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

[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?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Would he know whether the murders stopped before or after the Seaside Home opened?

Would he know whether Kosminski returned to his brother's house after a brief stay in a workhouse or after a brief trip to the seaside?

Would he know whether Kosminski was dangerous and, therefore, whether he needed to be placed under restraint?

Would he know when Kosminski died - to within less than 30 years?

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

In that case, would you please explain why the police did not charge Kosminski or even arrest him - and instead allowed him to go home?

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

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 ?

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
We simply do not know how Swanson thought about serial killers and how they operate . This was the first case of its kind. For instance MM believed that the killers mind would likely give way after Mary and that he would commit suicide . Perhaps one of the reasons he preferred Druitt over Kosminski but acknowledging at the same time that Kosminski was a strong suspect.
The idea that serial killers cannot suddenly stop killing for any length of time is now a defunct one. And how do you know that is what Swanson believed anyway? He could have believed as Anderson put that he would only kill when the mania affected him and may lay dormant for other periods of time.

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.

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

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, describe 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.

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

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

So why did he write what he did then ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Who says he knew them to be false?

This is just bizarre . Swanson was a man at the very epicentre of the investigation . He would know if an important ID happened or not

Would he know whether the murders stopped before or after the Seaside Home opened?

Would he know whether Kosminski returned to his brother's house after a brief stay in a workhouse or after a brief trip to the seaside?

Would he know whether Kosminski was dangerous and, therefore, whether he needed to be placed under restraint?

Would he know when Kosminski died - to within less than 30 years?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Elamarna has argued repeatedly that the reason other senior police officers knew nothing about the identification is that they were not part of a privileged circle who knew of it and yet now you are saying that even Anderson did not know what had happened!

I never said Anderson didn't know . What I was getting at is the police may [ note may ], not have found out that Lawende refused [ or thought it ] to testify against a fellow Jew until a later date.

In that case, would you please explain why the police did not charge Kosminski or even arrest him - and instead allowed him to go home?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Elamarna has argued repeatedly that the reason other senior police officers knew nothing about the identification is that they were not part of a privileged circle who knew of it and yet now you are saying that even Anderson did not know what had happened!

I never said Anderson didn't know . What I was getting at is the police may [ note may ], not have found out that Lawende refused [ or thought it ] to testify against a fellow Jew until a later date.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Who says he knew them to be false?

This is just bizarre . Swanson was a man at the very epicentre of the investigation . He would know if an important ID happened or not