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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you switch with bewildering speed from talking about Swanson to talking about "The police" as if they have one joint brain.

Yes, Swanson wrote in the marginalia that Kosminski was identified and that after the identification no other murder of the kind took place in London. So what?

The problem is that you then keep talking about "The police" who "clearly suspected" Grainger without having any evidence that Swanson was one of those police officers.

But even if he did, so what? He only ever described Kosminski as a "suspect". Grainger would have been another suspect. Clearly, "the police" (and Swanson) did not, in the end, or at any time after 1895, think that Grainger was JTR.

None of this changes the fact that Swanson wrote in the marginalia that Kosminski was the suspect written about by Anderson in his 1910 book.

That's the simple fact so I really don't know what you think you are achieving with all this irrelevant waffle about Grainger.

The point being is that Swanson is quoted in 1895 telling the newspaper that JTR is dead. If we are to believe the marginalia that could not be correct because in 1895 Kosminski was very much alive. so if that is correct then the marginalia as I keep saying is unsafe to rely on.

Dont keep coming back with "well that's what Swanson believed"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know what planet you are on but you are clearly up in the air with your posts.

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

The police in 1895 clearly suspected Grainger could have been the ripper because it would seem they carried out an ID procedure, would they have done that if Kosminski had been positively identified as the Ripper as the marginalia leads us to believe? And when this murder in 1895 which the police thought was the work of the Ripper took place, I would suggest the first thing the police would have done would have been to check on their own Ripper (Kosminski) to make sure he was still incarcerated, so Swanson would have known that he was not dead in 1895.

The marginalia is unsafe!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you switch with bewildering speed from talking about Swanson to talking about "The police" as if they have one joint brain.

Yes, Swanson wrote in the marginalia that Kosminski was identified and that after the identification no other murder of the kind took place in London. So what?

The problem is that you then keep talking about "The police" who "clearly suspected" Grainger without having any evidence that Swanson was one of those police officers.

But even if he did, so what? He only ever described Kosminski as a "suspect". Grainger would have been another suspect. Clearly, "the police" (and Swanson) did not, in the end, or at any time after 1895, think that Grainger was JTR.

None of this changes the fact that Swanson wrote in the marginalia that Kosminski was the suspect written about by Anderson in his 1910 book.

That's the simple fact so I really don't know what you think you are achieving with all this irrelevant waffle about Grainger.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, your capacity for doublethink is truly quite remarkable.

Only moments ago you were trying to convince us that Swanson in 1895 believed JTR was dead. Now you are trying to convince us that Swanson (as part of "the police") might have believed in 1895 that Grainger was JTR!

Look, it's really very simple. It doesn't matter what the newspapers said in 1895 about what "the police" were doing. There were many individuals within "the police", which was, of course, split between Scotland Yard and H Division (and City Police) in the JTR investigation. Anderson evidently suspected Kosminksi of being JTR, or at least said he did, because he was identified, rightly or wrongly, by a witness. Whether Swanson held those suspicions or not we don't quite know but he could easily have suspected Kosminksi, while at the same time keeping an open mind in case he was wrong. That's what detectives do, Trevor. They don't fixate on one suspect to the exclusion of all others.

The marginalia is perfectly safe, it's just your understanding of it that is wonky.

I don't know what planet you are on but you are clearly up in the air with your posts.

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

The police in 1895 clearly suspected Grainger could have been the ripper because it would seem they carried out an ID procedure, would they have done that if Kosminski had been positively identified as the Ripper as the marginalia leads us to believe? And when this murder in 1895 which the police thought was the work of the Ripper took place, I would suggest the first thing the police would have done would have been to check on their own Ripper (Kosminski) to make sure he was still incarcerated, so Swanson would have known that he was not dead in 1895.

The marginalia is unsafe!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If they were telling the truth about that part (which is doubtful) they carried out a very poor ID procedure which was certain to be torn to shreds by any half decent barrister. A confrontation ID (which is what is described) is next to worthless evidentially. It hardly ever happens in practise and then only as a last resort.

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?

[Bridewell]

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him...

(ANDERSON)

...because the suspect was also a Jew and also 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.

(SWANSON)

Anderson and Swanson made it clear that the purpose of the identification WAS to proceed with a prosecution of the suspect and that they believed there was every prospect of a successful prosecution until the witness announced his refusal to testify.

If they were telling the truth about that part (which is doubtful) they carried out a very poor ID procedure which was certain to be torn to shreds by any half decent barrister. A confrontation ID (which is what is described) is next to worthless evidentially. It hardly ever happens in practise and then only as a last resort.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A confrontation ID is identification of last resort. It's very weak evidentially as the witness is shown one person only and asked if that's the person they saw or not. The only purpose I can see to an ID procedure, as outlined in the marginalia, would be if there was no prospect of a prosecution but the police wanted to satisfy themselves they had got the right man.

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him...

(ANDERSON)

...because the suspect was also a Jew and also 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.

(SWANSON)

Anderson and Swanson made it clear that the purpose of the identification WAS to proceed with a prosecution of the suspect and that they believed there was every prospect of a successful prosecution until the witness announced his refusal to testify.

[Bridewell]

Except that there is no record of any City policeman at that time having been Jewish.

Which could mean the stated reason for the non-identification was not the true one? (playing devil's advocate here)

And if a policeman did see a suspect, why was he not called to give evidence at the inquest?

Perhaps because he kept quiet about what he'd seen until much later? (devil's advocate again)

And why did Swanson mention only Lawende's description of a suspect, if a policeman saw a suspect?

Same answer.

And since Swanson recorded the description nearly three weeks after the murder occurred, when would a police witness have come forward and what reliance could be placed on the account of an eyewitness who came forward more than three weeks after the event - especially as he was a policeman?

"Too late" in answer to the first part of the question and "very little" in answer to the second.

[Bridewell]

Because the post to which you refer was about Kosminski's alleged identification and the suspect's having the appearance of a sailor.

That would mean Kosminski's having the appearance of a sailor.

My post was about the location. not about Kosminski.

[Bridewell]

What if Kosminski wasn't in custody because they hadn't enough evidence to hold him. But with a successful ID they may have ? Unfortunately with the ID not being successful they had to let him go.

Regards Darryl

A confrontation ID is identification of last resort. It's very weak evidentially as the witness is shown one person only and asked if that's the person they saw or not. The only purpose I can see to an ID procedure, as outlined in the marginalia, would be if there was no prospect of a prosecution but the police wanted to satisfy themselves they had got the right man.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI A salt and pepper Jacket is typically greyish [ though not always ] with sometimes flecks of white . It is usually made of tweed and in Victorian times generally meant an overcoat . Perhaps the buttons were undone on the front [ the neckerchief was visible ] meaning it looked loose fitting.

If Swanson had no inside info on Kosminski it does seem rather strange since he was in overall charge of all the paperwork etc regarding the case [ the eyes and ears of the yard I think Anderson said ]. And then why go to all the trouble of writing his own personal thoughts in Anderson's book which he supposedly knew nothing about.

Regards Darryl

As I suppose you are aware, I did suggest that the jacket was unbuttoned, as sailors' jackets often were, and that that is what Lawende meant by loose.

I agree that it is strange, but I suggest that for Swanson to have been relating an episode from personal recollection with so many mistakes would be even stranger than what I have suggested - that he had no personal recollection of the events he was relating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The marginalia is unsafe this business with Grainger clearly proves that the police were still looking for the killer in 1895

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, your capacity for doublethink is truly quite remarkable.

Only moments ago you were trying to convince us that Swanson in 1895 believed JTR was dead. Now you are trying to convince us that Swanson (as part of "the police") might have believed in 1895 that Grainger was JTR!

Look, it's really very simple. It doesn't matter what the newspapers said in 1895 about what "the police" were doing. There were many individuals within "the police", which was, of course, split between Scotland Yard and H Division (and City Police) in the JTR investigation. Anderson evidently suspected Kosminksi of being JTR, or at least said he did, because he was identified, rightly or wrongly, by a witness. Whether Swanson held those suspicions or not we don't quite know but he could easily have suspected Kosminksi, while at the same time keeping an open mind in case he was wrong. That's what detectives do, Trevor. They don't fixate on one suspect to the exclusion of all others.

The marginalia is perfectly safe, it's just your understanding of it that is wonky.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Was Kosminski supposed to have a parrot on his shoulder and an anchor tattooed on his forearm ?

That would help, but I suggest a fair moustache and a salt-and-pepper jacket would be required, and no-one ever mentioned it at the time.

Inspector Reid pointed out that at the time of the murders, and in their aftermath, no-one in the higher police echelons was talking about the murderer being Jewish.

No-one mentioned Kosminski's having had a fair moustache or a salt-and-pepper jacket, either, not even years later in Anderson's memoirs or Swanson's marginalia - striking omissions if he had been identified.

