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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Again Kosminski was never arrested and charged because the witness refused to swear to him .

I suggest that is hardly possible because not only would Kosminski have had to be arrested in order to get him to the Seaside Home, but the witness could not have learned that Kosminski was Jewish and announced his about-turn so quickly that there would not have been enough time to arrest (in the event he had not yet been arrested) and charge the suspect.


And it is not obvious at all that Lawende,s suspect was a gentile.

It is.

It was quite obvious that fair-moustached men with the appearance of sailors were almost certainly Gentiles.

You have only to read what people recorded at the time to see that Jews and Gentiles were distinguishable.


If it was he wouldn't have first thought the person he saw was Kosminski who according to you his family had Jewish appearances

There is no evidence that Lawende thought Aaron Kosminski was the fair-moustached man with the appearance of a sailor whom he saw in Duke Street.

The only photographic evidence we have suggests that Aaron Kosminski was of recognisably Jewish appearance.

[Sunny Delight]

It is interesting that MM writes that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. Anderson states that a witness unhesitatingly identified Kosminski as the Whitechapel Murderer. Swanson writes that suspect knew he had been identified. This is obviously all connected. I think though Sugden summed it up when he said that Anderson in particular contented himself with the knowledge that no matter what was said he had the Ripper bang to rights. This was wishful thinking.

I think from what we know about Kosminski he is not a very strong suspect.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Only one witness could have seen the Whitechapel Murderer and that was Joseph Lawende.

It is obvious that the suspect described by him as having a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor was a Gentile.

There is no evidence that a Jewish witness ever saw a Jewish suspect, just as there has never been any evidence to support Anderson's allegation that Kosminski's relatives facilitated his alleged commission of the murders.

If it is true that the police asked Lawende to identify Sadler and Grainger, both of whom were Gentiles and one of whom was a sailor, then it is hardly possible that Lawende had already identified a Polish Jew as the murderer.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions an ID parade and the only explanation is that the identification was supposed by Anderson to have taken place in an asylum, in which case it cannot be earlier than February 1891.

One is bound to ask what possible evidence against Kosminski could have come to light during the two and a half or more years since Lawende supposedly saw him in Duke Street that would have suggested to the police that Lawende should try to identify him - other than his arraignment for walking a dog in public without a muzzle.

Swanson's account of the identification is totally unbelievable.

The idea that anyone would have authorised the transportation of a London-based witness and London-based suspect to a convalescent home on the coast, thereby putting the welfare of convalescents at risk, and that the most infamous murderer in England would have consented to such a transfer without even having been arrested, is ludicrous.

If the identification had taken place as claimed, then the suspect would have been arrested.

The account given by Anderson/Swanson - that the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish following his identification of him, refused to testify against him, and that the suspect was therefore sent home - is not credible.

In reality, by the time the witness could have changed his mind, the suspect would have been arrested and charged.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever stated that he was arrested, let alone charged.

The identification of Kosminski / the Polish Jew never happened.

Again Kosminski was never arrested and charged because the witness refused to swear to him . And it is not obvious at all that Lawende,s suspect was a gentile. If it was he wouldn't have first thought the person he saw was Kosminski who according to you his family had Jewish appearances

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

That only strengthens my case that Swanson's Kosminski is not one person. So which people were he then ? And why did Swanson say Kosminski was the suspect , instead of Tom, Dick and Harry ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You said the ID parade was mythical so according to you there was no witness nor suspect . Do you still believe that ?

Only one witness could have seen the Whitechapel Murderer and that was Joseph Lawende.

It is obvious that the suspect described by him as having a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor was a Gentile.

There is no evidence that a Jewish witness ever saw a Jewish suspect, just as there has never been any evidence to support Anderson's allegation that Kosminski's relatives facilitated his alleged commission of the murders.

If it is true that the police asked Lawende to identify Sadler and Grainger, both of whom were Gentiles and one of whom was a sailor, then it is hardly possible that Lawende had already identified a Polish Jew as the murderer.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions an ID parade and the only explanation is that the identification was supposed by Anderson to have taken place in an asylum, in which case it cannot be earlier than February 1891.

One is bound to ask what possible evidence against Kosminski could have come to light during the two and a half or more years since Lawende supposedly saw him in Duke Street that would have suggested to the police that Lawende should try to identify him - other than his arraignment for walking a dog in public without a muzzle.

Swanson's account of the identification is totally unbelievable.

