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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have always suspected that if the Seaside Home thing actually happened, the whole "won't testify against a fellow Jew" thing was a motive imputed to the witness by others - by others who may have said certain prejudices about Jews.

I certainly think that this could have been the case DM. If the police were pretty certain that they’d got their man then we can imagine their frustration if the witness just wasn’t confident enough to give a positive ID especially when considering the ramifications.

[Aethelwulf]

For what it is worth if Jack is ever found, I feel he would be someone like Robert Napper as in state of mind .

Regards Darryl

Could be. If we assume that from hell and possibly Openshaw and other letters are genuine, given their taunting nature and perhaps Bond's man of 'great coolness and daring', he could have been somewhere along the scale towards someone like Bundy. A pure evil and relatively clever person.

[Trevor Marriott]

I certainly think that this could have been the case DM. If the police were pretty certain that they’d got their man then we can imagine their frustration if the witness just wasn’t confident enough to give a positive ID especially when considering the ramifications.

Can you not see that the marginalia used to prop up Kosminski as a suspect and used to prop up the mythical Id parade is unsafe by reason of how the ID parade is described, and how it took place and what happened after, and not to mention the absence of any corroboration by any officers who were either directly involved in this in later years or had any knowledge of this

It seems some are prepared to accept the content of the marginalia without question

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

how it took place and what happened after, and not to mention the absence of any corroboration by any officers who were either directly involved in this in later years or had any knowledge of this

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But a similar ID was tried by the police [ post 61 ] in the case of Isenschmid. In this case a confrontational ID against the suspect by Mrs Fiddymont. And again there was difficulty in attempting the ID because of the suspects state of mind. And Anderson and Swanson corroborate each other. Abberline though disagreeing on, if Kosminski was the ripper mentions about the ripper being in an asylum as some people believe. Littlechild mentions that Anderson thought he knew who the ripper was , so Anderson must have had a suspect in mind. Macnaughten [ although getting some facts wrong on Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski ], mentions about Kosminski resembling the killer. How could anyone know this ? Unless he had been ID
And there is Sagar from the city police who could [ but not certain ] be mentioning Kosminski

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you not see that the marginalia used to prop up Kosminski as a suspect and used to prop up the mythical Id parade is unsafe by reason of how the ID parade is described, and how it took place and what happened after, and not to mention the absence of any corroboration by any officers who were either directly involved in this in later years or had any knowledge of this

It seems some are prepared to accept the content of the marginalia without question

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not simply accepting it. But you appear to be ‘simply dismissing it.” And again we have this double standard from you:

“….and not to mention the absence of any corroboration by any officers who were either directly involved in this in later years or had any knowledge of this.”

And yet you accept William Sanford Lawton’s evidence about Feigenbaum when no one else had any knowledge of it. No one else heard it. No one else was present. But that’s ok isn’t it, because it supports your theory. Every single thing that goes against one of your opinions is immediately labelled as ‘unsafe.’ Just because we can’t give a conclusive, 100% proven correct answer it doesn’t mean that we should dismiss it out of hand anymore than we should just accept it without question. One is just as bad as the other. You dismiss things out of hand far more than others accept without question.

It’s another example of you cherrypicking what is acceptable criteria.

Also, we have numerous examples of you telling us how the police couldn’t be trusted, how dodgy they were, but in this particular instance you tell us that everything they must have done would have had to have been exactly by the book. So we’re they rigidly efficient rule followers or not?

…….

What actual evidence is there that the marginalia is a fake? Apart from you not believing that the ID took place of course.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

What actual evidence is there that the marginalia is a fake? Apart from you not believing that the ID took place of course.

Hi Herlock,

Do you mean incorrect in what it claims, or that Swanson never wrote it at all? Two very different arguments there. I know Trevor thinks it's not Swanson's hand and that Anderson was wrong. I'm convinced Swanson wrote it, Adam Wood did a good piece on it. Whether the info is accurate is the issue. Did Swanson agree with Anderson's conclusion, or is he simply expanding on Anderson's belief without necessarily agreeing? I personally think it has to be based on some actual event, but that doesn't by default mean I believe Kosminsky was the ripper. To answer CD's original question, no conviction was ever going to happen as a result of an informal identification, but that wouldn't stop the police doing it for their own benefit. It's comparable to Druitt in that we don't know where the information came from, or why, but it did. He's not mentioned by other senior officers, but he was mentioned. A lack of solid corroboration doesn't mean the information never existed. The seaside home could be a similar thing. They were barking up the wrong tree, but it doesn't mean they weren't barking at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Do you mean incorrect in what it claims, or that Swanson never wrote it at all? Two very different arguments there. I know Trevor thinks it's not Swanson's hand and that Anderson was wrong. I'm convinced Swanson wrote it, Adam Wood did a good piece on it. Whether the info is accurate is the issue. Did Swanson agree with Anderson's conclusion, or is he simply expanding on Anderson's belief without necessarily agreeing? I personally think it has to be based on some actual event, but that doesn't by default mean I believe Kosminsky was the ripper. To answer CD's original question, no conviction was ever going to happen as a result of an informal identification, but that wouldn't stop the police doing it for their own benefit. It's comparable to Druitt in that we don't know where the information came from, or why, but it did. He's not mentioned by other senior officers, but he was mentioned. A lack of solid corroboration doesn't mean the information never existed. The seaside home could be a similar thing. They were barking up the wrong tree, but it doesn't mean they weren't barking at all.

