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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Regarding the ID of Sadler . I believe that the ID of Kosminski took place early 1891 as did the ID of Sadler . Why not use Lawende in another attempt at ID ? He was there having just been used recently.

I suggest a more plausible explanation is that Anderson created the identification from actual attempts at identification, including - as suggested by Joshua Rogan - that of Piser, who was also 'unhesitatingly' identified.


Besides we do not know for certain what happened with the ID of Kosminski .

We do not know that he was ever identified nor that he ever entered the Seaside Home.


It may have only reached Anderson at a later time why Lawende refused to testify .

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!


It may well be that different police forces used Lawende for the two different ID's [ City and Met ].

In the A6 murder case Valerie Storie viewed an ID parade were the first suspect for the murder Peter Alphon was present. She didn't pick him out, instead picking someone who was definitely innocent . Was she discredited ? Well, she was used again in another ID parade were she did pick out the murderer , Hanratty .
Asked later why she picked out an innocent man in the first parade she replied that she felt pressured into picking someone . Perhaps Lawende said something similar ?
Only later did the police feel he back tracked because he was picking out a fellow Jew .

The case against Hanratty was not built on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory like Anderson's.


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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

That isn't answering the question . They are just your opinions on why you think it is all a fantasy [ the ID etc ] .

They are not just my opinions.

If they are, why have you made no attempt to refute them?

I cited facts.


Again why would Swanson write some personal notes which he would know to be false and never happened. It just doesn't make sense

Who says he knew them to be false?

It makes more sense that they never happened than that Swanson was remembering actual events.

I suggest you have a go at refuting the five points I made above.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

Regarding the ID of Sadler . I believe that the ID of Kosminski took place early 1891 as did the ID of Sadler . Why not use Lawende in another attempt at ID ? He was there having just been used recently. Besides we do not know for certain what happened with the ID of Kosminski . It may have only reached Anderson at a later time why Lawende refused to testify . It may well be that different police forces used Lawende for the two different ID's [ City and Met ].

In the A6 murder case Valerie Storie viewed an ID parade were the first suspect for the murder Peter Alphon was present. She didn't pick him out, instead picking someone who was definitely innocent . Was she discredited ? Well, she was used again in another ID parade were she did pick out the murderer , Hanratty .
Asked later why she picked out an innocent man in the first parade she replied that she felt pressured into picking someone . Perhaps Lawende said something similar ?
Only later did the police feel he back tracked because he was picking out a fellow Jew .

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

That isn't answering the question . They are just your opinions on why you think it is all a fantasy [ the ID etc ] . Again why would Swanson write some personal notes which he would know to be false and never happened. It just doesn't make sense

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

According to Swanson, the suspect was Kosminski.

The witness has never been named.

In my view it was Lawende , you may differ

It must have been Lawende, IF you accept Anderson's story.


Not just according to me!

Photographs of Kosminski's siblings show people with dark hair who look nothing like sailors.

But the witness [ almost certainly Lawende ] DID pick him out

Only IF you accept Anderson's fantasy story.


Lawende would not have picked out a dark-haired East End Jew as someone he had described as a man having the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

See above answer

See above objection.


You still have not explained why the police would have asked Lawende to identify a gentile sailor if he had already identified a Polish Jew.

You never asked. But look at it this way , I think we can both agree that Lawende is likely to be the best witness, with the timescale and location. If Lawende had picked Sadler out his importance would have dropped. Picking two different people out of two different ID confrontations . But he didn't, which may have strengthened Anderson/Swansons view that he was a reliable witness. So it may have been seen as some kind of test much like an ID parade itself. Since Kosminski was not put on one, but confronted with the witness instead .

Anderson and Swanson needed Lawende to fail to identify Sadler or Grainger in order to be confident that Kosminski was the Whitechapel Murderer??


I would like to ask you a question - Why do you think that Swanson wrote private notes in a book remembering an event which you say never took place ?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

According to Swanson, the suspect was Kosminski.

