Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



    Your continuous claims that the name was not present when first offered have been rebutted many times.
    An internal memo from Charles Sandell to the News of the World’s News Editor dated 15th April 1981, clearly says the book contains the name Kosminski.

    You have been told many times, why the article was not published, but simply refuse to accept such could indeed be the case.

    Perhaps you would be so kind as to post that memo?

    Comment


    • It's in Swanson by Adam Wood.


      "Contained in the papers was an internal memo from Charles Sandell to the News of the World’s News Editor dated 15th April 1981, which read:
      "Re Letter to the Editor about Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard’s files on the original Jack the Ripper case have remained a secret. The name of the man who murdered and mutilated five prostitutes in the late 1880s has been a matter of speculation for decades. One author named the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper, another said the killer was a homicidal doctor named Pedachenko, while a third said he was a barrister named Montague John Druitt. Now the grandson of the Scotland Yard detective, who was ordered to investigate the Ripper murders, believes he has stumbled on the true identity of Jack the Ripper. Mr. James Swanson, a 69-year-old retired Tannery director and general manager, who lives in Peaslake, near Dorking, Surrey, believes he has discovered the Ripper’s identity and the reasons why he was not brought to justice. Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D. at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity. The Yorkshire Ripper trial is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story. Mr. Swanson originally asked for 1,000 but he has come down to 750.""

      Surely you are aware of this document, if not you should be.

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Yes, we can I can still recall my first arrest, and I can still recall other significant cases I was involved in. If I have have been involved in the Ripper case I would have remembered all things connected to it for many years to come. So why are there so many inconsistencies in the senior police officers accounts? We have many who say on record that the identity of the killer was unknown, then we have two and only two trying to make us believe that the killer was identified when there is sweet FA as far as corroboration to what they say.

        The marginalia is corroboration and has to be treated as such because we have zero evidence of forgery.

        Insp Reid is a clear example of a police officer remembering in detail a case he was directly involved in years later the Mary Kelly murder!

        We have MM who was Swansons boss telling us that Kosminski was a suspect in some way and then he exonerates him. MM was Swansons boss but he never makes mention of an ID parade in relation to Kosminski.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Obviously some people have better memories that others. This is just a fact of life. It’s interesting though that you assume that Reid’s memory was good. How do you know that what he recalled he recalled correctly?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Obviously some people have better memories that others. This is just a fact of life. It’s interesting though that you assume that Reid’s memory was good. How do you know that what he recalled he recalled correctly?
          Come, come, Herlock.

          It's not a matter of 'bad memory.'

          Anderson is claiming--no, he's insisting--that Jack the Ripper was identified, that there was " no doubt whatsoever" to his identity, and therefore the Whitechapel Murders were not among the 'undiscovered crimes' of London.

          Are you suggesting that Reid, Major Smith, Abberline, Arnold, Macnaghten, Littlechild, etc. simply forgot that this was not the case?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Come, come, Herlock.

            It's not a matter of 'bad memory.'

            Anderson is claiming--no, he's insisting--that Jack the Ripper was identified, that there was " no doubt whatsoever" to his identity, and therefore the Whitechapel Murders were not among the 'undiscovered crimes' of London.

            Are you suggesting that Reid, Major Smith, Abberline, Arnold, Macnaghten, Littlechild, etc. simply forgot that this was not the case?
            I tend to think that Anderson could have been over-confident Roger. Perhaps whoever was at the identification noted hesitation on the part of the witness and assumed that it was due to his not wanting to identify a fellow Jew? The witness might have been more positive initially and then started to hedge as he began to doubt. Maybe he then said that he wasn’t prepared to ID a fellow Jew when he could have been mistaken?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Obviously some people have better memories that others. This is just a fact of life. It’s interesting though that you assume that Reid’s memory was good. How do you know that what he recalled he recalled correctly?
              Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                It's in Swanson by Adam Wood.


                "Contained in the papers was an internal memo from Charles Sandell to the News of the World’s News Editor dated 15th April 1981, which read:
                "Re Letter to the Editor about Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard’s files on the original Jack the Ripper case have remained a secret. The name of the man who murdered and mutilated five prostitutes in the late 1880s has been a matter of speculation for decades. One author named the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper, another said the killer was a homicidal doctor named Pedachenko, while a third said he was a barrister named Montague John Druitt. Now the grandson of the Scotland Yard detective, who was ordered to investigate the Ripper murders, believes he has stumbled on the true identity of Jack the Ripper. Mr. James Swanson, a 69-year-old retired Tannery director and general manager, who lives in Peaslake, near Dorking, Surrey, believes he has discovered the Ripper’s identity and the reasons why he was not brought to justice. Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D. at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew. Mr. James Swanson only recently discovered the book while examining the property of his Aunt who died a few months ago. He had also discovered the original document ordering the Yard detective to investigate the Ripper case. This in itself is unique. The document shows nine murders and one attempted murder. I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity. The Yorkshire Ripper trial is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story. Mr. Swanson originally asked for 1,000 but he has come down to 750.""

