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

[Bridewell]

Well at least I am not like you one of the many gullible and naive people on here who readily accept the writings of the likes of Swanson, Anderson, despite the flaws in their writings being highlighted and in many aspects of what they wrote disproved i.e

No evidence from any source to corroborate the ID parade as described in the marginalia

Corroboration would be helpful but the lack of it does not disprove the claim that it took place.

The mythical police officer referred to in the Mitre Square murder was never identified and there is no evidence to corroborate he ever existed as described

There were several officers on beats "near Mitre Square". Harvey for one, so the officer is not "mythical", regardless of whether it was Harvey or another officer who was meant.

No evidence to corroborate the Kosminski referred to was in fact Aaron Kosminski

Presumably because those officers who read the various references to this individual would know which Kosminski was meant without the need for a forename. You and I are cops of a certain generation. If either of us referred to the name "Sutcliffe" in the context of the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry the other would know this was a reference to Peter Sutcliffe and not Herbert Sutcliffe who opened the batting with Jack Hobbs!

No evidence to show the Kosminski referred to was ever arrested or interviewed despite the positive ID described in the marginalia

Kosminski was an inmate in a mental institution who was never going to be released, nor ever going to be fit for interview for that matter. It wouldn't happen now so it almost certainly wouldn't have happened then.

In the Aberconway version, MM exonerates the man he refers to as Kosminski

He actually says he is "inclined to exonerate" Kosminski and Ostrog. That suggests that he tends to the view that they are innocent. It is not a statement of certainty IMHO.

All of the marginalia has not been conclusively proven to have been written by Swanson

No, but he remains the most likely author. Given that the text was in his copy of Anderson's book and purports to be by him, that is not an unreasonable position to take.

The Seaside home has never been identified

And Brighton seems an unlikely location for a Met Police ID procedure. I wonder if this was an esoteric reference to somewhere else closer to hand, but which the layman would not be able to identify.

No evidence from any of the officers who were directly involved in the investigation that Kosminski was ever regarded as a prime suspect or even a person of interest

Indeed, but I doubt if the name was chosen at random. McNaghten will have spoken with those who were directly involved and it is reasonable to conclude that they were his source.

Your arguments often have merit but are not always the certainties you claim them to be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Steve didn't provide any evidence to support his claim and despite what you say there is no conclusive proof that Swanson penned all of the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I see that you've fallen back to the last resort of the defeated and desperate by demanding a standard of proof even higher than a jury needs to convict a murderer in a court of law! Like a flat-earther screaming into the wind to ask for "conclusive proof" that the world is round you reveal that you have literally nothing to support whatever incomprehensible, rambling argument you're trying to make.

There's nothing of any value in your post for me to respond to so I'm going to take a different approach and see what happens when I ask you 10 very simple "yes or no" questions. Are you brave enough to answer them, or just too cowardly? (You don't have to answer THAT one!)

TEN QUESTIONS FOR TREVOR MARRIOTT

1. Do you agree that none of Reid, Dew and Smith were at Scotland Yard prior to 1894?

2. If Reid, Dew and Smith didn't know of the ID parade, their views of the identity of JTR are utterly irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Do you agree with that statement?

3. Do you accept that MM described Kosminski as "a strong suspect" in his report dated 23 Feb 1894 which was filed at Scotland Yard?

4. Do you agree that Anderson claimed in his book that Kosminski was JTR and that the Swanson marginalia provide a reason for this, being that he had been positively identified at an ID parade by a key witness?

5. Do you agree that the first time it was known that Aaron Kosminski had been transferred from a workhouse to Colney Hatch asylum was in 1987, as a result of Martin Fido's original research?

6. Do you accept that News of the World journalist Charles Sandell wrote in a memo to his news editor dated 14 April 1981 that: "Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew"?

7. Do you accept that Sandell wrote in his unpublished 14 April 1981 article, attached to the above memo, that, "The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man. He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."?

