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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hypothetical I know, but if Sutcliffe was never caught in the Yorkshire ripper hunt would we be giving any credence to PC Andy Laptew's thoughts on the most infamous case he was involved in if he wrote his memoirs as a Yorkshire PC ?

I interviewed a man who lived between Bradford and Leeds [ the rippers two main killing grounds ], Anderson , the ripper lived in the heart of the district . There were indicators about this man which made me want to pursue him further [ spotted in red light area, his general uneasiness during the interview, size eight and half feet, similar to shoe size of offender etc ], Mac , many circumstances with Kosminski which made him a strong suspect. We don't know what these circumstances are, but maybe similar sort of reasons . Plus Laptew said Sutcliffe was a dead ringer for a photo fit by a surviving victim, Marilyn Moore. Now obviously Marilyn Moore would have had a better look at Sutcliffe than say, Lawende of Jack. But Sutcliffe did keep a similar sort of appearance through his killing spree and beyond. Was there something in Kosminski's appearance which made him stand out a little and easier to identify? I don't know.. But plainly PC Laptew was right to be concerned about Sutcliffe, [ though we cannot say that with any degree of certainty about Anderson/Swanson and Kosminski ], only to be rebuffed by his senior officer.
Much like Stewart Evans summation what SD drew us to in his post, I believe there is a good possibility that Kosminski was interviewed during the house to house enquiry or/and after Mary's murder [ potentially drawing some form of suspicion, but not enough to arrest him ]. And then at a later date 90/91 an informer [ family member perhaps ], came forward to the police. If there was a positive ID then arguably it might have tilted Anderson/ Swanson's mind once they went over the circumstantial evidence which may have connected Kosminski to the case ?

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

Hypothetical I know, but if Sutcliffe was never caught in the Yorkshire ripper hunt would we be giving any credence to PC Andy Laptew's thoughts on the most infamous case he was involved in if he wrote his memoirs as a Yorkshire PC ?

I interviewed a man who lived between Bradford and Leeds [ the rippers two main killing grounds ], Anderson , the ripper lived in the heart of the district . There were indicators about this man which made me want to pursue him further [ spotted in red light area, his general uneasiness during the interview, size eight and half feet, similar to shoe size of offender etc ], Mac , many circumstances with Kosminski which made him a strong suspect. We don't know what these circumstances are, but maybe similar sort of reasons . Plus Laptew said Sutcliffe was a dead ringer for a photo fit by a surviving victim, Marilyn Moore. Now obviously Marilyn Moore would have had a better look at Sutcliffe than say, Lawende of Jack. But Sutcliffe did keep a similar sort of appearance through his killing spree and beyond. Was there something in Kosminski's appearance which made him stand out a little and easier to identify? I don't know.. But plainly PC Laptew was right to be concerned about Sutcliffe, [ though we cannot say that with any degree of certainty about Anderson/Swanson and Kosminski ], only to be rebuffed by his senior officer.
Much like Stewart Evans summation what SD drew us to in his post, I believe there is a good possibility that Kosminski was interviewed during the house to house enquiry or/and after Mary's murder [ potentially drawing some form of suspicion, but not enough to arrest him ]. And then at a later date 90/91 an informer [ family member perhaps ], came forward to the police. If there was a positive ID then arguably it might have tilted Anderson/ Swanson's mind once they went over the circumstantial evidence which may have connected Kosminski to the case ?

Regards Darryl

It's a really interesting idea and I think we may well have seen the suspect (Sutcliffe) as very viable.. Interestingly his wife although not overtly covering for him gave him alibis at crucial times although the one attack she could not give him cover for was a Halloween attack where he said he was home by 8pm but his wife vividly recalled him coming home at 10pm because of the fireworks. Could Kosminski have been similar prompting Anderson to declare he would not be given up.

There are a few things that we know from the investigation that Kosminski does not seem to tally with. He was 23 at the time of the attacks and unless he looked much older than he was the witness descriptions we have are of someone much older. How much credence do we place on Israel Schwartz? If we believe he saw the Ripper, then how can we square why a Jew would use a derogatory term towards another Jew? We don't know if Kosminski spoke English and if he did how fluent he was? In the workhouse report it says he spoke Yiddish. The Ripper conversed with his victims and was confident to do so. It was said he had not attempted any work in years. The Ripper was obviously someone in regular employment. How do we define the years as stated by his brother in law- 2 years or 5 years we don't know.