Hi Al,

Good points of course. I was hoping to be reminded of what actual evidence there is that Swanson didn’t actually write it. I did read Adam Wood’s article and agree that is seemed convincing. Can you remember which issue it was in and I’ll give it a re-read? I’m too lazy to trawl through.

[Sunny Delight]

Could be. If we assume that from hell and possibly Openshaw and other letters are genuine, given their taunting nature and perhaps Bond's man of 'great coolness and daring', he could have been somewhere along the scale towards someone like Bundy. A pure evil and relatively clever person.

The letters are quite obviously not connected with the case and as usual in these instances some sick minds were at work. I think Daryl is quite correct in his thinking though- Robert Napper showed the same type of escalation as JTR. He was very disorganised in the type of attacks he carried out but displayed a great deal of cunning and organisation in his planning. He had a job, lodgings and would be almost identical to Bonds profile which is somewhat disconcerting. I have absolutely no doubt that whoever JTR was his name is buried in a long lost or destroyed file and we have not mentioned his name i the history of the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m not simply accepting it. But you appear to be ‘simply dismissing it.” And again we have this double standard from you:

“….and not to mention the absence of any corroboration by any officers who were either directly involved in this in later years or had any knowledge of this.”

And yet you accept William Sanford Lawton’s evidence about Feigenbaum when no one else had any knowledge of it. No one else heard it. No one else was present. But that’s ok isn’t it, because it supports your theory. Every single thing that goes against one of your opinions is immediately labelled as ‘unsafe.’ Just because we can’t give a conclusive, 100% proven correct answer it doesn’t mean that we should dismiss it out of hand anymore than we should just accept it without question. One is just as bad as the other. You dismiss things out of hand far more than others accept without question.

It’s another example of you cherrypicking what is acceptable criteria.

Also, we have numerous examples of you telling us how the police couldn’t be trusted, how dodgy they were, but in this particular instance you tell us that everything they must have done would have had to have been exactly by the book. So we’re they rigidly efficient rule followers or not?

…….

What actual evidence is there that the marginalia is a fake? Apart from you not believing that the ID took place of course.

I didt say it was fake I said it is unsafe especially when the facts contained in it cannot be corroborated given such an important part of identifying Jack the Ripper

and again you hi-jack the thread by introducing something that is not relevant to this thread

My full assessment of everything connected to the marginalia and why I question its authenticity and accuracy has been documented many times previously so I don't intend to go over it all again. I have briefly given an insight into some of those issues I refer to earlier on this thread, which you and others seem to want to ignore and accept readily accept its authenticity without question or invent scenarios to prop it up.

If the police were looking to obtain prime evidence as to the identity of the killer and put that person on trial they would have done things by the book

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Al,

Good points of course. I was hoping to be reminded of what actual evidence there is that Swanson didn’t actually write it. I did read Adam Wood’s article and agree that is seemed convincing. Can you remember which issue it was in and I’ll give it a re-read? I’m too lazy to trawl through.

Adam Woods article goes all out to prove Swanson did write it which I challenged

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Good points of course. I was hoping to be reminded of what actual evidence there is that Swanson didn’t actually write it. I did read Adam Wood’s article and agree that is seemed convincing. Can you remember which issue it was in and I’ll give it a re-read? I’m too lazy to trawl through.

Ripperologist 167

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didt say it was fake I said it is unsafe especially when the facts contained in it cannot be corroborated given such an important part of identifying Jack the Ripper

and again you hi-jack the thread by introducing something that is not relevant to this thread

My full assessment of everything connected to the marginalia and why I question its authenticity and accuracy has been documented many times previously so I don't intend to go over it all again. I have briefly given an insight into some of those issues I refer to earlier on this thread, which you and others seem to want to ignore and accept readily accept its authenticity without question or invent scenarios to prop it up.

If the police were looking to obtain prime evidence as to the identity of the killer and put that person on trial they would have done things by the book

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve hijacked nothing. I’ve merely pointed out your usual cherrypicking and your obvious bias.

If you ‘question it’s authenticity’ then you are suggesting that it could be a fake. And if you think I’m going to bother trawling back to read the undoubted nonsense that you’ve written on the subject then you’re mistaken…….again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Adam Woods article goes all out to prove Swanson did write it which I challenged

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s decided then. He’s right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ripperologist 167

Cheers Al.

[Scott Nelson]

According to City Det. Robert Sagar, reported in Reynolds News on 15 September 1946: ‘We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butchers’ Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities.’

Sagar’s words parallel those of Anderson and Swanson like a tailored glove and it is difficult to think that they aren’t referring to the same person.