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

[Trevor Marriott]

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

I was thinking about the same thing but was waiting to see Sunny's response to Trevor.

The main point, though, is that Reid claimed that it was never suggested at the time of the murders that the murderer was Jewish.

The police cleared John Piser, who had been unhesitatingly identified, and they ruled out the possibility that the murder weapon was a Jewish ritual slaughter man's knife.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Almost every line is based on something we can't know for sure.

If that is your opinion, then should you not be declaring your agreement with me rather than saying that I am making assumptions?

In every line, I refer to the lack of reference by Anderson and Swanson to evidence of any kind.


We don't know when Kosminski first came to Police attention.

There is no evidence that he came to the attention of the police prior to his incarceration in an asylum.

Anderson never suggested otherwise.

My statements are not assumptions!


We don't know if Kosminski's relatives were questioned.

There is no mention by Anderson or Swanson of any search of the Kosminski home, of any evidence being found there, of Kosminski being arrested or questioned, of his relatives being arrested or questioned, nor of any charges being brought against either Kosminski or any of his relatives.

You are being rather generous to Anderson and Swanson.


We don't know what evidence the Police had on Kosminski if any.

We know they had nothing concrete.

According to Macnaghten, who had access to all the relevant files, the case against Kosminski was entirely circumstantial.

He does not even mention any identification evidence.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions any concrete evidence.

Again, you are giving them an extraordinary amount of leeway.


We don't know if Kosminski ever used Prostitutes.

Again, there is no evidence that he did - not even from the alleged surveillance of him.


We don't know the details of Kosminski's transfer to the coast other than it was completed with difficulty. The fact that these are not mentioned or expanded on by Anderson or Swanson does not mean they did not happen.

The fact that Anderson implies that no such transfer happened does not mean it could not have happened?

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest.

Why would the Whitechapel Murderer consent to a trip to the coast to be identified without having been arrested?

What you call a difficulty would have been an impossibility.


The bottom line is this- Anderson wrote about an ID in his book that was made available to the public. I have seen no evidence his claim was ever dismissed as fantasy.

If you look at what Abberline, Macnaghten, Reid and Smith wrote in response, their comments were polite ways of saying just that!


Swanson annotated his personal copy of Anderson's book for reasons only he knew. He appears to have enjoyed annotating and did it extensively so it may have been as simple as he took pleasure in adding little tidbits. Maybe he felt that if in future his family read his personal copy of the book they would see the notes and be proud that the Ripper had actually been caught.

Maybe he thought they might publish his jottings after his death so that the world could see how clever he had really been.


We don't know. But why would he lie in a personal copy of a book? There is no reason for it.

He provides no information that would suggest that he had any inside information about what really happened: no arrest or interrogation of either Kosminski or his relatives, no search of the Kosminski home nor of any incriminating evidence found there, no evidence derived from surveillance of the suspect or his relatives, no mention of lack of an alibi, no mention of the suspect's first name nor of his brother's name, no mention of the name of the street in which he lived, no mention of the name of a single policeman involved in the transfer, identification, or surveillance, no dates, no explanation as to how the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish, how soon after the identification it happened, why no charges were brought, nor even the suspect's name.

There is no reason to suppose that Swanson was doing anything more than retelling a fantasy supplied to him.

The question of whether he lied is, in my submission, irrelevant.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Would you please identify the assumptions and explain why they are questionable?

You have not, in your reply, identified a single assumption made by me!

This is the umpteenth time it has been alleged that I have made assumptions, but you cannot actually cite or quote one!

[Trevor Marriott]

Almost every line is based on something we can't know for sure. We don't know when Kosminski first came to Police attention. We don't know if Kosminski's relatives were questioned. We don't know what evidence the Police had on Kosminski if any. We don't know if Kosminski ever used Prostitutes. We don't know the details of Kosminski's transfer to the coast other than it was completed with difficulty. The fact that these are not mentioned or expanded on by Anderson or Swanson does not mean they did not happen.

The bottom line is this- Anderson wrote about an ID in his book that was made available to the public. I have seen no evidence his claim was ever dismissed as fantasy. Swanson annotated his personal copy of Anderson's book for reasons only he knew. He appears to have enjoyed annotating and did it extensively so it may have been as simple as he took pleasure in adding little tidbits. Maybe he felt that if in future his family read his personal copy of the book they would see the notes and be proud that the Ripper had actually been caught. We don't know. But why would he lie in a personal copy of a book? There is no reason for it.

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

[Sunny Delight]

Would you please identify the assumptions and explain why they are questionable?

Almost every line is based on something we can't know for sure. We don't know when Kosminski first came to Police attention. We don't know if Kosminski's relatives were questioned. We don't know what evidence the Police had on Kosminski if any. We don't know if Kosminski ever used Prostitutes. We don't know the details of Kosminski's transfer to the coast other than it was completed with difficulty. The fact that these are not mentioned or expanded on by Anderson or Swanson does not mean they did not happen.

The bottom line is this- Anderson wrote about an ID in his book that was made available to the public. I have seen no evidence his claim was ever dismissed as fantasy. Swanson annotated his personal copy of Anderson's book for reasons only he knew. He appears to have enjoyed annotating and did it extensively so it may have been as simple as he took pleasure in adding little tidbits. Maybe he felt that if in future his family read his personal copy of the book they would see the notes and be proud that the Ripper had actually been caught. We don't know. But why would he lie in a personal copy of a book? There is no reason for it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It was hardly an invention. From what we know- and we do not know everything, indeed far from it as so much has been lost to us but from what we know Kosminski was a weak suspect. From what we know an ID was stated to have been carried out. We don't know who the suspect was although it seems very likely to have been Aaron Kosminski. We don't know who the witness was although it seems very possible it was Joseph Lawende. We don't know for sure where it took place or under what conditions. What we have are some annotations written by Donald Swanson and whatever Robert Anderson was prepared to go public with. That says to me that your assertions are based on a number of assumptions that cannot be definitively stated as certain.

