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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I honestly don’t see why the use of 2 pencils and the signs of shakiness in certain parts of the handwriting equate to a sizeable gap of time between entries. The use of a different pencil might be explained for example by Swanson breaking the nib of one pencil and not having a knife to hand, so rather than getting up to fetch a knife he simply picked up another pencil and continued writing. After all, the different colouring of the pencils wasn’t easily noticeable and the 2 pencils might actually have looked the same or similar. Or, as I said earlier, he might just have been called away for a minute or two then when he came back to the book he picked up a different pencil.

On the handshaking, I once knew someone with Parkinson’s and he had periods when his hand shook and periods when it didn’t. If I recall correctly I believe that he also said that tiredness appeared to result in shaking. So it could have been that extracts with and without evidence of shaking could have been done on the same day.

Of course this doesn’t prove a small gap of time but equally I’d say that the use of two pencils and the ‘shakier’ extracts don’t prove a longer gap and it certainly shouldn’t be taken as evidence of a gap of years.

[Trevor Marriott]

Duplicated reply

[Trevor Marriott]

The report may be an official document, but is the press release?

Well, it was issued by the organisation where Dr Davies was employed and there is no evidence of Dr Davies negating the content so I can see why the content of that report doesn't sit well with those who seek to prop up the marginalia, but it is there for all to see, and besides despite challenges to the suggestion that all of the marginalia was not penned by Swanson. have been made but The forensic reports do not 100% confirm that Swanson penned the whole of the marginalia. and the two different entries made in two different pencils corroborate what Dr Davies is quoted to have said in the press release.

ww.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And on the subject of time gaps, the period between Alice’s death and Mary seeing the word Kosminski was a relatively short one. Did Jim Swanson have any particular interest in or knowledge of the case? Was he up to date with research at that time? He was an intelligent man after all so would he have risked adding the name Kosminski if unknown to him some research had suggested a more likely subject for the ID than Kosminski. Add that to his certain knowledge that tests would be called for make an attempt at forgery even less likely imo. An enormous risk (in more ways than one) for a fairly trivial reward which, when added to Davies second report saying that there was ‘very strong support’ for the marginalia being written entirely by Swanson himself and no evidence of it being written by Jim, should tell us all that we need to know.

[John Wheat]

No Schwartz or Lawende could not have put the Rippers head in the noose. The Seaside identification is a red herring. I don't believe Aaron Kosminski if he was even the right suspect to be a strong suspect.

[Aethelwulf]

Marginalia aside, which Jewish witness was in a position to make a clear ID? No one, I would suggest. Lawende, who seems to very likely to have seen the ripper, said he wouldn't recognise the man. Levy, who was with him, could only say the man was 3 inches taller than the woman. Schwartz sounds terrified and doesn't give a significant description, save for broad shoulders. Unless there is some witness we don't know about, any ID must be highly suspect. The history of policing must be littered with incorrectly ID'd suspects.

[Aethelwulf]

No Schwartz or Lawende could not have put the Rippers head in the noose. The Seaside identification is a red herring. I don't believe Aaron Kosminski if he was even the right suspect to be a strong suspect.

Totally agree, he just happened to be a bit of weirdo and was in line with he 'jewsih' angle.

[Trevor Marriott]

Marginalia aside, which Jewish witness was in a position to make a clear ID? No one, I would suggest. Lawende, who seems to very likely to have seen the ripper, said he wouldn't recognise the man. Levy, who was with him, could only say the man was 3 inches taller than the woman. Schwartz sounds terrified and doesn't give a significant description, save for broad shoulders. Unless there is some witness we don't know about, any ID must be highly suspect. The history of policing must be littered with incorrectly ID'd suspects.

That's just one part of the marginalia that makes it suspicious

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s nothing suspicious about the marginalia.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Totally agree, he just happened to be a bit of weirdo and was in line with he 'jewsih' angle.

So was David Cohen , only a lot more so. Known to be violent , detained only three months after the last murder, possibly in a brothel and died a few months later.

Kosminski may not have come to the polices attention until not long before spring 1891. For a local loony Jew [ as such ], to pin the murders on he is a poor choice .

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Following on from my last post. There is perhaps at least a two year gap between Mary's murder and Kosminski being ID [ The suspect was watched day and night in a short time he was taken to the workhouse and then Colney Hatch ] That makes the ID early 1891 .
So why go to all the trouble of some seaside home identification with difficulty as Swanson writes ?

Because he was picking up food from the gutter and perhaps masturbating in public . " That's our man , a local loony and he is Jewish, put him on an ID " Highly unlikely.

No, there must have been other circumstances/ evidence which made the police take great interest in Kosminski

Regards Darryl

[Aethelwulf]

That makes the ID early 1891 .

So the ID was 3 years after the best potential sightings of the ripper? Surely that confirms any ID as totally and utterly 'unsafe'. Individuals who said at the time they wouldn't recognise the man would hardly do so 3 years later.

Comments made by a high ranking police officer, believed by some to be Swanson, about another suspect, also make me think he (if it was him) is questionable on facts and inferences.

[caz]

So you dont actually why the News of the World didn't publish?

I use to drink most night of the week in the mid 80s at a pub in Mill Hill, north west London.
One of the other regulars was a Mr Robert Warren, senior figure News of the World. We discussed it.

Not for the reason you suggest, just the opposite actually.

Steve

I think I get your drift, Steve, as I lived in south west London, but went to school north of the river.

If I'm right, poor Trevor will need a bigger clue.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

So the ID was 3 years after the best potential sightings of the ripper? Surely that confirms any ID as totally and utterly 'unsafe'. Individuals who said at the time they wouldn't recognise the man would hardly do so 3 years later.

Comments made by a high ranking police officer, believed by some to be Swanson, about another suspect, also make me think he (if it was him) is questionable on facts and inferences.

Not everyone believes that because Swanson is explaining Anderson's reasoning in the margins of a book that he is necessarily endorsing them. It is a supposition, but not proven.

[Darryl Kenyon]

So the ID was 3 years after the best potential sightings of the ripper? Surely that confirms any ID as totally and utterly 'unsafe'. Individuals who said at the time they wouldn't recognise the man would hardly do so 3 years later.

Comments made by a high ranking police officer, believed by some to be Swanson, about another suspect, also make me think he (if it was him) is questionable on facts and inferences.

Yes , that is the strongest point against the ID being enough to secure a conviction . But I will still argue that Kosminski [ I am not saying he was the ripper ], was a strong suspect and there must have been some evidence which made the police put him on an ID in the first place. And not because he was the local loony who happened to be Jewish. As some suggest

Regards Darryl