                Surely you are aware of this document, if not you should be.

                Steve
                No, I was not aware of that document but it still does not negate the view that the last line "Kosminksi was the suspect" could have been added because that line is out of context with the rest of the marginalia and does not explain why MM knew nothing about this ID procedure and he exonerates Kosminski from suspicion who is telling or writing porkies.

                My understanding is that there were two Charles Sandell documents the first which makes no mention of the name Kosminski and the second to which you refer

                Comment


                • That you were not aware of this , is simply astounding.
                  This document as been in the public domain for a number of years and is included in Adam Wood's Swanson. I work I would have assumed was essential if one wishes to discuss Swanson and the Marginlia.

                  Both this memo and the often quoted draft document were found together.
                  I further quote from Swanson

                  ""Attached to this memo was a 12-page document numbered ‘Jack 1’ to ‘Jack 12’, with Charles Sandell’s name appearing on the top right hand corner of the first page. The document, obviously a draft of the unused News of the World article (complete with handwritten revisions to the text), admits that little was known about the suspect named by Donald Swanson and that he was far from an exciting solution to the world’s greatest crime mystery: "Somewhere at Scotland Yard there must be a file on Kosminski for his name, and any papers referring to him, have been omitted from the papers available at the Public Records Office. The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes. He particularly hated prostitutes. Macnaghten’s report says: “This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices and he was removed to a lunatic asylum in 1889.” This substantiates Swanson’s comments. Kosminski lived in Whitechapel and consorted with prostitutes until he caught a venereal disease which may have led to his insanity. He certainly knew all the small alleyways in Whitechapel and he was known to have strong homicidal tendencies.""

                  I notice that when the draft document is quoted, this part of the bundle is rarely mentioned.

                  As for why Macnaghten says what he does, that's anyone's guess.
                  However, maybe the document should not be taken at face value, but that's a very different debate.

                  Who do I prefer to go with, the man who was in charge of coordinating the whole case, or a man who was NOT involved in the case, that's a no brainer.
                  Last edited by Elamarna; 03-27-2023, 03:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    And as I pointed out the other day, Anderson confused a detail of the Kelly murder with a detail of the McKenzie murder.

                    And we know that Anderson got confused about other things - such as the political parties to which prominent politicians belonged, the identity of a Home Secretary with whom he said he discussed the murders, and whether the identification of the alleged suspect took place before or after his incarceration.

                    And he never responded to Reid's contradiction of his claim that the police were convinced that the murderer was a Jew at the time that the murders were being investigated.

                    How could he?

                    He knew that what Reid stated was true.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Because all that he recalled about Mary Kelly is proven fact with the exception of one minor error

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Yes, he was mistaken about the heart.

                      Comment


                      • That you were not aware of this , is simply astounding.


                        I suggest it is astounding that you have not replied to my # 763, in which I responded to your # 758, in which you described an opinion I had expressed in # 757 as 'pure invention'.

                        Comment




                        • I further quote from Swanson

                          ..... The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes....

                          (ELAMARNA, # 773)

                          Whoever was responsible for the statement in bold, it was certainly pure invention.

                          The only 'crime' committed by Kosminski that has been uncovered is that of walking a dog without a muzzle 13 months after he is alleged to have spent two hours dissecting Mary Kelly.

                          What special arrangements were made for the man who, according to his accusers, was the most dangerous man in London, who had committed many supposedly-violent crimes, and was a menace to his fellow inmates at the asylums?

                          If there had been any, his accusers would be crowing.

                          Their glee on reading that the Polish maniac had to be put in a straitjacket, or have no knives and forks at mealtimes, would doubtless have been seized upon with glee, as would any mention of special arrangements having to be made because the asylum had been discreetly advised that this inmate was suspected of having murdered and mutilated five women.

                          Instead, it is recorded that he was not dangerous and that he was harmless.

                          The only invention here is in the case against Kosminski.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                            Which reader would that be?

                            He was writing in his own copy of the book, there is NO indication it was for anyone but himself.l, or that he expected anyone else to read it.



                            No no. Swanson fully expected that by the year 2023 amateur sleuths would be using a device called a computer or mobile phone to access a thing called a website where they would discuss all things JTR and discuss the investigation in depth. They would also pore over every word written by him in the book which he annotated.

                            Why didn't he give more information when he knew all this!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                              I further quote from Swanson

                              ..... The known facts about him are sketchy. He had a great hatred of women and according to Macnaghten, he had committed many crimes....

                              (ELAMARNA, # 773)

                              Whoever was responsible for the statement in bold, it was certainly pure invention.

                              The only 'crime' committed by Kosminski that has been uncovered is that of walking a dog without a muzzle 13 months after he is alleged to have spent two hours dissecting Mary Kelly.

                              What special arrangements were made for the man who, according to his accusers, was the most dangerous man in London, who had committed many supposedly-violent crimes, and was a menace to his fellow inmates at the asylums?