Would you please identify the assumptions and explain why they are questionable?

[Sunny Delight]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever explicitly states that Kosminski / the suspect was ever investigated or arrested.

Anderson's insinuation that Kosminski's relatives protected him from arrest should be followed by some mention of their at least having been questioned, but neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions it.

Kosminski could not have been identified unless he had already been investigated and some incriminating evidence found, but neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions any.

Anderson mentions a house search producing no evidence against anyone.

In order for his Polish Jew to have become a suspect, a subsequent house search would have had to produce evidence against someone.

But he never mentions one - and nor does Swanson.

If Kosminski was guilty, he would have had to have associated with prostitutes, yet neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions any surveillance yielding any evidence that he did so.

The only surveillance mentioned - which according to Elamarna lasted for more than six months - is not accompanied by any mention of Kosminski's association with prostitutes.

Kosminski could not have been transferred to the coast without being arrested, yet no arrest is mentioned by Swanson.

In order for Anderson to have been contemplating bringing charges against the suspect, he would first have had to ascertain whether the suspect had an alibi for any of the murders.

Anderson and Swanson are silent on that matter too.

The whole case against Kosminski looks like pure invention.

It was hardly an invention. From what we know- and we do not know everything, indeed far from it as so much has been lost to us but from what we know Kosminski was a weak suspect. From what we know an ID was stated to have been carried out. We don't know who the suspect was although it seems very likely to have been Aaron Kosminski. We don't know who the witness was although it seems very possible it was Joseph Lawende. We don't know for sure where it took place or under what conditions. What we have are some annotations written by Donald Swanson and whatever Robert Anderson was prepared to go public with. That says to me that your assertions are based on a number of assumptions that cannot be definitively stated as certain.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is one point that has been overlooked with Kosminski and that is the extent of the police investigation into him being regarded as a suspect...

not only do we have officers of those ranks telling us the ID procedure did not take place, but there is also no evidence from them in any form to show Kosminski was ever investigated or regarded as a suspect...

It is clear in the absence of anything to prove to the contrary that at no point either before or after the ID procedure was he ever arrested

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever explicitly states that Kosminski / the suspect was ever investigated or arrested.

Anderson's insinuation that Kosminski's relatives protected him from arrest should be followed by some mention of their at least having been questioned, but neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions it.

Kosminski could not have been identified unless he had already been investigated and some incriminating evidence found, but neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions any.

Anderson mentions a house search producing no evidence against anyone.

In order for his Polish Jew to have become a suspect, a subsequent house search would have had to produce evidence against someone.

But he never mentions one - and nor does Swanson.

If Kosminski was guilty, he would have had to have associated with prostitutes, yet neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions any surveillance yielding any evidence that he did so.

The only surveillance mentioned - which according to Elamarna lasted for more than six months - is not accompanied by any mention of Kosminski's association with prostitutes.

Kosminski could not have been transferred to the coast without being arrested, yet no arrest is mentioned by Swanson.

In order for Anderson to have been contemplating bringing charges against the suspect, he would first have had to ascertain whether the suspect had an alibi for any of the murders.

Anderson and Swanson are silent on that matter too.

The whole case against Kosminski looks like pure invention.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, You say that Joseph Lawende is believed to have identified Nathan Kaminsky adding weight to the confusion theory . But by your reckoning this cannot be possibly be true. After all Kaminsky was a Jewish Bootmaker not a Nordic Sailor

I do not say that at all.

I was quoting from a website to show how unreliable much of the information published online is.

The same article has Anderson including Swanson's Marginalia in his memoirs.

I did reproduce the howlers in bold type.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In which case why post the link, unless you are simply attempting to agree how unreliable some sites are.




If you have read Fido's article in Ripperologist, and listened to the Richard Jones podcast, i fail to see why you originally posted Kaminsky rather than Cohen.

But again all this will be covered in the upcoming rebuttal posts.

I quoted from that website in order to express my agreement with you about the unreliability of much of what is published on such websites.

I provided the link as confirmation.

It was just a slip on my part.

As I pointed out, whether the man was called Cohen or Kaminsky does not affect the validity of the argument I was putting forward.

[Darryl Kenyon]

PI, You say that Joseph Lawende is believed to have identified Nathan Kaminsky adding weight to the confusion theory . But by your reckoning this cannot be possibly be true. After all Kaminsky was a Jewish Bootmaker not a Nordic Sailor

[Elamarna]

I have read Fido and Richard Jones.

The link works sometimes.

I did not consider that site to be reliable even before I visited that page!

In which case why post the link, unless you are simply attempting to agree how unreliable some sites are.




If you have read Fido's article in Ripperologist, and listened to the Richard Jones podcast, i fail to see why you originally posted Kaminsky rather than Cohen.

But again all this will be covered in the upcoming rebuttal posts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The site you quote is hardly noted for its reliability, nor is the page you cite apparently available.

This simply illustrates my point about many sites being unreliable.

I suggest you use more reliable sites, I could point you at the recent podcast by Richard Jones and myself on this very subject, on his website.

You could of course read Martin Fido's article in Ripperologist #129- Rethinking Cohen and Kosminski.

I have read Fido and Richard Jones.

The link works sometimes.

I did not consider that site to be reliable even before I visited that page!