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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Around the middle of September Jacob Isenschmid seems to have been the Num 1 suspect . Abberline in a letter dated 19 Sept writes that Isenschmid had been known to carry two butchers knives, had been absent from home, had been previously in an asylum and was known to be, at times very violent.
He also says there is no direct evidence against him but he seems the most likely suspect thus far.

Isenschmid was arrested in the early hours of 12 Sept, Holloway and then sent to Bow asylum
He was also strongly suspected of being the man Mrs Fiddymont saw with blood on his hands on the morning of Annie's murder.

The police were extremely keen on Mrs Fiddymont [ and other witnesses, according to Abberline ], identifying Isenschmid.
So much so that they wanted Fiddymont to confront Isenschmid at the asylum but Dr Mickle [ resident medical officer ], refused such an ID attempt to take place.
Obviously if Mrs Fiddymont had identified Isenschmid as the man seen by her at 7 am on 8 Sept and a case was built against Isenschmid, would Fiddymont's evidence be deemed acceptable in a court ?
It seems like the police thought so. Certainly Abberline's haste to have Mrs Fiddymont sent to the asylum points that way.

So in effect we have a known lunatic who has some circumstantial evidence against him , arrested , put in an asylum with the police desperate for a confrontational ID to take place. All sound familiar ?

In my humble opinion I believe most of the circumstances above were similar in a way to Kosminski . Only this time the witness would have been much more of an asset to the prosecution [ according to Swanson and Anderson ], than Mrs Fiddymont, who didn't see Isenschmid leaving the passageway of 29 Hanbury st say. Yet who's ID of Isenschmid seemed to be very important even though she only saw him at least an hour and a half after Annie was murdered.

Regards Darryl

[Aethelwulf]

So in effect we have a known lunatic who has some circumstantial evidence against him , arrested , put in an asylum

I've don't believe the whole 'lunatic' theory for JtR. I think it's more likely the ripper appeared entirely normal and inoffensive and din't have any mental problems.

Although the police must have interviewed lots of people from lots of different backgrounds, I think the police and probably wider community were either directly and/or subconsciously biased/prejudiced against Jewish suspects IMO.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I've don't believe the whole 'lunatic' theory for JtR. I think it's more likely the ripper appeared entirely normal and inoffensive and din't have any mental problems.

Although the police must have interviewed lots of people from lots of different backgrounds, I think the police and probably wider community were either directly and/or subconsciously biased/prejudiced against Jewish suspects IMO.

Hi A
I agree that Jack was not drooling at the lips talking to himself sort of thing when he committed the murders but in defense of Swanson/Anderson we do not know Kosminski state of mind Autumn 1888.
For what it is worth if Jack is ever found, I feel he would be someone like Robert Napper as in state of mind .

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

What level of reaction do we have at the time as a result of Anderson’s 1910 ‘revelation’ in his memoirs? I know that Smith called his claim that a Jew wouldn’t testify against a fellow Jew a “reckless accusation” and that Reid was dismissive, but did anyone at the time make the accusation that Anderson actually lied about the Seaside Home identification?

[Darryl Kenyon]

What level of reaction do we have at the time as a result of Anderson’s 1910 ‘revelation’ in his memoirs? I know that Smith called his claim that a Jew wouldn’t testify against a fellow Jew a “reckless accusation” and that Reid was dismissive, but did anyone at the time make the accusation that Anderson actually lied about the Seaside Home identification?

Very good point Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good point Herlock

Thanks Darryl. The thought just occurred to me as a read back through the thread. There’s a difference of course between questioning the reliability or validity of the ID and a claim that it didn’t even occur.

Also, is it worth wondering why Anderson might have lied given the possibility of any number of officers or ex-officers stepping forward, in the wake of his memoirs, to say something like “well I was involved in the investigation and I never heard of any identification.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another question that I have is - do we think it possible that an ID might have taken place but the witness said that he couldn’t identify him and that he said, because of his uncertainty, that he was unwilling to send a potentially innocent, fellow Jew to the gallows? Could this have led the officers that were with him to believe that the only reason that he was unwilling to ID him was because he was a fellow Jew? And when this was related back to Anderson he took it as being true?

[rjpalmer]

but did anyone at the time make the accusation that Anderson actually lied about the Seaside Home identification?

How could they have? Anderson never mentioned a Seaside Home identification or any other specific event that could be directly analyzed or rebutted. One can hardly dispute someone's claim without knowing what precisely they are referring to...

As long as one cloaks one's claims in secrecy it allows them to remain relatively immune from criticism.

Anderson's attitude was more of a matter of 'We at Scotland Yard knew, but I can't tell you...' He even said there was "no doubt whatsoever" about the murderer's identity.

But Anderson's rhetorical 'we knew' obviously backfired because Macnaghten, Abberline, Reid, Smith, and Littlechild (among others) all said at various times that the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police didn't know the murderer's identity, and some of them even named other suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

How could they have? Anderson never mentioned a Seaside Home identification or any other specific event that could be directly analyzed or rebutted. One can hardly dispute someone's claim without knowing what precisely they were referring to... If one cloaks one's claims in secrecy it allows them to remain immune from criticism.

