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

[Kattrup]

Hi again Kattrup.

I did not see your exchange with Trevor Marriott until after I had replied to your # 973 in my # 977.

Trevor Marriott certainly did not state a heap of unsupported speculation in his # 974.

He made ten points.

Here are the first five with my comments on them:


1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

That is a fact


2. There is no evidence as to how Kosmiski became a suspect

That is a fact.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever refer to any incriminating evidence against him.


3. No evidence as to what the witness allegedly saw in relation to the murders and what Kosminski was being ID for

That is also true.

Anderson mentions only that the witness had a good view of the murderer but he says nothing about what the murderer was doing at the time.


4. No other police officials ever mention this mythical ID parade

That is also correct, except for Swanson's marginalia.


5. No mention of Kosminski ever being arrested or interviewed about the murders either before or after the ID parade

That is also correct.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest, nor even any questioning, of the suspect.

Hi PI

None of these claims have any bearing on whether the ID took place or not, which is why Trevor Marriott’s post was unsupported.

They were also irrelevant to the post I made.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup.

Please see my replies below.

Hi PI

Thanks for replies. I probably should not have interjected as my purpose was not to enter into a discussion for or against the Seaside Home ID taking place, but merely to point out an unproven assumption in your argumentation.
Whether introduced by yourself or others.

You are of course correct that Anderson states the witness did not know beforehand that the suspect was Jewish.

Since we have practically no info about the ID, assuming for a moment that it took place, I think it’s useless to speculate about how the witness learned the suspect was Jewish. What I wrote were just scenarios to show that the witness could have learned about it, either through police, through viewing or hearing the suspect, or indeed from some other source, like servants’ gossip.

They were not meant as scenarios to be argued against, because it’s all pure speculation, so my argument was just that we can imagine many different ways for the witness to have gained that knowledge.

Therefore, the claim that the witness learned the suspect was a Jew after identifying him is, in my opinion, not a good argument against the ID taking place at all.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

“Thanks”, Trevor, for stating a heap of unsupported speculation that has no bearing on what I wrote to PI.

Hi again Kattrup.

I did not see your exchange with Trevor Marriott until after I had replied to your # 973 in my # 977.

Trevor Marriott certainly did not state a heap of unsupported speculation in his # 974.

He made ten points.

Here are the first five with my comments on them:


1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

That is a fact


2. There is no evidence as to how Kosmiski became a suspect

That is a fact.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever refer to any incriminating evidence against him.


3. No evidence as to what the witness allegedly saw in relation to the murders and what Kosminski was being ID for

That is also true.

Anderson mentions only that the witness had a good view of the murderer but he says nothing about what the murderer was doing at the time.


4. No other police officials ever mention this mythical ID parade

That is also correct, except for Swanson's marginalia.


5. No mention of Kosminski ever being arrested or interviewed about the murders either before or after the ID parade

That is also correct.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest, nor even any questioning, of the suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Kattrup.

Please see my replies below.

Hello PI

I too look forward to reading Elamarna’s take, as he is usually very meticulous.


So do I.



In the meantime, I’d like to point to an assumption in your post, that the witness would have already known the suspect was Jewish.


It is not I who made that assumption.

That assumption has been made by other posters here, who have speculated that Levy recognised the man in Duke Street as a relative of his.



That is unknown. In my opinion, identifying in this case means only confirming that the suspect was the (to him unknown) man that he’d seen.

So he may only have learned the suspect was Jewish at or after the Seaside Home.


If he learned it only 'after the Seaside Home', then why was the suspect not charged in the meantime?


How could he have learned it? Through the police, either inadvertently or being told outright, or because the suspect was then recognizable as presumably Jewish through clothing or mannerisms, e.g. muttering or speaking in Yiddish.


Can you or anyone else point to another case in which such an indiscretion was committed by the police?

Considering that Anderson was, according to him, of the opinion that Polish Jews would not testify against one another, and that the only witness we know of who was asked by the police to try to identify a suspect in this case was a Polish Jew, is it believable that the police would have provided the witness with such information as to enable him to refuse to testify against the suspect?

Elamarna has already suggested that the suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious clothing which enabled the witness to identify his religion.

Why would someone who had the appearance of a sailor be transformed into someone who had the appearance of a religious Jew?

Would the police have allowed the identification procedure to go ahead if the suspect had dressed himself so differently for it?

Elamarna also suggested that it is probable that in such a situation, the witness and the suspect would have had a conversation in Yiddish following the identification.

Please ask Trevor Marriott to estimate the chances that such a conversation would have been permitted by the police.

No interaction between witness and suspect would have been permitted.

As for your suggestion about mannerisms, why would the suspect have displayed no Jewish mannerisms in the informal setting in Duke Street, but displayed them in the very formal situation of a police identification?


As I pointed out yesterday in #306 of Letīs talk about that identification again:


It is not as though this is the only murder case in which Anderson alleged that Polish Jews perverted the course of justice in order to protect a Polish Jewish murderer.

In both cases, he described witnesses who he alleged refused to cooperate with the police as low class Polish Jews.

