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

[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]

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?

[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

[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, 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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

That last argument is excellent, assuming the newspaper report about the identification attempt was correct.

It seems that it was, since no one has ever come across a police denial of it.

Moreover, the report about Swanson's belief that the Whitechapel Murderer was dead was published nearly three months after Grainger's arrest, which means he had already had reason to check whether Kosminski was still incarcerated during the three months before he made his statement.

Someone has pointed out - with apologies if it was you - that the police would surely have checked from time to time that Kosminski was still safely caged in an asylum - for the protection of public - assuming, of course, that they really believed that Kosminski was the murderer.

How, then, could Swanson have failed to know that Kosminski was very much alive in 1910?

He had retired about seven years before, but could easily have kept in touch with developments at Scotland Yard.

Abberline did, and insisted that he would have known of any development in the case had there been any since his retirement.

[Filby]

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

Yes, you are correct - thanks for the facts here; I do remember reading that now. The lineup would have to be by proper protocol to be acceptable.

[c.d.]

Someone has pointed out - with apologies if it was you - that the police would surely have checked from time to time that Kosminski was still safely caged in an asylum - for the protection of public - assuming, of course, that they really believed that Kosminski was the murderer.

Yeah, I always found it hard to believe that they wouldn't have routinely checked on his well being or to see if he had said anything that could incriminate him. And what about the head of the asylum? Would they have told him who they suspected he had in his possession? Even if they did not do so, could he have not put two and two together? And the same goes for the attendants. But apparently if they did know or even if they had strong suspicions it remained a well kept secret and never made its way into public gossip. I can certainly see an attendant having a couple of pints too many and saying hey,you won't believe who I keep an eye on.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Someone has pointed out - with apologies if it was you - that the police would surely have checked from time to time that Kosminski was still safely caged in an asylum - for the protection of public - assuming, of course, that they really believed that Kosminski was the murderer.

Yeah, I always found it hard to believe that they wouldn't have routinely checked on his well being or to see if he had said anything that could incriminate him. And what about the head of the asylum? Would they have told him who they suspected he had in his possession? Even if they did not do so, could he have not put two and two together? And the same goes for the attendants. But apparently if they did know or even if they had strong suspicions it remained a well kept secret and never made its way into public gossip. I can certainly see an attendant having a couple of pints too many and saying hey,you won't believe who I keep an eye on.

c.d.

There is one more consideration: you would think that the Whitechapel Murderer would have been considered to represent an unusually serious security risk to inmates and staff alike - especially those of a particular gender.

Yet there is no record of Kosminski being kept in a padded cell, being fitted with a straitjacket, being kept apart from other inmates, or being prevented from using knives or forks at meal times.

The fact that he threatened a member of staff with a chair - not threw a chair at him or her, as stated by someone the other day - is considered by his detractors to be evidence of his murderous nature, and yet the staff described him as harmless.

Not much of a murderer.

But then he never was much of a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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?

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!

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 I really don't understand what you are getting at with all these posts and I don't think you do either.

Nothing you are saying is making any sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How, then, could Swanson have failed to know that Kosminski was very much alive in 1910?
.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

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

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

So I really don't understand what you are getting at with all these posts and I don't think you do either.

Nothing you are saying is making any sense.

In line with your attempts at discrediting the facts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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.

[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?