                              If there had been any, his accusers would be crowing.

                              Their glee on reading that the Polish maniac had to be put in a straitjacket, or have no knives and forks at mealtimes, would doubtless have been seized upon with glee, as would any mention of special arrangements having to be made because the asylum had been discreetly advised that this inmate was suspected of having murdered and mutilated five women.

                              Instead, it is recorded that he was not dangerous and that he was harmless.

                              The only invention here is in the case against Kosminski.
                              The quote is from a journalist, in 1981.
                              Of course it's wrong about "he had committed many crimes" . Macnaghten doesn't even say that.

                              No one at that stage even had a suggested a first name for Kosminski.

                              The reporter clearly knew nothing other than the name Kosminski was in the book.

                              That is what the quote shows, that the name Kosminski was in the book when he saw it in 1981.

                              Which fits the reason I was told the paper did not run the story, it was about an unknown person, and would have required hours if not weeks of research. Not worth the effort for them.
                              The late Martin Fido did just that, some 5 or 6 years later.

                              You assume the asylum would be told, you consider that to be obvious, but such need not be so.

                              You have made it very clear that you consider Anderson and Swanson lied and that it's impossible the killer was Jewish.

                              That's your position, it clearly will never change, there is nothing to be gained by debating seriously with you. A close mind.
                              Last edited by Elamarna; 03-27-2023, 06:37 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                                A few answers to the questions that people cant answer according to your post.

                                The suggestion that Kosminski likely had an alibi for some of the murders takes us from reasoned speculation to pure invention.


                                That you wish to believe that Swanson intended his notes to become public is also simply a personal opinion.

                                One could ask, did he therefore expect any of the comments and notes he made in other books to likewise become public?
                                Did such happen?

                                You suggest making Notes for oneself is NOT CREDIBLE, the reality is many people do just that every day.

                                On to the ID

                                Your contention that Swanson could only have meant the Home at Hove is again simply your opinion.
                                That you are unwilling to accept that you may be wrong speaks volumes.

                                The insistence that ONLY this location fits is an example of the same thinking, as the supporters of suspect X or Y , who insist ONLY their suspect is possible as the killer, ONLY they are CORRECT.

                                With regards to why Swanson used capitals, one might suggest that he was talking of a certain place, which HE was aware of, and where the ID took place.
                                He could very well have meant the Home in Hove, but such is NOT the only possibility.

                                If the ID occurred in late 88 or early 89, as proposed by those supporting Cohen as Anderson's suspect, then clearly the reference CANNOT be refering to that establishment.


                                Swanson says, that after the ID, no more murders of this type occurred, he does not say when the last murder occurred in relation to the murders stopping, just that no more occurred after the ID took place.

                                For many who like AK as Kosminski, we could say this last murder was possibly McKenzie in mid 89.
                                For those people, the ID may have taken place in Mid 90, during the time Aaron is supposedly at the workhouse before being released to his brother.

                                Such however is speculation, it is based on the fact that Aaron is out of circulation for a period that would allow the moment to the Seaside Home, and his return is as per the Marginlia.
                                It is however. Speculation, and is presented as such. It is not presented as the ONLY interpretation.

                                For those who prefer an unknown Kosminski , they may suggest Coles was the last murder and that the ID occurred sometime after her death .

                                Such again could be supported by several arguments. Firstly that Coles is included on the list of possible victims, and is the last in the file.
                                Secondly that in 1890, Anderson is hinting that the identity of the killer is still unknown, but by 92, he is indicating the killer is known.

                                Both of those murdrrs are completely in order for the ID taking place in Hove, either in 90 or 91.

                                It is very clear, that you have made your mind up on several issues.

                                1.That the Killer could not be Jewish, a totally unrealistic standpoint, to rule out a large proportion of the local population.

                                2. That Anderson and Swanson lied, and knowingly lied. Such is simply your personal opinion.

                                There seems to be little point in debating with you, debate is meant to explore the possibilities, and be ready to concede that one may be incorrect.
                                Such is never going to occur with you PI, you are so convinced your opinion is not only correct, but the only opinion precludes meaningful debate.

                                It has always been fairly clear to me that the ID took place in July 1890 during Kosminski's first stint in the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was released to his brothers care, watched by City CID and a short time later taken back to the workhouse with hands tied behind his back. We know from the records that Kosminski was released from the workhouse into his brother in laws care in July 1890 and in February 1891 taken back to the workhouse and committed as insane. So that is the period in which City CID watched him day and night.

                                I like Tom Westcotts suggestion that Major Smith when speaking about Joseph Lawende years later was actually delivering a fatal blow to Andersons claims that the witness had unhesitatingly identified Kosminski as the man seen near Mitre Square and hence JTR. Lawende however at the Inquest says he probably would not recognise the man again. He did not say he definitely would not. So that is significant in viewing Anderson and Swanson as seeing Lawende as useful in that regard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X