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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Was she actually threatened with a knife? My understanding it was a pair of scissors.

I believe that may have been Cutbush with the scissors

Regards Darryl

[erobitha]

People are overthrowing this. The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse. The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating. A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife. It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states. Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states. His records confirm that.

Was she actually threatened with a knife? My understanding it was a pair of scissors.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse.


It is most likely that the identification did not take place at all.

Both Anderson and Swanson believed that the identification coincided with the cessation of the murders, yet we know that Aaron Kosminski was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year after the last murder.

Furthermore, Anderson believed that the suspect was already incarcerated at the time of his identification, and a witness refused to testify against him, which would have been legally impossible, and flatly contradicts Swanson.



The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating.


That is most unlikely.

There is no reason to suppose that the police knew of the knife incident prior to Kosminski's incarceration.

Why would the police be interested in Kosminski in July 1890, when the knife incident did not come to light until February 1891?

If Kosminski was violent and suspected of having committed a string of murders, why was he not arrested?



A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife.


And presumably kept nice and secret from the police by the Jews, who would not give up one of their own to Gentile justice.



It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states.


It is easy to organise a fictional ID, which is what Swanson did.

The police would never have sent a London-based suspect to meet a London-based witness in Brighton.

They would have staged a parade in London.

The Whitechapel Murderer would never have agreed to travel to the coast in order to help police with their enquiries.

If, as Anderson claimed, the suspect was already incarcerated, then the identification would have had to take place in the asylum, which is the only explanation for a parade not having taken place.

Swanson has Kosminski not in an asylum, but cannot explain why in that case a parade was not held in London.



Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states.


Definitely NOT as Swanson states.

If Kosminski had been identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, he would not have been sent home!

He would at least have been held in custody while police applied pressure to the reluctant witness.

But we have only Anderson's word for it that the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish and refused to testify.

In reality, he would not have found out till the trial and Kosminski would have been charged with murder.



His records confirm that.


His records confirm that he was 'released to his brother in laws care' on 15 July 1890, an event which Swanson was evidently unaware of.

Swanson thought the release took place almost immediately following the identification, something which could hardly have happened.

If one grasps the fact that the police were the ones who would have been running the show - and not, as Anderson claims, the Jews - the whole Anderson /Swanson fable collapses like a pack of cards.

[Sunny Delight]

People are overthrowing this. The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse. The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating. A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife. It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states. Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states. His records confirm that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

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?


The date.



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?


I presume you are referring to his omission of the incarceration in his final version.

I think he left it out because it would have conflicted so obviously with his previous account of what had happened.



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


I don't know how you arrived at that deduction, but I think Anderson and Swanson both had in mind a similar date to that given by Macnaghten, because Anderson's theory has the murders stopping because of the suspect's incarceration and Swanson has the murders stopping after the suspect's identification.



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


Well, Anderson got plenty wrong.

He claimed that his conclusions that the murderer did not live alone, and that he must therefore have been Jewish, were shared by his colleagues.

Surely, no-one actually believes that.



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.


If Anderson was not seeking to put the suspect on trial, why did he claim that the suspect refused to testify against him?

And why did Anderson remove the part about the suspect already having been certified at the time of his identification, unless because it made a nonsense of his claim that he was indeed seeking a conviction?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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]

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 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?

[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.

[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.