The circumstances that condemned Kosminski seem to have been- he lived in the heart of Whitechapel, had severe mental health issues, had been aggressive with a knife, had utterly unmentionable vices which was probably compulsive masturbation and had seemingly been identified by a witness probably Lawende in an ID confrontation that would be thrown out of Court by today's standards in two seconds flat. All in all it was a lot of circumstantial evidence and a questionable ID. It isn't much to be offering 'moral certainties'.

[Scott Nelson]

Wrong Kosminski, maybe.

[GBinOz]

Wrong Kosminski, maybe.

Hi Scott,

I'd just like to take this opportunity to compliment you on your dissertation titled The Butcher’s Row Suspect – Was He Jack the Ripper? Excellent research and logical conclusions. Well done.

Cheers, George

[Elamarna]

Hi SD,
A few issues to maybe reflect upon

There are a few things that we know from the investigation that Kosminski does not seem to tally with. He was 23 at the time of the attacks and unless he looked much older than he was the witness descriptions
we have are of someone much older

Several points here, firstly age is a notoriously difficult thing to judge.
Secondly how do we know if any of those descriptions are actually the killer
.

How much credence do we place on Israel Schwartz? If we believe he saw the Ripper, then how can we square why a Jew would use a derogatory term towards another Jew?

I.place a great deal of credence on Schwartz. I gave a talk outlining why on the casebook online conference in 2021.
It's here on the Rippercast section.

We don't know if Kosminski spoke English and if he did how fluent he was? In the workhouse report it says he spoke Yiddish. The Ripper conversed with his victims and was confident to do so.

We have the report from the City Press of his appearance in court in late 1889.
From this report, which is partially verbatim, it seems that he could speak English and did at that point.

The Ripper had conversations with his victims?

Depends on what we mean by conversation.
We have a report from Mrs long of a few words, and even less from Cadosch.

If we go with Lawende, Levy and Harris seeing Eddowes with her killer, then again, maybe a brief conversation, but no more.
That's it.
As for he was confident to do so, well that's a very subjective comment, how do we know how confident he was? And given he had lived in London for a number of years and apparently spoke at the 1889 court case, why should he not be confident.

It was said he had not attempted any work in years. The Ripper was obviously someone in regular employment.

How do we define the years as stated by his brother in law- 2 years or 5 years we don't know.

A good question, and one to which you can place any interpretation you want.

Of course the person who provided this information was Jacob Cohen, very probably the brother of his sister in law, and if so, also his cousin.

The circumstances that condemned Kosminski seem to have been- he lived in the heart of Whitechapel, had severe mental health issues, had been aggressive with a knife, had utterly unmentionable vices which was probably compulsive masturbation and had seemingly been identified by a witness probably Lawende in an ID confrontation that would be thrown out of Court by today's standards in two seconds flat. All in all it was a lot of circumstantial evidence and a questionable ID. It isn't much to be offering 'moral certainties'.

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.

Steve

[Sunny Delight]

Hi SD,
A few issues to maybe reflect upon




Several points here, firstly age is a notoriously difficult thing to judge.
Secondly how do we know if any of those descriptions are actually the killer
.


I.place a great deal of credence on Schwartz. I gave a talk outlining why on the casebook online conference in 2021.
It's here on the Rippercast section.



We have the report from the City Press of his appearance in court in late 1889.
From this report, which is partially verbatim, it seems that he could speak English and did at that point.

The Ripper had conversations with his victims?

Depends on what we mean by conversation.
We have a report from Mrs long of a few words, and even less from Cadosch.

If we go with Lawende, Levy and Harris seeing Eddowes with her killer, then again, maybe a brief conversation, but no more.
That's it.
As for he was confident to do so, well that's a very subjective comment, how do we know how confident he was? And given he had lived in London for a number of years and apparently spoke at the 1889 court case, why should he not be confident.



A good question, and one to which you can place any interpretation you want.

Of course the person who provided this information was Jacob Cohen, very probably the brother of his sister in law, and if so, also his cousin.




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.

Steve

- Age is a very difficult thing to judge at times and granted we cannot be sure that those described by witnesses was the killer. However apart from possibly PC Smith no one
described men seen with a victim on the night of their death as in their 20's. Almost entirely they were placed in their 30's (granted Schwartz and Lawende both said 30). It of course does not dismiss Kosminski as a suspect but it is somewhat problematic.

- I also place huge importance on Israel Schwartz and in fact I think he is the most crucial witness. He witnesses an altercation between a murder victim and a man not 5-10 minutes before she is apprantly murdered. And if we place Schwartz so highly then a 30 year old man using a derogatory Jewish term towards a man with Jewish appearance does not sound like Kosminski.

- Thanks for that info. I was aware of newspaper reports that he had appeared in court in regards an unmuzzled dog? So he could converse quite well in English? That is interesting. What Lawende and co describe could be a brief conversation but they saw Eddowes with her hand against the man's chest- seemingly in a flirtatious manner so that could well have been a longer conversation that we think. Mrs Long heard her suspect ask 'Will you' so obviously they had been conversing over something and if Hutchinson is anything to go by his suspect was a verifiable charmer. Stride's assailant seemed much more spontaneous and the conversation short and sharp. I accept your point on it being a subjective interpretation.

- Yes if the idea took place in 1890 then years could be problematic as even if he was referencing two years that would mean Kosminski stopper working in 1888 at the height of the murders. Did he lose his job? Was he beginning to become unwell? We will never know but I think we all can agree the Ripper was in regular employment somewhere.

- I would be on board with that interpretation if it were not for the fact that the witness would not testify against Kosminski as it would have led to a conviction and execution which he could not have on his mind. I think the Police wanted a conviction and the ID was held on that basis. They had to accept 2nd prize as it were and be satisfied in their mind that they had the killer and could keep him under constant surveillance which the City Police did.

[Trevor Marriott]

- Age is a very difficult thing to judge at times and granted we cannot be sure that those described by witnesses was the killer. However apart from possibly PC Smith no one
described men seen with a victim on the night of their death as in their 20's. Almost entirely they were placed in their 30's (granted Schwartz and Lawende both said 30). It of course does not dismiss Kosminski as a suspect but it is somewhat problematic.

- I also place huge importance on Israel Schwartz and in fact I think he is the most crucial witness. He witnesses an altercation between a murder victim and a man not 5-10 minutes before she is apprantly murdered. And if we place Schwartz so highly then a 30 year old man using a derogatory Jewish term towards a man with Jewish appearance does not sound like Kosminski.

- Thanks for that info. I was aware of newspaper reports that he had appeared in court in regards an unmuzzled dog? So he could converse quite well in English? That is interesting. What Lawende and co describe could be a brief conversation but they saw Eddowes with her hand against the man's chest- seemingly in a flirtatious manner so that could well have been a longer conversation that we think. Mrs Long heard her suspect ask 'Will you' so obviously they had been conversing over something and if Hutchinson is anything to go by his suspect was a verifiable charmer. Stride's assailant seemed much more spontaneous and the conversation short and sharp. I accept your point on it being a subjective interpretation.

- Yes if the idea took place in 1890 then years could be problematic as even if he was referencing two years that would mean Kosminski stopper working in 1888 at the height of the murders. Did he lose his job? Was he beginning to become unwell? We will never know but I think we all can agree the Ripper was in regular employment somewhere.

- I would be on board with that interpretation if it were not for the fact that the witness would not testify against Kosminski as it would have led to a conviction and execution which he could not have on his mind. I think the Police wanted a conviction and the ID was held on that basis. They had to accept 2nd prize as it were and be satisfied in their mind that they had the killer and could keep him under constant surveillance which the City Police did.

People are not thinking sensibly on this thread it seems as if many want to believe such an ID took place as described in the marginalia, and are wildly speculating as to how it could have occurred. Listed below are the points which show that the content of the marginalia is unsafe

The Id parade as described would be of no evidential value there would be no point in doing any other form of ID as some have suggested that would have jeopardised an official ID parade, and what would the point have been?

By what is written they conducted a direct confrontation and I have to ask why in such an important case?

There is no evidence to show how Kosminski came to be a named suspect

There is no evidence from any source to show Kosminski was ever arrested in connection with these murders. the police had the power to arrest on suspicion

The police had no powers to unlawfully detain him and take him to wherever

The police would not have been permitted to remove him from a mental institution to take part in any such parade

On that point, he was clearly not institutionalised, as after this ID parade he was taken to a relative's house

If by chance they had managed to coerce him to attend the parade on a voluntary basis and the Id had taken place, they had the option to at least arrest him and question him, they didn't even need to tell him that the witness would not give evidence in court that might have instigated a confession

There is no mention by Major Smith of having any knowledge of this ID procedure or of his force being asked to watch the house where Kosminski was taken back to.

