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

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you do not know what Swanson believed you must stop hypothesizing

Surely Swanson must have known what had happened to his "prime suspect" by 1895 a suspect who had been positively identified on a mythical ID parade, and on that topic, if Kosminski had been positively identified then why was Grainger suspected of being the killer in 1895?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we do know what Swanson believed, Trevor. He wrote what he believed in the marginalia:

"he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect"

What's so ironic - although you will never understand the irony - is that in the very next breath after telling me to stop hypothesizing about what Swanson believed, you say "Surely Swanson must have known..."

Stop hypothesizing Trevor!

[Trevor Marriott]

As for your conclusion, Swanson's supposed belief that the crimes were the work of a man who had died does NOT eliminate Aaron Kosminski IF Swanson believed that Aaron Kosminski had died shortly after being admitted to Colney Hatch workhouse. That is so obvious that it shouldn't need repeating but, for some reason, it does.

But you do not know what Swanson believed you must stop hypothesizing

Surely Swanson must have known what had happened to his "prime suspect" by 1895 a suspect who had been positively identified on a mythical ID parade, and on that topic, if Kosminski had been positively identified then why was Grainger suspected of being the killer in 1895?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the time the Pall Mall Gazette report was published Swanson who led the original Ripper investigation was interviewed by a reporter from that paper. He poured cold water on the suggestion that Grainger could be the Ripper and stated, “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”. So this in itself again must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919. If Swanson was correct then why did the police subject, Grainger, to an identification procedure in an attempt to connect him to at least one Ripper murder?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
[/SIZE]

Trevor, we've been over all this already but you keep making the same mistakes. I literally don't know anyone who refuses to learn anything as much as you.

As I've previously told you, Swanson was not interviewed by a reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette. The quote you have used, and attributed to Swanson, is false and is not to be found in the Pall Mall Gazette report.

This is what is found in the Pall Mall Gazette of 7th May 1895:

'The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead."

You will see that the reporter is speaking in the past tense of something that Swanson is understood by the reporter to have once said but the source of this is unclear and Swanson isn't actually quoted as saying anything. Please quote from the report accurately in future.

As for your conclusion, Swanson's supposed belief that the crimes were the work of a man who had died does NOT eliminate Aaron Kosminski IF Swanson believed that Aaron Kosminski had died shortly after being admitted to Colney Hatch workhouse. That is so obvious that it shouldn't need repeating but, for some reason, it does.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

"The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead". So this in itself again must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919.


I agree.

Pro-marginalia posters argue that due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding, Swanson thought that Kosminski had died when he had not.

Can anyone cite any other murder case in which a leading detective mistakenly thought the leading suspect had died, in the absence of any evidence that he had died?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

if kosminski was not in custody the police could not have taken him anywhere against his will.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why does anyone imagine that the Whitechapel Murderer was the kind of person who would have helped police with their enquiries?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This is my take on it as well

Regards Darryl

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

if kosminski was not in custody the police could not have taken him anywhere against his will.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

and what would the evidential value be of a forced meeting?

Even if the police carried out a direct confrontation ID procedure it would have little or no evidential value for obvious reasons because the police had ID procedure guidelines as far as ID procedures were concerned to follow and a direct confrontation is a last resort only used when a prisoner in custody refuses to co-operate with an ID procedure and the witness is taken to the cell door and makes the ID there and then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

This post - or something like it -was lost in the recent site glitch:

henever I read of the Seaside Home I wonder if it was a slip of the pen or a momentary lapse in concentration and if what was meant was The Sailors' Home. This was on Wells St. There was a police fixed point opposite the entrance so the presence of one or more additional officers might go unnoticed or at least unremarked. Just a thought. A location in Whitechapel does seem rather more likely than Brighton.

This is my take on it as well

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

That's my interpretation as well - it was a forced meeting of sorts, yes. Not a lineup.

and what would the evidential value be of a forced meeting?

Even if the police carried out a direct confrontation ID procedure it would have little or no evidential value for obvious reasons because the police had ID procedure guidelines as far as ID procedures were concerned to follow and a direct confrontation is a last resort only used when a prisoner in custody refuses to co-operate with an ID procedure and the witness is taken to the cell door and makes the ID there and then.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

This post - or something like it -was lost in the recent site glitch:

henever I read of the Seaside Home I wonder if it was a slip of the pen or a momentary lapse in concentration and if what was meant was The Sailors' Home. This was on Wells St. There was a police fixed point opposite the entrance so the presence of one or more additional officers might go unnoticed or at least unremarked. Just a thought. A location in Whitechapel does seem rather more likely than Brighton.

on February 10th 1895 following a non-fatal knife attack and wounding of another prostitute, Alice Graham, in Whitechapel the police arrested a William Grant Grainger. The police and the press believed that Grainger could have been the Ripper. Up until then, the case would appear to have still been open. There had been no official announcement to the contrary.

Grainger was later convicted of wounding and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. No evidence was ever found to connect him being Jack the Ripper. This clearly shows that the police were still trying to find Jack the Ripper and had no clues as to his identity even as late as 1895. Swanson was however not directly involved in this investigation as he was suffering from flu with a flu epidemic which was sweeping London at that time.

That same year out of the blue a story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found. If the witness was Joseph Lawende, he told the police in his original statement that he had only noticed the man’s height, and did not think he would recognize him again. It is therefore curious as to why he was expected to identify him several years later. If it were Israel Schwartz then he only got a partial sighting of a man with Stride, and her body was not mutilated. Could this be the identification procedure later referred to by Anderson and Swanson? There is no information to tell us where or when this identification procedure took place.

There are concerns over this as there are over the identification procedure Swanson and Anderson refer to. One being the fact that the Grainger offence came under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police and Lawende was a witness in the murder of Eddowes, which came under the jurisdiction of the City Police. Would the Metropolitan Police use a City witness? In practice yes they would, but it appears that if the seaside home identification parade did ever take place then why didn’t the Metropolitan Police also use Lawende the City Police witness and why did Major Smith not know about this?

At the time the Pall Mall Gazette report was published Swanson who led the original Ripper investigation was interviewed by a reporter from that paper. He poured cold water on the suggestion that Grainger could be the Ripper and stated, “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”. So this in itself again must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919. If Swanson was correct then why did the police subject, Grainger, to an identification procedure in an attempt to connect him to at least one Ripper murder?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Filby]

Yet, Anderson doesn't appear to be describing an 'ID parade,' per se, but a 'confrontation' style of identification.

He writes: 'The moment he was confronted with him..."

If this is true, the alleged identification wasn't 'by the book' --there weren't at least 5 or 6 others in a line-up--which would leave the whole enterprise with either no or extremely limited and problematic evidentiary value if the aim had been prosecution.

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Anderson's claims are very problematic.

That's my interpretation as well - it was a forced meeting of sorts, yes. Not a lineup.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Like McNaghten's "City PC that was (on) a beat near Mitre Square" perhaps.

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

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

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

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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why does Aaron Kosminski need to have the appearance of a sailor? I was referring to the convenience of the location rather than the identity of the suspect. (But for the record I haven't a clue what Kosminski looked like).

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.

[Bridewell]

Thanks for reminding us.

I remember replying to it with the question: what evidence is there that Aaron Kosminski had the appearance of a sailor?

Why does Aaron Kosminski need to have the appearance of a sailor? I was referring to the convenience of the location rather than the identity of the suspect. (But for the record I haven't a clue what Kosminski looked like).