Anderson's attitude was more of a matter of 'We at Scotland Yard knew, but I can't tell you...' He even said there was "no doubt whatsoever" about the murderer's identity.

But Anderson's rhetorical 'we knew' obviously backfired, because Macnaghten, Abberline, Reid, Smith, and Littlechild (among others) all said at various times that the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police didn't know the murderer's identity, and some of them even named other suspects.

Hi RJ

You have hit the nail firmly on the head and in the absence of any mention of this ID by those you have mentioned it is right to question the authenticity of that marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How could they have? Anderson never mentioned a Seaside Home identification or any other specific event that could be directly analyzed or rebutted. One can hardly dispute someone's claim without knowing what precisely they are referring to...

As long as one cloaks one's claims in secrecy it allows them to remain relatively immune from criticism.

Anderson's attitude was more of a matter of 'We at Scotland Yard knew, but I can't tell you...' He even said there was "no doubt whatsoever" about the murderer's identity.

But Anderson's rhetorical 'we knew' obviously backfired because Macnaghten, Abberline, Reid, Smith, and Littlechild (among others) all said at various times that the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police didn't know the murderer's identity, and some of them even named other suspects.

But wouldn’t there have been a risk of someone questioning former and currently serving officers. Any journalist might have been able to have said “well I’ve questioned x number of officers who were all serving at the time and not one of them recalls any identification of a suspect”? I’m not saying that they could have disproved anything but they might have raised doubts as to Anderson’s integrity or at least questioned his version of events.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But we know that Kosminski is not a name they plucked out of the air. And if Anderson wanted to just pin the murders on a local Jew why not someone like David Cohen ? Violent, incarcerated and died soon afterwards, no known relatives, perhaps picked up at a brothel thus association with prostitutes.
I am not saying Anderson is right, but Kosminski seems a strange choice without any known evidence. Not put in Colney hatch till Three and a half years after the last murder. Known to have family and prima facia, respectable family at that. Not much known of him having violent tendencies in and out of the asylum , no known confession.
Seems to me Anderson is sticking his neck far out , if he didn't have any reason at all from naming Kosminski [ as such ] apart from maybe him being the local loony when he was picked up.
I suspect there are some circumstances and events surrounding Kosminski we are not fully aware of, if at all.

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

But wouldn’t there have been a risk of someone questioning former and currently serving officers. Any journalist might have been able to have said “well I’ve questioned x number of officers who were all serving at the time and not one of them recalls any identification of a suspect”? I’m not saying that they could have disproved anything but they might have raised doubts as to Anderson’s integrity or at least questioned his version of events.

It's 1910. Twenty-two years later. How are these enterprising journalists going to chase down the officers involved when Anderson doesn't even name his suspect or tell when and where this identification took place?

It's all too vague.

Further, Anderson cloaks his startling revelation in the warning that the Met 'doesn't tell tales out of school.' Policemen's lips will be sealed.

Nonetheless, when one of the men who worked the case back in 1888 and 1889 was interviewed by journalists--Inspector Edmund Reid--he not only doubts Anderson's "theory"---he even challenges Anderson to prove it.

What is particularly strange is that Swanson identifies the suspect as part of a City of London Police inquiry, yet Major Smith doesn't seem to know anything about it, and Cox and/or Sagar are describing a suspect that certainly wasn't Aaron Kosminski because the City suspect (or at least one of them) had a wife and daughter.

[Monty]

According to Anderson the witness made a positive identification. I don't see attempting to remove the religious barrier to the identification as influencing the witness as it would not be getting him to change his identification in any way only to come forward with it. So I don't see it as being illegal or unethical or a problem if it came to court.

Now pressure to actually change his testimony is quite another thing and yes, it would not hold up in court.

c.d.

P.S. I don't think I worded this too well but hopefully my meaning is clear.

No problem. It’s clear.

it boils down to the witness. If he refuses to clarify (not testify) then the whole shebang goes down.

Also the question being is what evidence is there to charge?

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

What is particularly strange is that Swanson identifies the suspect as part of a City of London Police inquiry, yet Major Smith doesn't seem to know anything about it, and Cox and/or Sagar are describing a suspect that certainly wasn't Aaron Kosminski because the City suspect (or at least one of them) had a wife and daughter.

Roger, can you clarify the bit about the suspect's wife and daughter? I can't remember who said this off-hand.

With respect to Major Smith, I think he would have been aware of the ID -- he just didn't think it would amount to anything after he interviewed Lawende(?), but reluctantly allowed the proceeding to go ahead anyway.

[Damaso Marte]

Another question that I have is - do we think it possible that an ID might have taken place but the witness said that he couldn’t identify him and that he said, because of his uncertainty, that he was unwilling to send a potentially innocent, fellow Jew to the gallows? Could this have led the officers that were with him to believe that the only reason that he was unwilling to ID him was because he was a fellow Jew? And when this was related back to Anderson he took it as being true?

I have always suspected that if the Seaside Home thing actually happened, the whole "won't testify against a fellow Jew" thing was a motive imputed to the witness by others - by others who may have said certain prejudices about Jews.