8. Do you accept that Sandell also included a sentence in his unpublished 14 April 1981 article saying that: "Written neatly in the margins and on blank pages of a book he [Swanson's grandson] found the Ripper's name and the former Yard detective's explanation of why the killer escaped justice" AND quoted James Swanson as saying, "Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial"?

9. Do you accept that handwriting expert Christopher Davies wrote in his report dated 3 November 2006 that: "I have, therefore, concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book The Lighter Side of my Official Life"?

10. Do you accept that the same handwriting expert, Christopher Davies, wrote in a second report dated 24 September 2012 that: "I have concluded that there is strong support for the view that the notes towards the bottom of page 138 in Donald Swanson's copy of The Lighter Side of my Official Life and the notes on the last leaf of this book were written by Donald Swanson" and that "I have concluded that there is no evidence to support the view that the final line on the last leaf of the book was added much later to a pre-existing text. I have also found no evidence to support the view that this line was written by Jim Swanson"?

So there we are, Trevor, ten simple questions for which the answers are either "yes" or "no" in each case. I'd love to know what your answers to these questions are so that I can understand what is in your head but I rather fear that I will never get them.

[rjpalmer]

4. Do you agree that Anderson claimed in his book that Kosminski was JTR

Hi Herlock.

Sorry for barging into this dogfight, but I suspect that if the late Martin Fido was here, he would point out that Anderson does not name 'Kosminski' in his book, in Blackwood's, or anywhere else.

It was Fido's belief that after the passing of many years, Swanson had become confused, and two different suspects had blended into one.

You don't have to accept this theory, but perhaps it shouldn't be said or implied that Anderson named Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

Sorry for barging into this dogfight, but I suspect that if the late Martin Fido was here, he would point out that Anderson does not name 'Kosminski' in his book, in Blackwood's, or anywhere else.

It was Fido's belief that after the passing of many years, Swanson had become confused, and two different suspects had blended into one.

You don't have to accept this theory, but perhaps it shouldn't be said or implied that Anderson named Kosminski.

Hi Roger,

Fair point, its why I am asking Trevor if he agrees that Anderson was talking about Kosminski. If he doesn't, I'm sure he'll say so. But I want to know what Trevor thinks. You never know what he’s going to come up with next.

[Elamarna]

And Steve didn't provide any evidence to support his claim and despite what you say there is no conclusive proof that Swanson penned all of the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What evidence would you expect of a conversation with Robert Warren in a pub.
That you question my account suggests either you are saying I am being untruthful, or that Bob Warren was.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

What evidence would you expect of a conversation with Robert Warren in a pub.
That you question my account suggests either you are saying I am being untruthful, or that Bob Warren was.


Steve

Are you saying that you don’t carry recording equipment with you when you go for a pint Steve?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I see that you've fallen back to the last resort of the defeated and desperate by demanding a standard of proof even higher than a jury needs to convict a murderer in a court of law! Like a flat-earther screaming into the wind to ask for "conclusive proof" that the world is round you reveal that you have literally nothing to support whatever incomprehensible, rambling argument you're trying to make.

There's nothing of any value in your post for me to respond to so I'm going to take a different approach and see what happens when I ask you 10 very simple "yes or no" questions. Are you brave enough to answer them, or just too cowardly? (You don't have to answer THAT one!)

TEN QUESTIONS FOR TREVOR MARRIOTT

1. Do you agree that none of Reid, Dew and Smith were at Scotland Yard prior to 1894? No, Scotland Yard was the HQ of the met police officers were seconded to their respective divisions

Insp Reid
1888 : Local Inspector, Head of CID, H Division, Whitechapel
1896 : Retired.

Walter Dew
Early in 1887 Dew was transferred to Commercial Street police station in H Division (Whitechapel), where he was a detective constable in the Criminal Investigation Department during the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888

2. If Reid, Dew and Smith didn't know of the ID parade, their views of the identity of JTR are utterly irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Do you agree with that statement?

How could they not know of such a momentous event?

3. Do you accept that MM described Kosminski as "a strong suspect" in his report dated 23 Feb 1894 which was filed at Scotland Yard?

Yes I accept that but there is no evidence to show what that suspicion was based on and as you know there are different categories of suspects

4. Do you agree that Anderson claimed in his book that Kosminski was JTR and that the Swanson marginalia provide a reason for this, being that he had been positively identified at an ID parade by a key witness?

Anderson mentions no name in his book

5. Do you agree that the first time it was known that Aaron Kosminski had been transferred from a workhouse to Colney Hatch asylum was in 1987, as a result of Martin Fido's original research?

Irrelevant question

6. Do you accept that News of the World journalist Charles Sandell wrote in a memo to his news editor dated 14 April 1981 that: "Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of the C.I.D at Scotland Yard. The Yard detective names the man as Kosminski, a Polish Jew"?

See reply after Q8

7. Do you accept that Sandell wrote in his unpublished 14 April 1981 article, attached to the above memo, that, "The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man. He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."?

See reply after Q8

8. Do you accept that Sandell also included a sentence in his unpublished 14 April 1981 article saying that: "Written neatly in the margins and on blank pages of a book he [Swanson's grandson] found the Ripper's name and the former Yard detective's explanation of why the killer escaped justice" AND quoted James Swanson as saying, "Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial"?

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.”

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.

I should also make mention that just to make the chain of events clear to one and all. James Swanson having the newspaper not publish the marginalia in 1981, saw an article published by The Daily Telegraph on Oct 3rd 1987 by reporter Charles Nevin titled "Kosminski Jack the gripping tale" which names Kosminski, so where did Nevin get the name Kosminski from? perhaps the MM after all it was in the public domain by then so a forger to make the marginalia more financially viable could have added the last line

This led James Swanson to approach the telegraph and would you believe the marginalia did contain the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" this article was published under the title of "Has this man revealed the real jack the Ripper"
which was published on the 19th Oct 1987

9. Do you accept that handwriting expert Christopher Davies wrote in his report dated 3 November 2006 that: "I have, therefore, concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book The Lighter Side of my Official Life"?

That is not conclusive

10. Do you accept that the same handwriting expert, Christopher Davies, wrote in a second report dated 24 September 2012 that: "I have concluded that there is strong support for the view that the notes towards the bottom of page 138 in Donald Swanson's copy of The Lighter Side of my Official Life and the notes on the last leaf of this book were written by Donald Swanson" and that "I have concluded that there is no evidence to support the view that the final line on the last leaf of the book was added much later to a pre-existing text. I have also found no evidence to support the view that this line was written by Jim Swanson"?

That is also not conclusive

So there we are, Trevor, ten simple questions for which the answers are either "yes" or "no" in each case. I'd love to know what your answers to these questions are so that I can understand what is in your head but I rather fear that I will never get them.

My head is clear unlike yours which by your repetitive posts and your lack of understanding as to how to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence appears to be lodged firmly in a place that never sees the light of day

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

My head is clear unlike yours which by your repetitive posts and your lack of understanding as to how to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence appears to be lodged firmly in a place that never sees the light of day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well. Trevor, thank you for demonstrating better than I could ever have done how talking to you is like talking to a child. You've shown you don't even understand how to answer a "Yes or no" question properly. Out of 10 questions, you managed to answer "Yes or no" to only two, and in one of those you then went on to post evidence which flatly contradicted that very answer! Let's take a look at how you did.

Q1. You answered "no" and thus declined to agree that Reid and Dew were not at Scotland Yard prior to 1894 but then posted evidence showing that both were in H Division at that time! Are you aware that H Division covered the Whitechapel area and was headquarted at Leman Street while Scotland Yard was a building in Whitehall, many miles away? Scotland Yard was the HQ of the entire Metropolitan Police force. Does that mean, in your mind, that every single officer in the force during the period 1888 to 1894 was at Scotland Yard? Come on, Trevor! This is a complete fail.

Q2. You failed to answer "yes or no" but, instead, wrote "How could they not know of such a momentous event?" The obvious answer is that they weren't told, and the (secret) information was retained within Scotland Yard. As you say, Dew was only a constable in 1888. Reid was merely a local inspector. But I didn't want you to argue the point, I just wanted a yes or no. So another fail.

Q3. You answered "yes" but, almost unbelievably (were it not you), went on to comment that there "are different categories of suspect" in circumstances where you were agreeing that MM described Kosminski as a "strong suspect" - which is patently a different category of suspect from a weak suspect! You moan that "there is no evidence" to show what that suspicion was based on (by which you must mean no explanation by MM) but then ignore the fact that Swanson expressly explained why Kosminksi was considered to be a (strong) suspect in the case!!! If you had stuck with "yes" you would have passed this one but, given the ludicrous added commentary, it's got to be another fail.

Q4. You could have answered "no" to this one - as per the instructions - but for some reason chose not to. If Anderson wasn't talking about Kosminski, who do you think he was taking about? David Cohen?

Q5. Another failure. The question was not irrelevant and by saying it was you show you don't even understand what you yourself have been trying to argue.

Qs6-8. All you had to do was confirm the accuracy of the quotations but you failed to do so, instead posting some incomprehensible cut & paste job. Had you actually read the quotations, you would have seen that they totally contradict what you posted because they prove that Sandell did make mention of the last line in the marginalia that "Kosminski was the suspect". It's right there in black & white. You are simply in denial about this obvious and proven fact. Another spectacular fail on your part.

Qs9-10. You weren't being asked if those statements are conclusive or not. Only whether they are accurate transcriptions from the expert's reports. Just a yes or no - but you obviously realized that the conclusions of the handwriting expert are so damning to your argument that you can't even bring yourself to confirm that he actually wrote them! One more spectacular failure.


If I was feeling generous I would mark you as 1 out of 10 but I'm not, and your actual score is 0 our of 10. Good effort, Trevor. Not unexpected.

[mpriestnall]

Apropos of nothing really...

[Elamarna]

Are you saying that you don’t carry recording equipment with you when you go for a pint Steve?

Not back.in the early/mid 1980s Mike

S

[Trevor Marriott]

Well. Trevor, thank you for demonstrating better than I could ever have done how talking to you is like talking to a child. You've shown you don't even understand how to answer a "Yes or no" question properly. Out of 10 questions, you managed to answer "Yes or no" to only two, and in one of those you then went on to post evidence which flatly contradicted that very answer! Let's take a look at how you did.

Q1. You answered "no" and thus declined to agree that Reid and Dew were not at Scotland Yard prior to 1894 but then posted evidence showing that both were in H Division at that time! Are you aware that H Division covered the Whitechapel area and was headquarted at Leman Street while Scotland Yard was a building in Whitehall, many miles away? Scotland Yard was the HQ of the entire Metropolitan Police force. Does that mean, in your mind, that every single officer in the force during the period 1888 to 1894 was at Scotland Yard? Come on, Trevor! This is a complete fail.

Q2. You failed to answer "yes or no" but, instead, wrote "How could they not know of such a momentous event?" The obvious answer is that they weren't told, and the (secret) information was retained within Scotland Yard. As you say, Dew was only a constable in 1888. Reid was merely a local inspector. But I didn't want you to argue the point, I just wanted a yes or no. So another fail.

Q3. You answered "yes" but, almost unbelievably (were it not you), went on to comment that there "are different categories of suspect" in circumstances where you were agreeing that MM described Kosminski as a "strong suspect" - which is patently a different category of suspect from a weak suspect! You moan that "there is no evidence" to show what that suspicion was based on (by which you must mean no explanation by MM) but then ignore the fact that Swanson expressly explained why Kosminksi was considered to be a (strong) suspect in the case!!! If you had stuck with "yes" you would have passed this one but, given the ludicrous added commentary, it's got to be another fail.