And in both murder cases, he alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew, even though he knew that according to the best eyewitness evidence, the murderer in both cases had fair hair.


It is quite obvious that the man seen by Lawende in Duke Street was not Jewish, just like the man who committed the murder in the other case.



Even if the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand, there are people, also today, who for various reasons help the police investigation but are unwilling to appear in court. One needs only consider anonymous tips, but many other witnesses and even victims refuse to testify.


I refer you to the original edition of Anderson's memoirs, in which he ruled out the possibility that the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand.

I would suggest that either the witness was reluctant to identify a Jewish suspect or he was not.

If he was reluctant, he would not have come forward in the first place and he would not have made the identification.



Since we don’t know who the witness was, it’s futile to speculate on what reasons he may have had. All we know is the the police believed it to be not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.


We do not know that.

The alleged identification was not mentioned by anyone until more than two decades after the murders ended.

When Anderson did mention it, having given no hint to anyone in conversations, interviews and writings over the years, that anything of the kind had happened, his claim was rubbished by former colleagues.

When challenged to substantiate his claim, Anderson made no response.



Perhaps the victim feared retaliation from other members of the Jewish community, or feared being ostracized or whatever.


Can you refer to any other case in which that happened?



At any rate, while it may be, strictly speaking, illogical to help the police with the id but then refuse to testify, it happens, then as now, and does not really require an explanation. By which I mean, it’s not a viable argument against the Seaside ID taking place.


The suggestion that is being made is that Levy came forward because he recognised the man in Duke Street as a relative of his.

If he had no qualms about doing that, then why should he have had any qualms about testifying?

Can you point to another case in which such a reversal has happened?


But if Levy was Anderson's witness and refused to testify against the suspect upon learning that he was Jewish, then why did he need to be reminded that his relative was Jewish?

[Trevor Marriott]

“Thanks”, Trevor, for stating a heap of unsupported speculation that has no bearing on what I wrote to PI.

It's not speculation it's all facts that I would urge to to read and digest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

But this whole ID issue revolves around a number of important issues

“Thanks”, Trevor, for stating a heap of unsupported speculation that has no bearing on what I wrote to PI.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello PI

I too look forward to reading Elamarna’s take, as he is usually very meticulous.

In the meantime, I’d like to point to an assumption in your post, that the witness would have already known the suspect was Jewish.

That is unknown. In my opinion, identifying in this case means only confirming that the suspect was the (to him unknown) man that he’d seen.

So he may only have learned the suspect was Jewish at or after the Seaside Home.

How could he have learned it? Through the police, either inadvertently or being told outright, or because the suspect was then recognizable as presumably Jewish through clothing or mannerisms, e.g. muttering or speaking in Yiddish.

Even if the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand, there are people, also today, who for various reasons help the police investigation but are unwilling to appear in court. One needs only consider anonymous tips, but many other witnesses and even victims refuse to testify.

Since we don’t know who the witness was, it’s futile to speculate on what reasons he may have had. All we know is the the police believed it to be not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.

Perhaps the victim feared retaliation from other members of the Jewish community, or feared being ostracized or whatever.

At any rate, while it may be, strictly speaking, illogical to help the police with the id but then refuse to testify, it happens, then as now, and does not really require an explanation. By which I mean, it’s not a viable argument against the Seaside ID taking place.

But this whole ID issue revolves around a number of important issues

1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

2. There is no evidence as to how Kosmiski became a suspect

3. No evidence as to what the witness allegedly saw in relation to the murders and what Kosminski was being ID for

4. No other police officials ever mention this mythical ID parade

5. No mention of Kosminski ever being arrested or interviewed about the murders either before or after the ID parade

6. If the witness had made a positive ID and didn't want to give evidence what was stopping the police still arresting Kosminski and putting the fact that he had been identified, after all, there would have been no need to tell him that the witness was not prepared to go to court, and that may have extracted a confession.

7. After this mythical ID parade are we expected to believe that the police simply dropped Kosminski off at a relative's house and did nothing after that? In reality, that would not happen.

8. Magnaghten makes no mention of this ID Parade, yet he was Swanson's immediate superior so I would have expected him to have had some knowledge

9. We do not know what ID procedure was used in this mythical ID parade. It reads like a direct confrontation which if that had been the case the ID would have been of no evidential value and would not have stood up in court as there were in place guidelines which were to be adopted for ID parades.

10. Neither Swanson nor Anderson mention why this ID procedure was carried out at a seaside home, and where that Seaside home was located.

As previously stated I personally have no faith in the content of the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Your third candidate is Joseph Hyam Levy, who is alleged to have recognised the man in Church Passage as a fellow Jew.

If Joseph Hyam Levy was Anderson's witness, who refused to testify against the suspect when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, can you explain why Levy needed to be reminded that the suspect was Jewish when he already knew so?

Can you also explain why Levy would have come forward in the first place and why he would have unhesitatingly identified the suspect, if he was unwilling to incriminate someone he already knew to be Jewish?

Hello PI

I too look forward to reading Elamarna’s take, as he is usually very meticulous.

