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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Of course.

Anderson had to imply that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance because, at the same time, he claimed that the witness would not testify against someone whom he knew to be a fellow Jew.

Had Anderson indicated, as Sagar did, that the suspect was of Jewish appearance, then he would have been at a complete loss to explain why the witness would have come forward in the first place.

In reality, the man seen by Lawende was obviously not Jewish.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They all had dark hair, none had a fair moustache, and none looked anything like a sailor.

So the man seen in Church passage could possibly not be a Jew because of the fair moustache and he dressed somewhat like a sailor . Well the moustache has already been dealt with by Herlock satisfactorily for me with the lighting issue .

As for dressing like a sailor the jacket [ as you suggested is what sailors wear ] is a non starter for me . As for the neckerchief anyone could buy one of them at any market I would suggest. Even Kate was wearing a neckerchief the night she was murdered.

Now lets look at the ID Lawende picks out Kosminski the instant he was confronted with him . A man who wasn't a sailor but a man who must have had dark hair etc [ not fair, like the man seen ] like his Jewish family according to you . So he must have looked nothing like the killer . Yet Lawende still picked him out . Had he gone blind ?
Worse Lawende was used in the ID of Sadler not long later, but failed to pick him out . And lo and behold Sadler was a sailor .

So in summary Lawende picks a man out who was a Jew, unhesitatingly . Yet someone who may look like the man seen, Sadler being a sailor he fails to . That's not to say he should pick every sailor out but the idea that Lawende's suspect was a nordic sailor and 100% not a Jew , [ because of his appearance ] and that is that . Well I don't buy it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The point is that the suspect could have been Jewish without appearing to be so. So the witness asking is not unreasonable.

Why would the witness ask the police whether a suspect is Jewish?

If he were curious to know, why would he wait until after he had identified him as a murderer before asking?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Look at your post again PI . You say - Anderson had to imply that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance because, at the same time, he claimed that the witness would not testify against someone whom he knew to be a fellow Jew.
But at the same time you believe no ID took place . Which is it ?

You also say - Had Anderson indicated, as Sagar did, that the suspect was of Jewish appearance, then he would have been at a complete loss to explain why the witness would have come forward in the first place.
Are you suggesting that Sagar is suggesting some Jewish suspect or not ? If you are I am assuming that you believe Sagar along with Anderson and Swanson was in on this charade as well ?

I was explaining Anderson's reasoning.

And that means that the suspect, according to Anderson, could not have been recognisably Jewish.

That has nothing to do with whether such an identification really took place.

Sagar actually stated that a suspect in Mitre Square was of Jewish appearance - the very opposite of what Anderson claimed.

I have never claimed that Sagar was in on Anderson's charade.

It was evidently a separate one.

[c.d.]

You suggested that the suspect WAS of Jewish appearance, not that he was NOT!

Good Lord, man. Lighten up! Not every discussion has to rise to the level of a WWE Steel Cage Match.

What difference does it make what I suggested? I have no way of knowing (nor does anyone else) what the suspect looked like. He may have had a Jewish appearance or he might not have. The point is that the suspect could have been Jewish without appearing to be so. So the witness asking is not unreasonable.

I am not trying to trap you here. Just discussing the case. Why do you feel you have to "win" every argument?

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Look at your post again PI . You say - Anderson had to imply that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance because, at the same time, he claimed that the witness would not testify against someone whom he knew to be a fellow Jew.
But at the same time you believe no ID took place . Which is it ?

You also say - Had Anderson indicated, as Sagar did, that the suspect was of Jewish appearance, then he would have been at a complete loss to explain why the witness would have come forward in the first place.
Are you suggesting that Sagar is suggesting some Jewish suspect or not ? If you are I am assuming that you believe Sagar along with Anderson and Swanson was in on this charade as well ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Of course.

Anderson had to imply that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance because, at the same time, he claimed that the witness would not testify against someone whom he knew to be a fellow Jew.