There is no evidence to show that Aaron Kosminki was the Kosminski named in the document although MM does allude to his known habits

MM in his second edition is inclined to exonerate the man he refers to as Kosminksi

MM mentions nothing about this ID parade and he was Swansons immediate superior

I hate to say this yet again but the marginalia in its current form is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

People are not thinking sensibly on this thread it seems as if many want to believe such an ID took place as described in the marginalia, and are wildly speculating as to how it could have occurred. Listed below are the points which show that the content of the marginalia is unsafe

The Id parade as described would be of no evidential value there would be no point in doing any other form of ID as some have suggested that would have jeopardised an official ID parade, and what would the point have been?

By what is written they conducted a direct confrontation and I have to ask why in such an important case?

There is no evidence to show how Kosminski came to be a named suspect

There is no evidence from any source to show Kosminski was ever arrested in connection with these murders. the police had the power to arrest on suspicion

The police had no powers to unlawfully detain him and take him to wherever

The police would not have been permitted to remove him from a mental institution to take part in any such parade

On that point, he was clearly not institutionalised, as after this ID parade he was taken to a relative's house

If by chance they had managed to coerce him to attend the parade on a voluntary basis and the Id had taken place, they had the option to at least arrest him and question him, they didn't even need to tell him that the witness would not give evidence in court that might have instigated a confession

There is no mention by Major Smith of having any knowledge of this ID procedure or of his force being asked to watch the house where Kosminski was taken back to.

There is no evidence to show that Aaron Kosminki was the Kosminski named in the document although MM does allude to his known habits

MM in his second edition is inclined to exonerate the man he refers to as Kosminksi

MM mentions nothing about this ID parade and he was Swansons immediate superior

I hate to say this yet again but the marginalia in its current form is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

- I think we can be certain the ID took place. Anderson and Swanson both refer to it. McNaghten claimed in a draft of the Memorandum that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. How did he know what Kosminski looked like? How did he know who he resembled? He must have known about the ID.

- We dont know why Kosminski became a suspect but a mentally unstable foreigner living locally, of low class? threatening his sister with a knife would surely have set alarm bells ringing once reported to Police either by a family member or someone else.

- Kosminski was not held on suspicion as far as we know. Who is to say he wasnt questioned at the time and the file on him long lost. The answer is we don't know if Kosminski was ever held on suspicion. We can't tell one way or the other.

- I think the ID took place in July 1890 after Kosminski was admitted to the workhouse. This seems the most sensible estimate. He was 'sent by us with difficulty' must be in reference to getting the workhouse to agree to any request.

- I think it reasonable to conclude that Kosminski is Aaaron Kosminski. In fact I don't see reason for much doubt.

I place some substance in Anderson's claims but only on the basis that much has now been lost to us and the City Police files were almost completely destroyed during the Blitz. However on what we currently have the ID is wholly unsatisfactory and Aaron Kosminski a fairly poor suspect although probably the best we have. For me the name of the killer was in Police files just as for instance Sutcliffes would have been but it has long been lost to us.

[Trevor Marriott]

- I think we can be certain the ID took place. Anderson and Swanson both refer to it. McNaghten claimed in a draft of the Memorandum that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. How did he know what Kosminski looked like? How did he know who he resembled? He must have known about the ID.

We cannot be certain of anything in Ripperology

- We dont know why Kosminski became a suspect but a mentally unstable foreigner living locally, of low class? threatening his sister with a knife would surely have set alarm bells ringing once reported to Police either by a family member or someone else.

But why single him out having regard to all the other males who were asked to accompany officers to police stations because they either were seen acting suspiciously or they fitted the description of who the police believed was the killer? I am quite sure anyone arrested for either carrying a knife or committing an offence with a knife would have come under suspicion.

- Kosminski was not held on suspicion as far as we know. Who is to say he wasnt questioned at the time and the file on him long lost. The answer is we don't know if Kosminski was ever held on suspicion. We can't tell one way or the other.

Is the answer to all the unanswered questions "the files may have been lost?

- I think the ID took place in July 1890 after Kosminski was admitted to the workhouse. This seems the most sensible estimate. He was 'sent by us with difficulty' must be in reference to getting the workhouse to agree to any request.

But they couldn't just forcibly take him without his consent unless he was under arrest and we see no evidence of that ever having taken place before the ID or after

I place some substance in Anderson's claims but only on the basis that much has now been lost to us and the City Police files were almost completely destroyed during the Blitz. However on what we currently have the ID is wholly unsatisfactory and Aaron Kosminski a fairly poor suspect although probably the best we have. For me the name of the killer was in Police files just as for instance Sutcliffes would have been but it has long been lost to us.