The witness has never been named.

In my view it was Lawende , you may differ

Not just according to me!

Photographs of Kosminski's siblings show people with dark hair who look nothing like sailors.

But the witness [ almost certainly Lawende ] DID pick him out

Lawende would not have picked out a dark-haired East End Jew as someone he had described as a man having the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

See above answer

You still have not explained why the police would have asked Lawende to identify a gentile sailor if he had already identified a Polish Jew.

You never asked. But look at it this way , I think we can both agree that Lawende is likely to be the best witness, with the timescale and location. If Lawende had picked Sadler out his importance would have dropped. Picking two different people out of two different ID confrontations . But he didn't, which may have strengthened Anderson/Swansons view that he was a reliable witness. So it may have been seen as some kind of test much like an ID parade itself. Since Kosminski was not put on one, but confronted with the witness instead .

I would like to ask you a question - Why do you think that Swanson wrote private notes in a book remembering an event which you say never took place ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.


[QUOTE=c.d.;n808623]

Except that we don't know whether or not he identified him as a murderer.

I agree.

We only have Anderson's word to go by and he might have embellished or have been blowing smoke to enhance his reputation.

I agree.

The witness might simply have said well he sort of looks like the guy I saw not knowing at that point what the police intended to do with that information.

He would have known exactly what the police intended to do with that information: charge the suspect with murder.

If he then got the impression that his identification would lead to the man being hanged he might have felt the need to walk back what he said.

In that case, he would not have made the identification.

And if the witness were devoutly Jewish he might have felt that he did not want to give testimony against another Jew that would result in his being hanged when he was not 100% sure.

If he was not sure, then he would not have been asked to testify.

My guess is that the witness was not sure and that Anderson used the whole Jewish thing to cover his butt.

My guess is that no such identification took place.

But again, if there are problems with Anderson's version of events it does not necessarily mean that no witness identification took place.

I suggest that there are too many problems with it for it to have taken place.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Now lets look at the ID Lawende picks out Kosminski the instant he was confronted with him .


According to Swanson, the suspect was Kosminski.

The witness has never been named.



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 .


Not just according to me!

Photographs of Kosminski's siblings show people with dark hair who look nothing like sailors.


So he must have looked nothing like the killer . Yet Lawende still picked him out . Had he gone blind ?


Lawende would not have picked out a dark-haired East End Jew as someone he had described as a man having the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.


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 .

You still have not explained why the police would have asked Lawende to identify a gentile sailor if he had already identified a Polish Jew.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n808616]


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?

Except that we don't know whether or not he identified him as a murderer. We only have Anderson's word to go by and he might have embellished or have been blowing smoke to enhance his reputation. The witness might simply have said well he sort of looks like the guy I saw not knowing at that point what the police intended to do with that information. If he then got the impression that his identification would lead to the man being hanged he might have felt the need to walk back what he said. And if the witness were devoutly Jewish he might have felt that he did not want to give testimony against another Jew that would result in his being hanged when he was not 100% sure.

My guess is that the witness was not sure and that Anderson used the whole Jewish thing to cover his butt.

But again, if there are problems with Anderson's version of events it does not necessarily mean that no witness identification took place.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

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

He could not have done so!

Having claimed that the witness unhesitatingly identified the suspect, he could not claim that the suspect was of Jewish appearance AND that the witness refused to testify against him because he was Jewish!

In that case, the witness would not have come forward in the first place and, moreover, would have refused to make the identification if invited to do so.


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

Jews in the East End of London did not look like sailors.

Lawende did not pick out Kosminski.

There is not a shred of evidence that either Lawende or Kosminski ever visited the Seaside Home.

There seems to be evidence that the police asked Lawende to try to identify Sadler and Grainger as the murderer, which they would hardly have done if Lawende had already identified a Polish Jew.

I would point out that neither Sadler nor Grainger was Jewish and one of them was a sailor.

[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!