Had Anderson indicated, as Sagar did, that the suspect was of Jewish appearance, then he would have been at a complete loss to explain why the witness would have come forward in the first place.

In reality, the man seen by Lawende was obviously not Jewish.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They all had dark hair, none had a fair moustache, and none looked anything like a sailor.

Why would Anderson have to imply anything ? He could have easily said that the witness recognised a fellow Jew through his appearance.

And why was the man seen by Lawende obviously not Jewish ? If he wasn't then Lawende would not have picked kosminski out if he looked nothing like the man he saw

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But, P.I., you will agree that having a Jewish appearance is not a requirement for being Jewish will you not?

c.d.

You suggested that the suspect WAS of Jewish appearance, not that he was NOT!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hmmm somebody bangs on for post after post citing that the man Lawende saw was of a sailor appearance so could not have been a Jew [ fair mustache and all that ]. Now lo and behold he is saying that and I quote Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

Regards Darryl

Of course.

Anderson had to imply that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance because, at the same time, he claimed that the witness would not testify against someone whom he knew to be a fellow Jew.

Had Anderson indicated, as Sagar did, that the suspect was of Jewish appearance, then he would have been at a complete loss to explain why the witness would have come forward in the first place.

In reality, the man seen by Lawende was obviously not Jewish.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They all had dark hair, none had a fair moustache, and none looked anything like a sailor.

[c.d.]

But, P.I., you will agree that having a Jewish appearance is not a requirement for being Jewish will you not?

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hmmm somebody bangs on for post after post citing that the man Lawende saw was of a sailor appearance so could not have been a Jew [ fair mustache and all that ]. Now lo and behold he is saying that and I quote Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That could hardly have happened because Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

But having a Jewish appearance is not a requirement for being Jewish.

c.d.

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

(c.d. # 897)


That could hardly have happened because Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR # 899)


But having a Jewish appearance is not a requirement for being Jewish.

(c.d. # 901)


It was you who suggested that the suspect may have been of Jewish appearance.

[c.d.]

That could hardly have happened because Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

But having a Jewish appearance is not a requirement for being Jewish.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You are right CD. I don't see why the police would keep that sort of info from the witness, if he asked.


Maybe you should ask Trevor Marriott the probability of the police giving the witness such confidential information so speedily following his identification of the suspect that they did not even have time to charge the suspect.

This is the only case in British criminal history in which it is alleged that an unnamed witness identified a man who had not even been arrested as an infamous murderer and yet the suspect was not even charged.



And the suspect could have spoke in the Jewish tongue as he was being identified as well.


That is hardly possible.

Anderson wrote: but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

He did not write: but when the suspect indicated to him that he was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.



Perhaps throwing expletives out at the police/witness .


Where is the record of that happening?

Where is there any mention of the suspect saying anything?



Swanson does allude to difficulties, and if the suspect was Kosminski he was near the end of his mental rope.


In that case, why transport a lunatic psychopathic serial murderer to Brighton rather than stage the identification in London?

And if Kosminski was so difficult to handle, why is there no mention in three decades of asylum records of any need to restrain him?

And why, if he was so difficult, was he described as harmless and as not dangerous?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

c.d.

That could hardly have happened because Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

He wrote: the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him

That means that he would have known whether the suspect was of Jewish appearance when he saw him in London.

He wrote also:

the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

That means that the suspect could not have been recognisably Jewish.

If he had been, the witness would not have come forward in the first place.

And that is why, as I have pointed out about half a dozen times so far, without so much as an acknowledgement from him, Scott Nelson's suggestion that the witness recognised the suspect as a fellow Jew when he saw him in Duke Street is a non-starter.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

c.d.

You are right CD. I don't see why the police would keep that sort of info from the witness, if he asked. And the suspect could have spoke in the Jewish tongue as he was being identified as well. Perhaps throwing expletives out at the police/witness . Swanson does allude to difficulties, and if the suspect was Kosminski he was near the end of his mental rope.

Regards Darryl