned any part of the marginalia before 1910 I wonder how good his memory was and did he still have all his faculties in the years following his retirement in 1903.

I mention the latter because if you remember it was you who poured scorn on the article in The News of the World dated 1896 whereby Inspector Reid stated that there were no organs removed and taken away from Mary Kelly's room and that Insp Reid's memory had failed him.

Well if Reid's memory had failed only 8 years after the murder how was Swanson's memory 20+ years later?

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence of Swanson's family is that he did have all his faculties in old age.

As I keep having to tell you, the fact that Grainger was reportedly subjected to an ID procedure is wholly irrelevant because this would have been conducted by officers from H Division who might well have known nothing about an identification some years earlier, especially if conducted by the City Police, but, even if they did, might have been wholly unimpressed by it.

You are nevertheless correct to say that Swanson's memory as to certain details of events 20 years earlier could have been wrong. Of course that's true and, indeed, he seems to have muddled the Stepney Workhouse with the Mile End Workhouse. But as to the fact of an identification, he was corroborating Anderson and his claim that Kosminski was a JTR suspect is independently corroborated by Macnaghten's 1894 memo.

You repeatedly ignore Dr. Davies report on the marginalia where he stated that there was no evidence of forgery. It doesn’t become ‘unsafe’ purely because you dispute the contents. The evidence (Davies plus what we know of the books history) tells us it’s genuine…..the identification story should be judged in light of that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So when did this mythical ID procedure take place? and why is there no record of it ever taking place, or any of the officers involved in the investigation having any knowledge of it ever taking place

(Trevor Marriott)


I would add: why is there no record of the name of the witness?

Why did Swanson refer to him as witness?

Why did he not give his name?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the transportation of Kosminski or the identification of Kosminski?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the CID surveillance of Kosminski's home?

Why did he not give Kosminski's brother's name?

Why did he not give the name of the street in which the surveillance took place?

Why did he not say when the identification took place?

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?

You, on the other hand, have plenty of space but have failed to answer the question I directed at you yesterday in #551. Is that because you have no answer? After all, you do have form for asking questions but not answering any.

[Trevor Marriott]

I sometimes wonder where you get your ideas from.

But in line with the marginalia which is unsafe we know Grainger was subjected to an Id procedure and Swanson could not have penned any part of the marginalia before 1910 I wonder how good his memory was and did he still have all his faculties in the years following his retirement in 1903.

I mention the latter because if you remember it was you who poured scorn on the article in The News of the World dated 1896 whereby Inspector Reid stated that there were no organs removed and taken away from Mary Kelly's room and that Insp Reid's memory had failed him.

Well if Reid's memory had failed only 8 years after the murder how was Swanson's memory 20+ years later?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So when did this mythical ID procedure take place? and why is there no record of it ever taking place, or any of the officers involved in the investigation having any knowledge of it ever taking place

(Trevor Marriott)


I would add: why is there no record of the name of the witness?

Why did Swanson refer to him as witness?

Why did he not give his name?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the transportation of Kosminski or the identification of Kosminski?

Why did he not name a single policeman involved in the CID surveillance of Kosminski's home?

Why did he not give Kosminski's brother's name?

Why did he not give the name of the street in which the surveillance took place?

Why did he not say when the identification took place?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The ID parade if any such parade ever took place could only have taken place after 1895 because we know that it was thought that Grainger could have been the Ripper, and according to what is written in the marginalia was organised by the Met police without the knowledge of major Smith head of the City police and without it seems the knowledge of the investigating officers from the Met.

Trevor, you keep confusing yourself to an astonishing extent into thinking that an identification by a single witness must have meant that the entire Metropolitan Police believed they had 100% proof as to the Ripper's identity and could therefore exclude all other suspects. This is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, perhaps Anderson gave this impression in his book but I have little doubt that he was exaggerating for public consumption.

At the same time, you also confuse yourself into thinking that because the few officers within H Division who were investigating the Grainger case felt they needed to check whether Grainger could have been Ripper, this must mean that everyone within the Met Police, including at Scotland Yard, also thought that Grainger could have been the Ripper in 1895. That's ridiculous. Even worse is that you yourself keep pushing the totally contradictory idea that Swanson believed the Ripper was dead in 1895, in which case he obviously couldn't have thought that Grainger was the Ripper!