Moreover, is this not one excuse too many for Donald Swanson, the man who, so we are told, knew more about the case than Abberline?

We are told that Swanson may have got Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades because of a miscommunication; that he understandably got confused about the name of the work house; that it is somehow understandable that he thought no more murders were committed as a result of someone being identified as the murderer 20 or 27 months after the last murder, and now that he confused the Seaside Home with the Sailor's Home.

Is not a more plausible explanation that he had no inside information about any identification of Kosminski?

PI A salt and pepper Jacket is typically greyish [ though not always ] with sometimes flecks of white . It is usually made of tweed and in Victorian times generally meant an overcoat . Perhaps the buttons were undone on the front [ the neckerchief was visible ] meaning it looked loose fitting.

If Swanson had no inside info on Kosminski it does seem rather strange since he was in overall charge of all the paperwork etc regarding the case [ the eyes and ears of the yard I think Anderson said ]. And then why go to all the trouble of writing his own personal thoughts in Anderson's book which he supposedly knew nothing about.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

What if Kosminski wasn't in custody because they hadn't enough evidence to hold him. But with a successful ID they may have ? Unfortunately with the ID not being successful they had to let him go.

Regards Darryl

Swanson wrote, [ Yes I do believe all the annotations were written by him , so that is my starting point to try and make sense of them ], "where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification "
Maybe Kosminski was held but had to be released after so long [ 24/48 hrs etc ? ] without anymore evidence forthcoming. IE The police couldn't find the witness in time.
And that was part of the difficulty along with trying to get a member of his family [ Kosminski probably being deemed unfit to object or otherwise by then ], to adhere to an ID taking place once the witness was located.
MM mentions an attack on his sister , possibly sister in law - Betsy. Now obviously MM knows about this, so how ? Maybe Kosminski's brother Woolf [ Betsy's husband ], notified the Police [ or one of his other brothers, or his brother in law if it was another sister in law/sister ] ? And with him being registered next of kin maybe it was him who gave permission for an ID of sorts to take place. For his families piece of mind as much as anything . What is certain is that Swanson writes " watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to the workhouse" And then only three days later he is at Colney Hatch.
Seems to me that the family wanted him away and quickly. And with his hands tied behind his back suggests that he was exhibiting other signs of being dangerous.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI He does not have to have the appearance of a sailor. Just the appearance of the murderer. If , and yes I am hypothesising here, if Kosminski was identified at a seaman's home rather than a seaside one it was perhaps to give the ID more veracity. That doesn't have to mean Kosminski had to look like a sailor. Lawende thought the killer had the appearance of a sailor but that doesn't mean he was one. Was Kosminski supposed to have a parrot on his shoulder and an anchor tattooed on his forearm ?

Regards Darryl

Was Kosminski supposed to have a parrot on his shoulder and an anchor tattooed on his forearm ?

That would help, but I suggest a fair moustache and a salt-and-pepper jacket would be required, and no-one ever mentioned it at the time.

Inspector Reid pointed out that at the time of the murders, and in their aftermath, no-one in the higher police echelons was talking about the murderer being Jewish.

No-one mentioned Kosminski's having had a fair moustache or a salt-and-pepper jacket, either, not even years later in Anderson's memoirs or Swanson's marginalia - striking omissions if he had been identified.

Moreover, is this not one excuse too many for Donald Swanson, the man who, so we are told, knew more about the case than Abberline?

We are told that Swanson may have got Kosminski's date of death wrong by about three decades because of a miscommunication; that he understandably got confused about the name of the work house; that it is somehow understandable that he thought no more murders were committed as a result of someone being identified as the murderer 20 or 27 months after the last murder, and now that he confused the Seaside Home with the Sailor's Home.

Is not a more plausible explanation that he had no inside information about any identification of Kosminski?

[Darryl Kenyon]

But does that not assume that Aaron Kosminski had the appearance of a sailor?

We do not have any photographs of him, but we have photographs of his brothers and sisters.

They do not have the appearance of sailors.

PI He does not have to have the appearance of a sailor. Just the appearance of the murderer. If , and yes I am hypothesising here, if Kosminski was identified at a seaman's home rather than a seaside one it was perhaps to give the ID more veracity. That doesn't have to mean Kosminski had to look like a sailor. Lawende thought the killer had the appearance of a sailor but that doesn't mean he was one. Was Kosminski supposed to have a parrot on his shoulder and an anchor tattooed on his forearm ?

Regards Darryl