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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor may I ask you a few questions
1 - Do you believe that Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest if you like ?
2 - If you believe Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest why do you believe that MM mentioned him in a document naming three people who where more likely to have been the ripper than Cutbush ?
3 - If you believe Kosminski was a suspect why do you believe he was a person of interest say ?
4 - Do you believe that Anderson is referring to Kosminski in TLSOMOL ?
5 - If you believe Anderson is referring to Kosminski why pick on him if you believe he wanted a scapegoat and not someone else who on the surface would seem more feasible [ Druitt, Tumblety perhaps ]
5 - Do you believe the whole of the marginalia to be false or just part of it , and if only part which part ?

Regards Darryl

Number 2 is the one that I was going to ask.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor may I ask you a few questions
1 - Do you believe that Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest if you like ?

There is a big difference between a person of interest and a suspect

2 - If you believe Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest why do you believe that MM mentioned him in a document naming three people who where more likely to have been the ripper than Cutbush ?

There are many ways that a person could be categorised as a person of interest, especially at the time of the murders for example knife crimes involving females. anonymous and malicious information, someone confessing to the crimes. For someone to be a suspect there has to be some connecting evidence to link that person to a crime or a crime scene

3 - If you believe Kosminski was a suspect why do you believe he was a person of interest say ?

Probably because of the incident with his sister

4 - Do you believe that Anderson is referring to Kosminski in TLSOMOL ?

Everyone seems to believe that. but Andersons ramblings cannot be trusted

5 - If you believe Anderson is referring to Kosminski why pick on him if you believe he wanted a scapegoat and not someone else who on the surface would seem more feasible [ Druitt, Tumblety perhaps ]

Well as I have stated before we know that Grainger was subjected to some Id procedure so it is possible he was writing about that procedure

5 - Do you believe the whole of the marginalia to be false or just part of it , and if only part which part ?

If I was a gambling man I would say the last line "kosminski was the suspect" was added, that sentence is out of context with the rest of the marginalia and would have been easy to add

Regards Darryl

I again refer to the press articles I previously posted and what these officers said in later years

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

One thing which IMHO, rather perversely, supports the possibility that the Seaside Home incident took place is the siting of it. If you were going to invent a positive ID scenario why would you site it somewhere as implausible as the Seaside Home? You can literally place it anywhere you choose. Why would you not put it in a remote police station or an obscure church hall in a London suburb for example? I'm undecided on the Seaside Home ID. I suspect it may be a partially accurate recollection. The problem then is identifying what is bathwater and what is baby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One thing which IMHO, rather perversely, supports the possibility that the Seaside Home incident took place is the siting of it. If you were going to invent a positive ID scenario why would you site it somewhere as implausible as the Seaside Home? You can literally place it anywhere you choose. Why would you not put it in a remote police station or an obscure church hall in a London suburb for example? I'm undecided on the Seaside Home ID. I suspect it may be a partially accurate recollection. The problem then is identifying what is bathwater and what is baby.

That’s a good point. Why name a location that was bound to raise questions?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone seems to believe that. but Andersons ramblings cannot be trusted

But we can say that about anyone involved in the case. What actual evidence do we have that Anderson lied?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I was a gambling man I would say the last line "kosminski was the suspect" was added, that sentence is out of context with the rest of the marginalia and would have been easy to add

It’s just not out of context in any way. You have no basis for this. It’s absolutely in context. All that you have is that he doesn’t mention a Christian name and that he wrote ‘Kosminski was the suspect,’ instead of ‘the suspect was Kosminski.’ How are these grounds for an accusation of forgery - and by the unlikeliest of forgers.

’Easy to add?’

So we could all become proficient forgers, good enough to fool a handwriting experts? I’ll just go and knock up a note written by Abraham Lincoln then. Should be worth a few quid.

[Elamarna]

That’s a good point. Why name a location that was bound to raise questions?

Given that the location was a private note, in Swanson's own copy, probably never intended or expect to be read by anyone else, it raises no questions at all.


Steve

[Elamarna]

But we can say that about anyone involved in the case. What actual evidence do we have that Anderson lied?

I would personal trust comments by Anderson over say comments by TM.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I would personal trust comments by Anderson over say comments by TM.


Steve

I rely on facts and evidence and not comments.

I leave all the misguided comments and opinions to you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

"Because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Trevor, if you believe only, Kosminski was the suspect - DSS" is false [ your post 362 ]. Then Swanson is describing an ID were he believed the murderer would have been hanged if the witness swore to him. And that the suspect was sent to a workhouse and then to an asylum and that the suspect was a Jew whose brother lived in the district of the murders.

So who do you think this suspect is ?

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

"Because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Trevor, if you believe only, Kosminski was the suspect - DSS" is false [ your post 362 ]. Then Swanson is describing an ID were he believed the murderer would have been hanged if the witness swore to him. And that the suspect was sent to a workhouse and then to an asylum and that the suspect was a Jew whose brother lived in the district of the murders.

So who do you think this suspect is ?

Regards Darryl

Well you pays your money and takes your choice MM refers to a Kosminski as a suspect but gives no Christian name, and then is inclined to exonerate him, which would not have been relative to this ID because you don't exonerate someone who has been identified as a killer

If the marginalia is to be believed Swanson also refers to a Kosminski but again gives no Christian name surely if this man named Kosminski was such a strong suspect in the eyes of two senior officers and had been identified others would have known about it and surely his full name would have been disclosed.

Taking a suspect home and leaving him to his own devices would never have happened if such a positive ID had been made the suspect was taken to his brothers address following the mythical ID

Check out the newspaper trail from when James Swanson acquired the book to when it got published in its current form

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

Well you pays your money and takes your choice MM refers to a Kosminski as a suspect but gives no Christian name, and then is inclined to exonerate him, which would not have been relative to this ID because you don't exonerate someone who has been identified as a killer

If the marginalia is to be believed Swanson also refers to a Kosminski but again gives no Christian name surely if this man named Kosminski was such a strong suspect in the eyes of two senior officers and had been identified others would have known about it and surely his full name would have been disclosed.

Taking a suspect home and leaving him to his own devices would never have happened if such a positive ID had been made the suspect was taken to his brothers address following the mythical ID

Check out the newspaper trail from when James Swanson acquired the book to when it got published in its current form

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, can we at least agree that Kosminski was Jewish - and therefore didn't have Aaron, or anything else, as a Christian name?

[Bridewell]

"Because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Trevor, if you believe only, Kosminski was the suspect - DSS" is false [ your post 362 ]. Then Swanson is describing an ID were he believed the murderer would have been hanged if the witness swore to him. And that the suspect was sent to a workhouse and then to an asylum and that the suspect was a Jew whose brother lived in the district of the murders.

So who do you think this suspect is ?

Regards Darryl

A good point.

Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that "Kosminski was the suspect" was a later addition, in a hand other than that of DSS, it wouldn't mean that Kosminski was not the suspect, only that DSS was not the person who wrote the claim that he was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I rely on facts and evidence and not comments.

I leave all the misguided comments and opinions to you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I rely on facts and evidence and not comments.

I leave all the misguided comments and opinions to you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sadly Trevor , over the years you have shown that is not the case.

You rarely reply on facts, but I accept that you do present your opinion as fact, over and over again.

S.