In the meantime, I’d like to point to an assumption in your post, that the witness would have already known the suspect was Jewish.

That is unknown. In my opinion, identifying in this case means only confirming that the suspect was the (to him unknown) man that he’d seen.

So he may only have learned the suspect was Jewish at or after the Seaside Home.

How could he have learned it? Through the police, either inadvertently or being told outright, or because the suspect was then recognizable as presumably Jewish through clothing or mannerisms, e.g. muttering or speaking in Yiddish.

Even if the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand, there are people, also today, who for various reasons help the police investigation but are unwilling to appear in court. One needs only consider anonymous tips, but many other witnesses and even victims refuse to testify.

Since we don’t know who the witness was, it’s futile to speculate on what reasons he may have had. All we know is the the police believed it to be not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.

Perhaps the victim feared retaliation from other members of the Jewish community, or feared being ostracized or whatever.

At any rate, while it may be, strictly speaking, illogical to help the police with the id but then refuse to testify, it happens, then as now, and does not really require an explanation. By which I mean, it’s not a viable argument against the Seaside ID taking place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am preparing a full rebuttal of the claims and arguments you have made the last few weeks.
However, such takes time if it's to be correct.

Quite.

In the meantime, I refer you to your comments elsewhere about Anderson's witness:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness , followed by a completely unnamed witness and then Joseph Hyam Levy.

You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates

(Elamarna, # 187 Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


Your third candidate is Joseph Hyam Levy, who is alleged to have recognised the man in Church Passage as a fellow Jew.

If Joseph Hyam Levy was Anderson's witness, who refused to testify against the suspect when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, can you explain why Levy needed to be reminded that the suspect was Jewish when he already knew so?

Can you also explain why Levy would have come forward in the first place and why he would have unhesitatingly identified the suspect, if he was unwilling to incriminate someone he already knew to be Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through your comment line by line. As I state we do not know a lot of what you are assuming. Can you give me a reason why two senior officers would allude to an ID of a suspect, why MM stated Kosminski strongly resembled a man seen near Mitre Square but all be telling lies? For that is what you are suggesting is it not? The ID took place- that should not be in dispute. I won't be engaging anymore in this.

I did not make any assumptions.

When I asked you to cite any, you could not do so.

It was Anderson who made an assumption that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I have never accused Macnaghten of lying about an alleged sighting of Kosminski in Mitre Square, and he seems not to have believed it himself, as he removed mention of it and expressed his inclination to exonerate Kosminski, who obviously did not resemble the suspect seen by Lawende.

If Anderson himself had really believed his story to be true, why did he remove reference to the suspect's incarceration having preceded his identification, and why did he remove mention of the witness learning that the suspect was Jewish?

And why was he silent when challenged by Reid to substantiate his claim that Scotland Yard had narrowed down its pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Only Macnaghten did (indirectly) by endorsing Druitt.

The writing on the wall may have been written - and, I think, probably was written - to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews.

(Sir Henry Smith)



I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr. Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street Murder cleared up, and thus to divert from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.

(Sir Charles Warren)



I cannot help feeling that this (Chapman) was the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago.

(Inspector George Abberline)



Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders.

(Inspector Edmund Reid)

[Sunny Delight]

Please see my replies below.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through your comment line by line. As I state we do not know a lot of what you are assuming. Can you give me a reason why two senior officers would allude to an ID of a suspect, why MM stated Kosminski strongly resembled a man seen near Mitre Square but all be telling lies? For that is what you are suggesting is it not? The ID took place- that should not be in dispute. I won't be engaging anymore in this.

[Sunny Delight]

Detective Inspector Reid who was actively engaged in the murders was quoted in The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am of the same mind as Reid. Nothing I have seen suggests to me that the Police had any idea who the murderer was. Nothing I have seen suggests to me that Kosminski was anything other than a poor suspect. I don't know how this relates to Anderson and Swanson's comments on the ID though?

[Michael W Richards]

But there is no direct evidence to show the men seen with the victims was the killer because the killer has never been identified. I think Reid is being honest in his approach to the evidence bearing in mind the exact time of death of the victims cannot be firmly established

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I realize that, but being pragmatic, the men I mentioned excluding in Marys case, were supposedly "witnessed" minutes before the victims were killed. That in reasonable terms would make them primary suspects. In Liz's case the medical estimate of the cut time allows for the possibility that she was possibly cut within 1 minute or so of Schwartz's "sighting". Surely that sighting, if deemed honest and accurate by the authorities, provided the most probable killer of Liz Stride. The murder of Kate, if accepting Lawendes ID, means that there is less than 8 minutes before she is found dead...inside the square.

Its the time lapse between alleged sighting and the discovery that makes those men primary suspects for those murders. IF the sighting was believed.

[Scott Nelson]

There is no support from Macnaghten, Warren, Smith, Abberline, or Reid for Anderson's claim that Scotland Yard came to the conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

Instead, all five expressed their view that the murderer was a Gentile.

Only Macnaghten did (indirectly) by endorsing Druitt.