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

[Abby Normal]

Kosminski has no alibi that we know of. I don't think that he was the Ripper, but we have no evidence that shows he was probably, let alone definitely somewhere else when the victims were killed.

In contrast to Prince Albert Victor, who had solid alibis. Or William Gull, who was a recovering stroke victim. Or Charles Lechmere, who was at work when some of the murders were committed. Or Robert Anderson and Walter Sickert, who weren't even in England when some of the murders occurred.

fiver
you kind of lose credibility when in arguing with someone who says koz had an alibi you do so by giving counter example of another suspect who you say also had an alibi.. lechmere.. and that he was at work. really? were you there? have you seen his work records??
Lech dosnt have an alibi as much as koz dosnt.
and william gull wasnt the ripper but recently having a stroke does not give him an alibi either.

and you were doing so well.

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you ever considered that it might be because you’re wrong?

I considered it while assessing and evaluating the facts and evidence I referred to, but quickly dismissed that consideration as a non-starter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I considered it while assessing and evaluating the facts and evidence I referred to, but quickly dismissed that consideration as a non-starter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm sorry to hear that William Gull doesn't have an alibi.

How about Sagar's Pc who said he saw a man of Jewish appearance leaving Mitre Square?

Maybe the Pc made it up and was himself the murderer?

According to the same people who claim that the Pc's sighting means the murderer must have been Jewish, because he was of Jewish appearance, it is ludicrous to suggest that anyone could have distinguished Jews and Gentiles at that time.

Can the Pc provide alibis for any of the other murders?

It seems he had no alibi.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is clear that you don't accept the comments of either Anderson or Swanson, yet are happy to accept those of men , who were either not directly involved, or involved at a lower level, or not involved for the full duration of the case.

Anderson wrote:

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews ... And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

Evidently, the men whom you refer to did not recognise themselves in the line quoted above.

Whom did Anderson mean by we and our?

There seems to have been a remarkable shortage of policemen who were party to a conclusion reached which necessarily had a radical effect on the course of the investigation.

For Anderson was stating quite clearly that a point was reached in the investigation when, in spite of the absence of a suspect, it was decided that the murderer had to be a Jew.

Abberline was unaware of that.

Smith knew nothing of it.

Reid denied it.

Swanson kept his mouth shut.

How could the investigation have taken such a dramatic turn with no-one or almost no-one knowing about it?

How could Abberline have been seeking gentile suspects while Anderson had already ruled them out?

How can anyone accept Anderson's comment quoted above to be true?

[Bridewell]

First, why would officers keeping a suspect under surveillance to see whether he is about to commit a murder stop him in connection with a petty offence?


I made no mention of them being the ones who stopped him. The likely scenario would be that they would draw his actions to the attention of a uniform colleague.


I am sure that Trevor Marriott can tell you the likelihood of something like that having happened.


I am aware of Trevor Marriott's background. He was a police officer for thirty odd years. So was I.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

First, why would officers keeping a suspect under surveillance to see whether he is about to commit a murder stop him in connection with a petty offence?


I made no mention of them being the ones who stopped him. The likely scenario would be that they would draw his actions to the attention of a uniform colleague.


I think you did.

You wrote:

The surveillance by City CID is what you are referring to is it? The City of London where he was caught walking a dog without a muzzle? That City of London? I wonder who caught him doing that. Could it perhaps have been the City of London officers who were conducting the surveillance who caught him doing that in the City of London?


I am sure that Trevor Marriott can tell you the likelihood of something like that having happened.


I am aware of Trevor Marriott's background. He was a police officer for thirty odd years. So was I.


In that case, you ought to realise that something like that would not have happened.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The ID was I suggested not carried out with the intention of using it in a court of law, but to confirm, the man they suspected, was the man seen by the witness.
Again I cover all this in the Rippercast episode mentioned above.

Anderson and Swanson made it quite clear that the whole point of the identification was to use the identification evidence in a court of law.

Anderson's supposed interest in a certain Polish Jew was not an academic one.

He claimed to be seeking a conviction:

... it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice.

... [the witness] refused to give evidence against [the suspect].


And Swanson:

because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect...


One is bound to ask why, if the identification was not carried out with the intention of using it in a court of law, the witness refused to give evidence.

Why on earth would someone refuse to do something which had not even been asked of him?