The idea that anyone would have authorised the transportation of a London-based witness and London-based suspect to a convalescent home on the coast, thereby putting the welfare of convalescents at risk, and that the most infamous murderer in England would have consented to such a transfer without even having been arrested, is ludicrous.

If the identification had taken place as claimed, then the suspect would have been arrested.

The account given by Anderson/Swanson - that the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish following his identification of him, refused to testify against him, and that the suspect was therefore sent home - is not credible.

In reality, by the time the witness could have changed his mind, the suspect would have been arrested and charged.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever stated that he was arrested, let alone charged.

The identification of Kosminski / the Polish Jew never happened.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

So how come MM names him as a strong suspect.


He does not!

He named him a strong 'suspect' (his inverted commas).

Moreover, he removed his reference to a possible sighting of him by a policeman and expressed his inclination to exonerate him.

He never mentions any arrest, nor any incriminating evidence, nor any eyewitness evidence against him.

He indicates that the only evidence against him was circumstantial.

Some suspect.



How come Anderson [ when he almost certainly means Kosminski ] names him as the killer as does Swanson in private notes and according to Swanson's family that he was pretty certain who the murderer was without naming him.


How come neither Anderson nor Swanson ever named the witness who supposedly identified him as the murderer, never mentioned any incriminating evidence, never mentioned any arrest, never mentioned any search of his home or belongings, never mentioned any interrogation of him, never mentioned any failure on his part to produce an alibi for any of the murders, never mentioned any charges brought against the suspect, and never explained how the witness could have learned that the suspect was Jewish following his identification but before the suspect could be arrested?



We also have Sagar mentioning a suspect who was put in an asylum who he felt was the killer , which could refer to Kosminski .


Sagar could not have been referring to Anderson's suspect because according to Sagar the suspect was of Jewish appearance, whereas Anderson indicated that he was not recognisably Jewish.

Furthermore, Sagar's suspect worked in Butcher's Row, whereas Aaron Kosminski was an unemployed hairdresser.

Moreover, Sagar's suspect was, so he claimed, put in an asylum by his friends, whereas Kosminski was put in an asylum by his relatives.


What did they do stick a pin in the asylum records and plump for him as the mad Jewish suspect ? Why not Hyams, Cohen or Levy for instance who prima facie are better qualified to be the mad Jewish suspect. ?


You omitted John Piser.

Like Anderson's suspect, he was unhesitatingly identified by a witness, but cleared after producing unimpeachable alibis.

As I have previously suggested, it is likely that Aaron Kosminski had at least one alibi for the murders.

According to Elamarna, that is pure invention.

It is nothing of the kind.

Kosminski was never arrested, never questioned, and never asked what he was doing at the times of any of the murders.

If Piser had never been accused, we would likely have posters claiming that he had no alibi.

Far from being pure invention, what I am writing is common sense.

It was possible for Kosminski to become a 'suspect' years after the murders precisely because he WAS NOT A SUSPECT at the time of the investigation.

As for Cohen, if you mean Nathan Kaminsky, he may well be part of the composite-Kosminski of Swanson's imagination.

If it is true that he was taken into care about a month after the last murder, was incarcerated in the same asylum as Kosminski, had to be placed under restraint because of violent behaviour, and died within months of being incarcerated, then it is plausible that some confusion between Kosminski and Kaminsky took place.

That only strengthens my case that Swanson's Kosminski is not one person.

[Darryl Kenyon]

There never was any case against Kosminski.

So how come MM names him as a strong suspect. How come Anderson [ when he almost certainly means Kosminski ] names him as the killer as does Swanson in private notes and according to Swanson's family that he was pretty certain who the murderer was without naming him. We also have Sagar mentioning a suspect who was put in an asylum who he felt was the killer , which could refer to Kosminski .

What did they do stick a pin in the asylum records and plump for him as the mad Jewish suspect ? Why not Hyams, Cohen or Levy for instance who prima facie are better qualified to be the mad Jewish suspect. ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

As I have pointed out before, this is the only case in British criminal history in which it is alleged that an unnamed witness identified a murderer but that the murderer was never arrested nor charged, but allowed to go straight home.

There never was any case against Kosminski.

You said the ID parade was mythical so according to you there was no witness nor suspect . Do you still believe that ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Alright then what is option 4 ?