Your argument all over the place and just isn't making any sense

In answer to your question, it is academic whether or not Swanson knew when Kosminski died because I have stated all along that in my opinion the contents of the marginalia are unsafe and lack any form of corroboration to give it any credence. However, If for example, the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" had been added by another then the rest of the marginalia could refer to the ID regarding Grainger.


It's no surprise that, despite starting your paragraph with the words "In answer to your question...", you haven't answered my question at all. My question was how would Swanson have known in 1910 that Kosminski was still alive. You've simply ducked it, so I assume you can't answer it.

As for the evasive and non-responsive words you've written, it must be obvious to you that the marginalia can't possibly refer to Grainger who not only was never sent to Colney Hatch but wasn't Jewish!! The whole point about the suspect was that he was a Polish Jew. Your bizarre notion that the words "Kosminski was the suspect" were added by another, in contradiction of what the handwriting expert concluded, doesn't make any sense. We've been over this but the short point is that prior to Martin Fido's research in 1987. which accessed sealed records, no one knew that Kosminski had been committed to Colney Hatch, yet the name "Kosminski" was seen in the marginalia by a journalist in 1981 and that is a documented fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I sometimes wonder where you get your ideas from.

[Trevor Marriott]

This couldn’t be any simpler Trevor.

The ID parade if any such parade ever took place could only have taken place after 1895 because we know that it was thought that Grainger could have been the Ripper, and according to what is written in the marginalia was organised by the Met police without the knowledge of major Smith head of the City police and without it seems the knowledge of the investigating officers from the Met.

In answer to your question, it is academic whether or not Swanson knew when Kosminski died because I have stated all along that in my opinion the contents of the marginalia are unsafe and lack any form of corroboration to give it any credence. However, If for example, the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" had been added by another then the rest of the marginalia could refer to the ID regarding Grainger.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

I've seen the argument made by others, that Swanson knew Kosminski was still alive when he wrote the marginalia, but said he was dead shortly after confinement to thwart any further inquiries. While this argument may have been more germane in or before 1895, it tends to loose relevancy with the passage of time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In 1910 Kosmisnski was still alive he didn't die till 1919!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor not only have you responded to a question I addressed to someone else but you've avoided answering it!

What I was asking is how Swanson would have known in 1910 that Kosminski was still alive. Tell me how he would have known this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Firstly Trevor, it's entirely untrue to say that Swanson was "quoted in 1895 telling the newspaper that JTR is dead". Will you stop making this false statement?

What is false with it?

As I've now mentioned on more than one occasion, Swanson is not quoted in the PMG article as saying anything. That's why it's false for you to say that Swanson was "quoted in 1895". He was not quoted.

Secondly, it's so incredibly ironic that you tell me not to come back with "that's what Swanson believed"bearing in mind that what the Pall Mall Gazette attributed to Swanson was that "Mr Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead". In constantly referring to this very newspaper report, therefore, you are always talking about what Swanson believed!

What I am getting at is that we know the police had not identified the killer by 1889 as the police manpower records show, furthermore the Grainger incident shows that the police still had not identified the killer in 1895 ,and in 1895 Kosminski was still very much alive. I keep saying the marginalia is unsafe to rely on

No one is saying that "the police" ever "identified the killer" (we are talking about a suspect) but if Aaron Kosminski was the suspect, many have argued that he wasn't identified by the Jewish witness until April 1890, thus negating your entire point. The Grainger incident was investigated by H Division, not, as far as is known, by Scotland Yard or by Swanson personally. The marginalia is perfectly safe to rely on to the extent it was written by Swanson but that doesn't mean he was perfectly informed about Kosminski's status

Thirdly, and most importantly, a belief in 1895 that JTR was dead is entirely 100% consistent with what Swanson later wrote in the marginalia that Anderson's suspect, Kosminski, died "shortly after..." being committed to Colney Hatch, considering that Aaron Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch in February 1891.

So when did this mythical ID procedure take place? and why is there no record of it ever taking place, or any of the officers involved in the investigation having any knowledge of it ever taking place

This isn't known for sure, as you are well aware. Many records have not survived. If it was a City Police identification we just don't have any records from them relating to the Ripper investigation. But it's another false statement by you to say that we don't have records from "any of the officers involved in the investigation having any knowledge of it ever taking place". We have a handwritten record by former Chief Inspector Swanson confirming that such an identification took place.

This couldn’t be any simpler Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you have any evidence to show that Swanson (who was a private citizen in 1910) had access to the confidential records of Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum?

If you do, please post it because I'd love to see it.

In 1910 Kosmisnski was still alive he didn't die till 1919!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk