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

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why should he believe the killer died after being admitted to Colney Hatch, and why didn't he go public with the name, if the killer was dead after all you cannot libel/slander the dead and the same applies to what Anderson wrote.

Of course, it's relevant in 1895 Swanson is stating categorically that the killer is dead, But Kosminski was very much alive in 1895 he didn't also die after being transferred to Colney Hatch he lived till 1919 so Aaron Kosminski could not have been the Kosminski referred to in the marginalia or the content of the marginalia is not safe to rely on.

My money is on the latter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Trevor you're missing the point that you quoted Swanson yourself as saying that the Whitechapel murderer was dead in 1895. He obviously had a suspect in mind then but didn't name him!

There are more reasons than avoiding libel for a serving police officer not naming an uncharged suspect who hasn't been proved to be guilty in a court of law. Consideration for the family, respect for the rule of law and, in the case of a Jewish suspect, the obvious fear of racial violence are just three that spring to mind. And after retirement, police officers weren't supposed to be revealing secrets from their employment in the force, hence the controversy when they published memoirs.

In any case, the whole point is that Swanson DID name Kosminski in private in his marginalia.

I know that Kosminiski didn't die until 1919 but Swanson clearly believed that his suspect, who he named as Kosminski, died shortly after April 1984. That is reflected in his much earlier quote in the 1895 article. It's all consistent.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Trevor you're missing the point that you quoted Swanson yourself as saying that the Whitechapel murderer was dead in 1895. He obviously had a suspect in mind then but didn't name him!

There are more reasons than avoiding libel for a serving police officer not naming an uncharged suspect who hasn't been proved to be guilty in a court of law. Consideration for the family, respect for the rule of law and, in the case of a Jewish suspect, the obvious fear of racial violence are just three that spring to mind. And after retirement, police officers weren't supposed to be revealing secrets from their employment in the force, hence the controversy when they published memoirs.

In any case, the whole point is that Swanson DID name Kosminski in private in his marginalia.

I know that Kosminiski didn't die until 1919 but Swanson clearly believed that his suspect, who he named as Kosminski, died shortly after April 1984. That is reflected in his much earlier quote in the 1895 article. It's all consistent.

Your reply is illogical, again you are desperately trying to prop up the marginalia

The Pall Mall quote was 1895 the marginalia could not have been written before 1910

MM named suspects in his Memo
Abberline names a suspect
Swanson names a suspect

A person who is dead cannot be the subject of a libel/slander case

Where does racial violence come into the equation years after the murders?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your reply is illogical, again you are desperately trying to prop up the marginalia

The Pall Mall quote was 1895 the marginalia could not have been written before 1910

MM named suspects in his Memo
Abberline names a suspect
Swanson names a suspect

A person who is dead cannot be the subject of a libel/slander case

Where does racial violence come into the equation years after the murders?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you introduced Swanson's 1895 quote into this thread in #355 to support your claim that the ID parade didn't take place as described in the marginalia.

What is very clear, however, is that the 1895 quote actually supports the ID parade because it shows that Swanson believed that the prime suspect was dead in 1895, which appears to be consistent with what is in the later marginalia, namely that Kosminski died shortly after having been transferred to Colney Hatch.

It looks like Swanson consistently believed that the suspect (Kosminski) died shortly after April 1894.

Your point that Swanson would certainly have named Kosminski following his death simply because he couldn't have been sued for libel is ridiculous.

MM didn't name ANY of his suspects in public and, when both Major Griffiths published his book in 1898 and MM published his memoir in 1914, they STILL didn't name any of the suspects, including the deceased Druitt. It obviously wasn't because of a fear of a libel suit.

Abberline could name HIS suspect (in 1903) because Chapman was already a convicted murderer, so no problem.

Yes, Swanson DID privately name his suspect. Kosminski!

It may be that you think anti-semitism was over by 1895 but it wasn't, so identifying a jew as Jack the Ripper in that year would have been obviously inflammatory and detrimental to relations with the Jewish community but that was only one of many reasons why a serving police officer would likely not publicly name someone as a murderer who hadn't been convicted, even if dead. Which is why Swanson didn't name him in 1895 despite expressly stating that he was dead.

[Elamarna]

Your reply is illogical, again you are desperately trying to prop up the marginalia

The Pall Mall quote was 1895 the marginalia could not have been written before 1910

MM named suspects in his Memo
Abberline names a suspect
Swanson names a suspect

A person who is dead cannot be the subject of a libel/slander case

Where does racial violence come into the equation years after the murders?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

None of the 3 officers you mention ever gives the name in public. so libel/slander never come into the equation.

Was is so very clear is that you simply do not follow the possible reason for NEVER naming in Public.
That seems to escape you

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

A correction to my previous posts:

Kosminski was transferred to Colney Hatch in February 1891 (and from there to Leavesdon in April 1894). So Swanson must have consistently believed he had died shortly after February 1891.

[Scott Nelson]

A correction to my previous posts:

Kosminski was transferred to Colney Hatch in February 1891 (and from there to Leavesdon in April 1894). So Swanson must have consistently believed he had died shortly after February 1891.

Well, Swanson implied that he died prior to May 1895. If Swanson was not referring to Druitt, or someone else, and one year earlier MM mentions Kosminski in a private memo saying he thinks Kosminski was still alive (February 1894), that could suggest miscommunication when Aaron is transferred to Leavesden Asylum in April 1894.

Or, as a simpler solution, there was another Kosminski who died shortly after the murders in Colney Hatch.

[Trevor Marriott]

None of the 3 officers you mention ever gives the name in public. so libel/slander never come into the equation.

Was is so very clear is that you simply do not follow the possible reason for NEVER naming in Public.
That seems to escape you

Steve

and you should know that you cannot libel or slander a dead person !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Swanson implied that he died prior to May 1895. If Swanson was not referring to Druitt, or someone else, and one year earlier MM mentions Kosminski in a private memo saying he thinks Kosminski was still alive (February 1894), that could suggest miscommunication when Aaron is transferred to Leavesden Asylum in April 1894.

Or, as a simpler solution, there was another Kosminski who died shortly after the murders in Colney Hatch.

A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that William Grant Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found perhaps someone could post that article?

Martin Fido discovered Aaron Kosminski in 1987 up until that time Kosminski was only referred to as Kosminski by Magnaghten and Swanson and I can't believe that such a prime suspect was only referred to by two senior officers simply by his surname and the fact that Kosminski as a suspect was not known to any other officers directly involved in the murders

I would be interested to know the exact date Fido found Aaron Kosminski in 1987 and the exact date James Swanson first offered the book to the News of the World also in 1987.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that William Grant Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found perhaps someone could post that article?

Certainly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Certainly.

Thank you, RJ

That shows that there was an ID parade which mirrors in parts some of that which is contained in the marginalia.

I would still like to know the date in 1987 when Fido discovered Aaron Kosminski in the asylum records and the date in 1987 when James Swanson first offered the book and the marginalia to the News of the World, if anyone can help?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

and you should know that you cannot libel or slander a dead person !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point is They never DID.
Your comment is therefore not only irrelevant, but unreasoned.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thank you, RJ

That shows that there was an ID parade which mirrors in parts some of that which is contained in the marginalia.

I would still like to know the date in 1987 when Fido discovered Aaron Kosminski in the asylum records and the date in 1987 when James Swanson first offered the book and the marginalia to the News of the World, if anyone can help?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sadly you cannot even get the date correct Trevor.
The News of the World were offered the Marginlia initially 6th March 1981, NOT 1987, that was the Telegraph.

The information offered to the News of the World, included the surname Name, despite your continual claims it did not.

An internal memo from Charles Sandell, to the New Editor, News of the World , dated 15th April 1981 clearly says

"The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew."

This document as been in the public domain for a number of years, yet you continue to ignore it or dismiss it.
Such is highly disingenuous.

Let me be clear here, the reason TNOW did not run the story was partly because the surname Kosminski, did not identify a known individual. That would require additional research, which the paper was not inclined to carry out, given it would be a nobody and not the sort of sensational story the paper was known for.

Charles Nevin of the Telegraph said as much at the time the Telegraph published the story 19th October 1987.

However, as I have mentioned before, in the early/mid 1980s I was a regular at the same pub as Robert Warren of the News of the World. He told me about the story and the reason for not publishing pre 1985.


It's ironic that you talk of not being able to lible the dead is it not?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that William Grant Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found perhaps someone could post that article?

Martin Fido discovered Aaron Kosminski in 1987 up until that time Kosminski was only referred to as Kosminski by Magnaghten and Swanson and I can't believe that such a prime suspect was only referred to by two senior officers simply by his surname and the fact that Kosminski as a suspect was not known to any other officers directly involved in the murders

I would be interested to know the exact date Fido found Aaron Kosminski in 1987 and the exact date James Swanson first offered the book to the News of the World also in 1987.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It looks like you haven’t been quoting with accuracy Trevor. This is the first part of the PMG story (7th May 1895) the emboldening is my own:

"A WHITECHAPFL ‘RIPPING’ CASE. EXHAUSTIVE POLICE. INQUIRIES. SOME CURIOUS COINCIDENCES. Since the cessation of the Whitechapel murders there has been no lack of theories to account for the disappearance of the author of those crimes, Jack the Ripper as he is called, in consequence of a series of letters so signed; purporting, rightly or wrongly, to come from the murderer. The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge; was that of Chief Inspector Swanson; the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead. Latterly, however the police have been busy investigating one Grant Grainger, who was caught in the act of wounding a woman in the abdomen, in a street close by Buck's-row, the scene of the first of the real series of Whitechapel murders, those outrages in which the victims were killed and left horribly mutilated in the streets. Grainger's crime so much resembled the former outrages that intense pains were taken to trace his antecedents. Nothing was found, however, to warrant placing him on his trial for any previous outrage, and on March 27 last he was brought up at the Old Bailey charged with feloniously wounding Alice Graham."