You say that people relate events which could not have happened and nobody called them liars .
Swanson must have a very serious memory problem then to misremember an ID which never took place [ mythical as you say ]. To mention a suspect who never really was, but an amalgamation of people [ which part refers to Kosminski by the way , and which parts refer to the other people and who were they ? ]. To misremember very specific details like being sent to his brothers house a workhouse then an asylum . But he isn't a liar ? Yes 20 odd years later without any research tools like the net and just writing cursory notes within a book for his own consumption some mistakes would be made [ as would probably happen with most people ] but the whole caboodle ? Not for me

As I have pointed out before, this is the only case in British criminal history in which it is alleged that an unnamed witness identified a murderer but that the murderer was never arrested nor charged, but allowed to go straight home.

There never was any case against Kosminski.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have known people who related events which provably could not have happened.

No one ever called them liars.

I did not even accuse them of making anything up.

You cannot narrow down the list of possible explanations to just the three you have given.

Alright then what is option 4 ?

You say that people relate events which could not have happened and nobody called them liars .
Swanson must have a very serious memory problem then to misremember an ID which never took place [ mythical as you say ]. To mention a suspect who never really was, but an amalgamation of people [ which part refers to Kosminski by the way , and which parts refer to the other people and who were they ? ]. To misremember very specific details like being sent to his brothers house a workhouse then an asylum . But he isn't a liar ? Yes 20 odd years later without any research tools like the net and just writing cursory notes within a book for his own consumption some mistakes would be made [ as would probably happen with most people ] but the whole caboodle ? Not for me

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You keep asking me questions but you have not answered the one question I put to you
A man at the very centre of the JTR investigation writes private notes which must be seen as very important to anyone who follows the case yet you dismiss them completely .
Why ?
1- They are a forgery
2- Swanson made it up believe, remembering actual events in
3- He is writing cursory notes in a time before the web etc [ for reference ] on an event which took place 20 odd years previously . And he is doing this in one or maybe two sittings and he is remembering [ and remember nobody memory is infallible ], them as best he can at that moment .

For your info, I prefer option 3 And trying to make sense of them
So which is it please ?

I have known people who related events which provably could not have happened.

No one ever called them liars.

I did not even accuse them of making anything up.

You cannot narrow down the list of possible explanations to just the three you have given.


If Swanson was, as you believe, recollecting actual events in which he was personally involved, his account could not contain so many glaringly-obvious errors and contradictions.

First, he contradicts Anderson about whether the suspect was already incarcerated at the time of his identification.

This is crucial because, for example, if Anderson was correct then quite obviously Kosminski could not have returned to his brother's house following the identification and his house would not have been put under CID surveillance!

And Anderson never mentioned any CID surveillance.

And Smith knew nothing about it.

It is obvious that the CID surveillance did not take place as claimed by Swanson.

Secondly, Swanson claims that Kosminski was placed under restraint.

There is no evidence of his ever having been placed under restraint in 30 years of asylum records.

Swanson implies that he was considered to be dangerous.

His committal order states that he was not dangerous and his carers described him as harmless.

During 30 years in asylums, he never once attacked anyone.

It is obvious that Kosminsk's hands were never tied behind his back as related by Swanson.

Thirdly, Swanson claimed that the murders stopped because Kosminski was identified at the Seaside Home.

The murders stopped - according to Scotland Yard - in 1888, more than two years before the Seaside Home opened.

It is quite obvious that Swanson's claim that the murders stopped because of Kosminski's alleged identification at the Seaside Home cannot possibly be true.

Fourthly, Swanson has Kosminski dying about 30 years earlier than he actually did.

You suggest that was due to some misunderstanding.

I suggest you are missing the point, which is that the Kosminski of the Swanson Marginalia is not a historical person but a combo-person, incorporating aspects of the Macnaghten Memoranda and Anderson's memoirs and that it is beyond mere coincidence that Macnaghten believed the murderer died soon after the last murder, that his favourite suspect was a man who actually died in 1888, and that according to Anderson's own son, Anderson believed that the murderer died not long afterwards too.

Swanson was not given the wrong information about Kosminski's death by anyone at the asylum.

They would hardly have made such a mistake.

The mistake was entirely Swanson's because he was relating a myth about the Whitechapel Murderer and not actual facts about Aaron Kosminski.

It is staring any researcher in the face that there never was a case against Kosminski.

There is no explicit statement by Macnaghten, Anderson, or Swanson that he ever was arrested and, consequently, Swanson's claim that he was sent to the coast to be identified is completely unbelievable, especially as no-one would have authorised such a trip when both witness and suspect were in London.

It is not believable that the police would have sent the Whitechapel Murderer to a convalescent home and thereby put convalescents' welfare at risk.

The claim made by Anderson and Swanson that the suspect was identified as the Whitechapel Murderer is completely unbelievable because he would then have been arrested and charged immediately - before the witness had time to change his mind.

The fact that there is no evidence that Kosminski was ever arrested and that not even Anderson or Swanson ever mention an arrest should cause any serious researcher - or even just a curious enquirer - to dismiss the case against Kosminski out of hand.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

You keep asking me questions but you have not answered the one question I put to you
A man at the very centre of the JTR investigation writes private notes which must be seen as very important to anyone who follows the case yet you dismiss them completely .
Why ?
1- They are a forgery
2- Swanson made it up
3- He is writing cursory notes in a time before the web etc [ for reference ] on an event which took place 20 odd years previously . And he is doing this in one or maybe two sittings and he is remembering [ and remember nobody memory is infallible ], them as best he can at that moment .

For your info, I prefer option 3 And trying to make sense of them
So which is it please ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

That is just your opinion . Again if he wasn't remembering anything what was he doing making private notes ?

Where is the evidence that anything Swanson wrote came from his personal recollection?


His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.

No it does not

Yes it does!

And nothing you have written in reply actually addresses this point.

If Swanson believed the murders stopped because of Kosminski's identification, then it could not have taken place in the Seaside Home as he claimed.

If you claim that Swanson means February 1891, 27 months after the last murder, then Swanson's claim cannot be sustained.

Either way, he is not remembering anything.


His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

There have been other cases in history were the police, or certain police officers have had a prime suspect but not enough to charge them [ Green river killer for instance ] . I suggest with Kosminski they knew without a positive ID there was no way they could make the case stick.

Anderson claimed they had a positive ID.

It is not believable that the witness changed his mind about testifying before Kosminski could be charged or arrested and this is another point you do not address.


In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

That was in 1890 . I suggest the ID happened early 1891

And how would Kosminski have been sent to the seaside without any arrest and without his consent?


His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describes him as harmless and not dangerous.

I would suggest that it was common practice for the police back then to put someone in a strait jacket who had threatened someone with a knife and was showing signs of insanity

When Hyam Hyans was put in an asylum for predominantly attacking his wife and his mother in law plus having a weak mind . He was sent there under restraint and described as violent and dangerous. Yet he was released only a few months later as having been cured . Kosminski never was.

But Kosminski was described as being harmless and NOT dangerous.

Where is the evidence that HE was put in a straitjacket or under any kind of restraint?


Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

I believe [ and I have written a piece elsewhere ] that the confusion over Kosminski's death occurred when he was transferred to Leavesden

Anderson and Swanson always have to be got off the hook by reference to some misunderstanding.

It cannot be because they are describing events that did not happen.


Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

So why did he write what he did then ?

One does not need to answer that question to know that he had no personal familiarity with the events he related.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So you believe the main officer in the case Swanson was practically in the dark on who the suspects were ? And if he was why didn't he make enquires to Anderson on who this suspect in his biography was ? Or contradict him instead of seeming to back him up

Swanson did contradict Anderson on the location of the suspect at the time at which he was identified.

Anderson has him in an asylum whereas Swanson has him at the seaside.

But what reason is there to think that Anderson's familiarity with the facts about Kosminski and his relatives was any better than Swanson's?

According to Anderson, Isaac Kosminski, who was a freemason, was a low-class Polish Jew who, together with Kosminski's sister, hid the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer from the police, enabling him to continue to eviscerate women, and presumably helped him to dispose of organs from three of his victims.

Does anyone here actually believe such nonsense?

Does anyone here actually believe Anderson when he claims that Scotland Yard arrived collectively at the twin conclusions that the murderer could not be living alone and that he must therefore be Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because without the ID they did not have enough to charge him. But they still considered him a strong suspect otherwise the City CID would not have kept watch on him . Which I believe is something you dispute

According to Anderson, he was identified by the witness.

The suspect would have been charged with murder or at least have been taken into custody.

There is no reason to think - and neither Anderson nor Swanson gives any reason to think - that the witness would have announced his refusal to testify prior to Kosminski's being charged or at least arrested.

Yet neither Anderson nor Swanson ever claimed that the suspect was ever arrested or charged.

Can anyone cite another case in British criminal history in which an unnamed witness is reported to have identified a murderer but the suspect is never arrested, let alone charged, and instead allowed to go straight home?