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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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!

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.