Q4. You could have answered "no" to this one - as per the instructions - but for some reason chose not to. If Anderson wasn't talking about Kosminski, who do you think he was taking about? David Cohen?

Q5. Another failure. The question was not irrelevant and by saying it was you show you don't even understand what you yourself have been trying to argue.

Qs6-8. All you had to do was confirm the accuracy of the quotations but you failed to do so, instead posting some incomprehensible cut & paste job. Had you actually read the quotations, you would have seen that they totally contradict what you posted because they prove that Sandell did make mention of the last line in the marginalia that "Kosminski was the suspect". It's right there in black & white. You are simply in denial about this obvious and proven fact. Another spectacular fail on your part.

Qs9-10. You weren't being asked if those statements are conclusive or not. Only whether they are accurate transcriptions from the expert's reports. Just a yes or no - but you obviously realized that the conclusions of the handwriting expert are so damning to your argument that you can't even bring yourself to confirm that he actually wrote them! One more spectacular failure.


If I was feeling generous I would mark you as 1 out of 10 but I'm not, and your actual score is 0 our of 10. Good effort, Trevor. Not unexpected.

Well as the questions were of a childish nature and I didn't want to play your silly games, I thought I would reply in a similar fashion so that you could understand and when you come back from playing with the fairies at the bottom of your garden we might be able to have a sensible debate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well as the questions were of a childish nature and I didn't want to play your silly games, I thought I would reply in a similar fashion so that you could understand and when you come back from playing with the fairies at the bottom of your garden we might be able to have a sensible debate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A sensible debate with someone who has literally just admitted to replying to straightforward questions in a "childish" fashion? Don't make me laugh. Goodbye Trevor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Try Joseph Hyam Levy.

Joseph Hyam Levy told police he could not furnish them with a description of the suspect.

The idea that he later changed his story and said he got a good look at him is farfetched.

We have posters deprecating my assertion that Lawende described the murderer, claiming that he did not get a good look at the suspect, even though he provided a detailed description of his physical appearance and his dress.

Yet there are posters suggesting that Levy could have convinced the police that he had a better look.

Where is the evidence?

No police record.
No press report.
No policeman's memoir.
No police chief's marginalia.
Nothing.

As for the theory promoted here that he recognised the suspect as a relative of his, what are the chances that he had a relative with a blond moustache and the appearance of a sailor?

According to my critics here, my suggestion that a man with fair hair and the appearance of a sailor was a Nordic sailor is laughable, but the idea that he was a Polish Jew has been presented here as if it were a serious possibility, and treated with a good deal more respect than my theory.

There is not one shred of evidence that Levy ever provided police with a description of the suspect, let alone identified a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor as a Polish Jew.

There is in fact no record of any fair-haired Jew ever having been a suspect.


Just to prove how hopelessly illogical the idea is, consider this:

According to pro-Anderson/Levy posters here, Levy identified the suspect but refused to testify against him because he was Jewish - and knew all along that the suspect was Jewish.

Why then would Levy have identified the suspect at all?

Why would he have provided the police with a description of him at all?

We are asked to believe that he pretended not to recognise the suspect, nor to have got a good look at him, then admitted he did get a good look, then identified him, and only then, on learning (Anderson's word) that the suspect was Jewish, or (Swanson) that the suspect was also a Jew, refused to testify against him, even though he had known all along that the suspect was Jewish.

This totally irrational line of reasoning seems to be accorded more respect here than anything I have written.


P.S.

After having written to me:

I think Steve "Elamarna" deleted his own post. I would too if I had second thoughts about responding to you.

you have made an illogical suggestion that Levy could have been Anderson's fictional witness.

Maybe you should have second thoughts before publishing illogical suggestions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

You are very selective about when and to whom you apply that principle.

It is happening almost all the time and yet, in most cases, you make no comment about it.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning PI one

... my theory.

By the way, what is your theory?

Paddy