[Wickerman]

The Police Code directly states a suspect cannot be charged if he is found to be insane. The Law defined Insane as the inability to know what he was doing was wrong, or the person had no control over his actions at the time of the crime.
These were the restrictions in effect at the time, and both Anderson & Swanson knew they couldn't charge an insane person.
We must interpret their words with those restrictions in mind.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Police Code directly states a suspect cannot be charged if he is found to be insane. The Law defined Insane as the inability to know what he was doing was wrong, or the person had no control over his actions at the time of the crime.
These were the restrictions in effect at the time, and both Anderson & Swanson knew they couldn't charge an insane person.
We must interpret their words with those restrictions in mind.

One is bound to ask why, if the identification was not carried out with the intention of using it in a court of law, the witness refused to give evidence.

Why on earth would someone refuse to do something which had not even been asked of him?

[Wickerman]

One is bound to ask why, if the identification was not carried out with the intention of using it in a court of law, the witness refused to give evidence.

Why on earth would someone refuse to do something which had not even been asked of him?

The dilemma you face should tell you the pieces we are left with do not fit together.
We know what the law permits, so perhaps it is the story that is at fault.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The dilemma you face should tell you the pieces we are left with do not fit together.
We know what the law permits, so perhaps it is the story that is at fault.

Anderson must have realised there was something wrong with the story he told the first time, which is why all mention of the incarceration was removed from it.

But then, the story as told by him and, later, Swanson, is one in which the suspect is not yet confined in an asylum and a witness refuses to testify against him.

And that is why, according to Anderson and Swanson, no prosecution occurred.

Of course, even that story is at fault!

But Anderson and Swanson could not have been more definite that the police's intention had been to prosecute the suspect, something which, in my submission, never happened - not because it would have been legally impossible but because Kosminski was not a suspect in 1888, 1889, nor 1890, nor even February 1891.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Police Code directly states a suspect cannot be charged if he is found to be insane. The Law defined Insane as the inability to know what he was doing was wrong, or the person had no control over his actions at the time of the crime.
These were the restrictions in effect at the time, and both Anderson & Swanson knew they couldn't charge an insane person.
We must interpret their words with those restrictions in mind.

If the suspect had been deemed to be insane then the authorities would not have allowed him to be taken out of their custody for an ID

So we must assume that if this ID took place as described and it did relate to Aaron Kosminski he was not insane

If you are referring to the Kosminski ID if he had been deemed to be insane they would not have taken him home afterwards and simply left him to his own devices

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Anderson must have realised there was something wrong with the story he told the first time, which is why all mention of the incarceration was removed from it.

Macnaghten wrote he had been incarcerated in March of '89, which doesn't fit with Kozminski's records, so did he get the date wrong, or the name wrong?

That aside, given the fact Mac. did believe Kozminski had been sent to an asylum, why would Anderson leave that detail out?
If it were true, he could have simply included the asylum detail after the ID instead of before?

But then, the story as told by him and, later, Swanson, is one in which the suspect is not yet confined in an asylum and a witness refuses to testify against him.

Right, which means the ID must have taken place before March of '89 (Macnaghten).

So, which ever theory we choose, we are required to argue a high ranking policeman got it wrong, and this without any firm evidence.

But Anderson and Swanson could not have been more definite that the police's intention had been to prosecute the suspect, something which, in my submission, never happened - not because it would have been legally impossible but because Kosminski was not a suspect in 1888, 1889, nor 1890, nor even February 1891.

I'm not so sure about that.
The police can have him locked up if he can be certified as insane, but the police still need to know if he was responsible for the murders, even though they cannot charge him with any of them. Something must call a halt to the murder investigation at some point, even without a trial.

[Wickerman]

If the suspect had been deemed to be insane then the authorities would not have allowed him to be taken out of their custody for an ID

At some point, they have to. He does not stay in police custody for the rest of his life.
As they can not charge him, they can only insure he is committed.
Once he is committed he is out of their custody, but that does not mean if in the future a witness comes forward that an I.D. cannot be organized.
It is only to be expected that S.Y. would play a role in arranging the I.D., whereby Swanson could claim the suspect was 'sent by us' even if only by written authorization. But I'm sure a police presence of some form would be expected, as escort if nothing else.

If you are referring to the Kosminski ID if he had been deemed to be insane they would not have taken him home afterwards and simply left him to his own devices

Agreed, any certification would have to come later.