But we have the quotes and writings of the likes of Abberline and Reid who were actively engaged in the investigations but do not corroborate or mention anything resembling this ID parade or any positive identification of the killer

If MM exonerates him why are researchers so keen to believe in the marginalia which must have been written after MM penned his memo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If MM exonerates him why are researchers so keen to believe in the marginalia which must have been written after MM penned his memo[/B]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1. Why are you so keen to trust MacNaghten on this issue but when discussing Druitt you accuse him of being unreliable? Is he reliable or unreliable or is it a case of either when it suits?

2. The result of the ID as per Anderson is well known but Swanson simply confirms that Kosminski was the suspect (because Anderson didn’t mention the name.) We can’t assume to what extent Swanson agreed or disagreed with that opinion. So it’s hardly surprising that another officer (MacNaghten) was less convinced.

3. Any quibbles that you might have about the marginalia pale into insignificance when compared to the evidence for it being genuine. The fact that you persist in this blatant attempt to discredit proves that you are, as ever, fixated on something to the extent that you will try absolutely anything.

[Trevor Marriott]

1. Why are you so keen to trust MacNaghten on this issue but when discussing Druitt you accuse him of being unreliable? Is he reliable or unreliable or is it a case of either when it suits?

I am not so keen to trust the writings of any of these high-ranking officers. I am more inclined to believe the officers who were directly involved in the investigations like Abberline,Reid and Dew all of whom make no mention of this game changing mythical ID parade and do not corroborate what Anderson says in his book quite the contrary

2. The result of the ID as per Anderson is well known but Swanson simply confirms that Kosminski was the suspect (because Anderson didn’t mention the name.) We can’t assume to what extent Swanson agreed or disagreed with that opinion. So it’s hardly surprising that another officer (MacNaghten) was less convinced.

No, he doesn't Swanson gives more of an insight into what allegedly happened. There could not have been an ID parade as is set out in the marginalia and the reasons why are set out in the previous post

3. Any quibbles that you might have about the marginalia pale into insignificance when compared to the evidence for it being genuine. The fact that you persist in this blatant attempt to discredit proves that you are, as ever, fixated on something to the extent that you will try absolutely anything.

The only person fixated is you in trying to prove that an ID parade took place as described and that the killer was positively identified

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

But we have the quotes and writings of the likes of Abberline and Reid who were actively engaged in the investigations but do not corroborate or mention anything resembling this ID parade or any positive identification of the killer

If MM exonerates him why are researchers so keen to believe in the marginalia which must have been written after MM penned his memo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Considering much of the original evidence has been lost- it is 135 years since the murders took place- then of course we cannot be certain of who was questioned and who wasn't. That is just a fact. You literally said in your first post we can't be certain of anything in Ripperology. Who has ever mentioned forcibly taking Kosminski without his consent for an ID? No one. Swanson stated he was 'sent by us with difficulty' but the difficulty is not explained. We can surmise maybe that the difficulty was with the workhouse staff and arranging transport for instance. As I said previously Stewart Evans summed things up perfectly and neatly in his article Kosminski and the Seaside Home.

I have no idea what your hypothesis is? Is it that the Marginalia is a forgery? If so then I am afraid I don't agree and can see nothing you have offered that makes me feel any different. Look I appreciate that there is merit in looking at the case and attempting to come up with something different. Hell it may even sell books. But a lot of it is unsubstantiated.

[caz]

I hate to say this yet again but the marginalia in its current form is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In its current form, Trev?

Would it be any safer if you took one of your own crayons to it?

'Bye bye Kosminski. Hello sailor.' TM

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

In its current form, Trev?

Would it be any safer if you took one of your own crayons to it?

'Bye bye Kosminski. Hello sailor.' TM

Love,

Caz
X

Well if I did I would still make a better job at it than your misguided attempts at sarcastic humour

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Considering much of the original evidence has been lost- it is 135 years since the murders took place- then of course we cannot be certain of who was questioned and who wasn't. That is just a fact. You literally said in your first post we can't be certain of anything in Ripperology. Who has ever mentioned forcibly taking Kosminski without his consent for an ID? No one. Swanson stated he was 'sent by us with difficulty' but the difficulty is not explained. We can surmise maybe that the difficulty was with the workhouse staff and arranging transport for instance. As I said previously Stewart Evans summed things up perfectly and neatly in his article Kosminski and the Seaside Home.

I have no idea what your hypothesis is? Is it that the Marginalia is a forgery? If so then I am afraid I don't agree and can see nothing you have offered that makes me feel any different. Look I appreciate that there is merit in looking at the case and attempting to come up with something different. Hell it may even sell books. But a lot of it is unsubstantiated.

I think you need to read and digest post #292 in more detail

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk