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

[Scott Nelson]

Or maybe it's basically true and wasn't embellished.

[John Wheat]

Does it have to be all or nothing with the Seaside I.D. or is it possible the basic story is true and was greatly embellished to make Anderson look good?

c.d.

Maybe.

[c.d.]

This quote just goes to show the alleged Seaside I.D. is a **** and bull story.

Does it have to be all or nothing with the Seaside I.D. or is it possible the basic story is true and was greatly embellished to make Anderson look good?

c.d.

[John Wheat]

According to Abberline when interviwed in 1903

“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This quote just goes to show the alleged Seaside I.D. is a **** and bull story.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've never understood why he believed that the traditions of his department would have suffered if he had said more.

It could be that he had nothing further to say and this provided a convenient excuse for not doing so.

c.d.

According to Abberline when interviwed in 1903

“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

I've never understood why he believed that the traditions of his department would have suffered if he had said more.

It could be that he had nothing further to say and this provided a convenient excuse for not doing so.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

For some reason, Anderson seemed to want to say very little. I've never understood why he believed that the traditions of his department would have suffered if he had said more.

By the time scant revelations were forthcoming from Anderson after 1907 or so, most of the men involved in the investigation had retired and were no longer in the loop. Everybody at Scotland Yard didn't need to know about it.

Knowing who the Ripper was and not being able to prove it in a court of law doesn't necessarily translate to "solving" the crimes. There were likely legalities with the suspect's family and the Jewish community, not to mention that there was no hard evidence against the suspect.

“I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration." --Anderson in 1910 trying to deflect criticism from the Jewish community.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for an extensively excellent thread.


I mean, why not?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Charles Sandell of the NOTW wrote in an internal memo to his News Editor that Sir Charles Warren's 15th September 1888 order addressed to Alexander Carmichael Bruce [appointing Swanson to be his eyes and ears] was in fact written by head of CID Sir Robert Anderson. The memo is attached to a 12-page document which can be found in Ripperologist 128.

Two things.

Robert Anderson was not head of CID at this time. Also, he did not receive his knighthood until November 1901.

On 15th September 1888 Robert Anderson was allegedly in Switzerland, having been there for a week, so how could he have issued this order?

Simon

[Lewis C]

Well, Reid claimed that the idea that the murderer was a Jew was not suggested in police circles at the time.

All Anderson needed to say in response was that he had at the time informed Abberline that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Abberline would doubtless have confirmed that that had happened.

For some reason, Anderson seemed to want to say very little. I've never understood why he believed that the traditions of his department would have suffered if he had said more.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not talking about the identification, just the view that Kosminski was the killer.

Well, Reid claimed that the idea that the murderer was a Jew was not suggested in police circles at the time.

All Anderson needed to say in response was that he had at the time informed Abberline that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Abberline would doubtless have confirmed that that had happened.

[Lewis C]

In that case, all Anderson had to do when he was practically accused of making up his story was to mention that Abberline had been aware of the identification of the suspect at the time that he was identified.

If Anderson was confident that the killer had been confined at the time of the identification, then why did he omit that detail from the final version of his memoirs and why was Swanson apparently unaware that the suspect was already confined at the time of the identification?

I'm not talking about the identification, just the view that Kosminski was the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Re: the first question, maybe Anderson or Swanson told Abberline that Kosminski was the killer, but Abberline didn't buy it. Just a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that Anderson could be confident that the killer was confined, but not announce it publicly. It was a very high profile case, resulting in much public concern, and such an announcement would have helped give the public closure on the case.

In that case, all Anderson had to do when he was practically accused of making up his story was to mention that Abberline had been aware of the identification of the suspect at the time that he was identified.

If Anderson was confident that the killer had been confined at the time of the identification, then why did he omit that detail from the final version of his memoirs and why was Swanson apparently unaware that the suspect was already confined at the time of the identification?

[Lewis C]

Why withhold the conclusion reached from Abberline, who needed to know of developments in the investigation?

And why the secrecy about the identification and its result?

As Abberline himself remarked, even if it had proven impossible to convict the suspect, why would Scotland Yard not have boasted of its achievement in identifying the murderer?

Why wait two decades before mentioning it to anyone and then refuse to elaborate?

Re: the first question, maybe Anderson or Swanson told Abberline that Kosminski was the killer, but Abberline didn't buy it. Just a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that Anderson could be confident that the killer was confined, but not announce it publicly. It was a very high profile case, resulting in much public concern, and such an announcement would have helped give the public closure on the case.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe this is the best way to reconcile everything. When Anderson said "we" and "our", he's referring to a very small number of people.

Why withhold the conclusion reached from Abberline, who needed to know of developments in the investigation?

And why the secrecy about the identification and its result?

As Abberline himself remarked, even if it had proven impossible to convict the suspect, why would Scotland Yard not have boasted of its achievement in identifying the murderer?

Why wait two decades before mentioning it to anyone and then refuse to elaborate?