So the actual quote was NOT Swanson saying"The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead" as Trevor claims. It was no more than a summary of Swanson's supposed belief (expressed in the past tense, so I'm not really sure where it came from).

In post #246 you said:

At the time the Pall Mall Gazette report was published Swanson who led the original Ripper investigation was interviewed by a reporter from that paper. He poured cold water on the suggestion that Grainger could be the Ripper and stated, “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”.


In the same post you also said:

A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found. There is no information to tell us where or when this identification procedure took place but it is believed to have taken place at a "Seamans Home"

I can’t see why you made the claim about the ‘Seaman’s Home,’ when the piece actually said this:

"Added to these circumstances, there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman’s dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable..."

[Trevor Marriott]

It looks like you haven’t been quoting with accuracy Trevor. This is the first part of the PMG story (7th May 1895) the emboldening is my own:

"A WHITECHAPFL ‘RIPPING’ CASE. EXHAUSTIVE POLICE. INQUIRIES. SOME CURIOUS COINCIDENCES. Since the cessation of the Whitechapel murders there has been no lack of theories to account for the disappearance of the author of those crimes, Jack the Ripper as he is called, in consequence of a series of letters so signed; purporting, rightly or wrongly, to come from the murderer. The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge; was that of Chief Inspector Swanson; the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead. Latterly, however the police have been busy investigating one Grant Grainger, who was caught in the act of wounding a woman in the abdomen, in a street close by Buck's-row, the scene of the first of the real series of Whitechapel murders, those outrages in which the victims were killed and left horribly mutilated in the streets. Grainger's crime so much resembled the former outrages that intense pains were taken to trace his antecedents. Nothing was found, however, to warrant placing him on his trial for any previous outrage, and on March 27 last he was brought up at the Old Bailey charged with feloniously wounding Alice Graham."

So the actual quote was NOT Swanson saying"The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead" as Trevor claims. It was no more than a summary of Swanson's supposed belief (expressed in the past tense, so I'm not really sure where it came from).

In post #246 you said:

At the time the Pall Mall Gazette report was published Swanson who led the original Ripper investigation was interviewed by a reporter from that paper. He poured cold water on the suggestion that Grainger could be the Ripper and stated, “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”.


In the same post you also said:

A story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found. There is no information to tell us where or when this identification procedure took place but it is believed to have taken place at a "Seamans Home"

I can’t see why you made the claim about the ‘Seaman’s Home,’ when the piece actually said this:

"Added to these circumstances, there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman’s dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable..."

I never mentioned a Seaman's home I simply referred to an ID as mentioned in the newspaper

As to a time-lapse you forgot to mention the time lapse in the marginalia - and that is that Swanson could not have made that entry before 1910, 22 years after the murders, so how good was his memory after that period of time?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sadly you cannot even get the date correct Trevor.
The News of the World were offered the Marginlia initially 6th March 1981, NOT 1987, that was the Telegraph.

The information offered to the News of the World, included the surname Name, despite your continual claims it did not.

An internal memo from Charles Sandell, to the New Editor, News of the World , dated 15th April 1981 clearly says

"The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew."

This document as been in the public domain for a number of years, yet you continue to ignore it or dismiss it.
Such is highly disingenuous.

Let me be clear here, the reason TNOW did not run the story was partly because the surname Kosminski, did not identify a known individual. That would require additional research, which the paper was not inclined to carry out, given it would be a nobody and not the sort of sensational story the paper was known for.

Charles Nevin of the Telegraph said as much at the time the Telegraph published the story 19th October 1987.

However, as I have mentioned before, in the early/mid 1980s I was a regular at the same pub as Robert Warren of the News of the World. He told me about the story and the reason for not publishing pre 1985.


It's ironic that you talk of not being able to lible the dead is it not?


Steve

The last and important part to the marginalia states “Kosminski was the suspect” it should be noted that in 1981 when James Swanson agreed to sell the story to The News of The World, the story was to be written by reporter Charles Sandell. His typewritten article has been found and published and in that he makes no mention of that last line in the marginalia “Kosminski was the suspect.” I find that strange as that last line is the most important part of the marginalia because it names the suspect, and I would have expected it to have been included in his article.

Now I have to ask why it was not. Was it an omission on Sandell's part, or was it a case that the last line was not there in the marginalia at that time? If that was the case it might explain why The News of The World article never got published, because the name Kosminski was already in the public domain. In the 1987 article published by The Telegraph, the line “Kosminski was the suspect was mentioned as being part of the marginalia.

In another document, which Sandell sent to his news editor prior to him formulating his intended article, he does include a line which reads, "The Yard Detective names the man as Kosminksi, a Police Jew”In the absence in his final article of the all-important "Kosminski was the suspect," Sandell can only have been told that Donald Swanson said, "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski," for there is nothing else in Charles Sandell's transcription of the marginalia to substantiate such a claim.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk