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

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that he talks about non-detection of the murderer without any qualification suggests that the murderer was still undetected.

If Anderson believed in 1908 that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the Whitechapel Murderer was a certain Polish Jew, why did he talk about the non-detection of the murderer?

Why did he not say,

I cannot accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes - because I did in fact detect him!

I suggest it is quite clear that Anderson is implying that, whenever the conversation took place, the murderer was still undetected.

So you're going to continue to ignore that what Anderson actually said in 1908 was that he hadn't been able to obtain the clues to secure"the proof of the identity of the assassin"and that he, therefore, "could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the Ripper crimes."

I mean, if you ignore his actual words and take a snippet out of context I suppose you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want to arrive at. But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

(Herlock Shomes)


Not in 1908.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it's clear that he was directing his focus towards the failure to detect the Ripper crimes by proving the identity of the murderer.

(Herlock Shomes)


Not in 1908.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

Why don’t you just use the quote function?

What are you talking about? It's exactly what he said in 1908.

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin". He then says that it's because of the destruction of these clues, amongst other reasons, that he "could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the Ripper crimes".

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

He does not even hint that he knew the identity of the murderer.


Why should he? He was addressing a different point. He was complaining that there were clues destroyed, which is why he couldn't prove the killer's identity and gain a conviction.

In any case, he was under no obligation to give the Daily Chronicle an exclusive story that he was probably keeping for his book.

And then in 1910, he claims that he had known the identity of the murderer all along.

He obviously was not telling the truth about that.

As your reasoning is faulty, your conclusion cannot be relied upon.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin"...

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


One of the clues Anderson referred to was the Goulston Street Graffito.

You're implying that Anderson meant it might have been possible to prove that the message about the Jews had been written by a Polish Jew.

Assuming you are not claiming that Anderson and Swanson had a disagreement about his identity, then he must have meant Kosminski.


Please explain why:


Anderson thought a Jew wrote the message when his view at the time was that a gentile had written it.

Why a Jew would mis-spell Jews as Juwes, bearing in mind that a number of pro-Anderson/Swanson members here have argued that the reports of Kosminski's court appearance prove that he spoke English and further that he must have had a reasonable command of the language after having lived in England for several years.

Why, if a Polish Jew could spell all the other words correctly, he had not learned how to spell the very word that described him.


The other clue Anderson referred to was the clay pipe.


Please refer us to evidence that Aaron Kosminski smoked a clay pipe.

I imagine you may require some time to come up with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He first said that clues had been destroyed "that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin"...

In other words, he was saying he unable to accept responsibility for the non-detection of the killer because, for reasons outside of his control and not his fault, he wasn't able to prove the killer's identity.

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


One of the clues Anderson referred to was the Goulston Street Graffito.

You're implying that Anderson meant it might have been possible to prove that the message about the Jews had been written by a Polish Jew.

Assuming you are not claiming that Anderson and Swanson had a disagreement about his identity, then he must have meant Kosminski.


Please explain why:


Anderson thought a Jew wrote the message when his view at the time was that a gentile had written it.

Why a Jew would mis-spell Jews as Juwes, bearing in mind that a number of pro-Anderson/Swanson members here have argued that the reports of Kosminski's court appearance prove that he spoke English and further that he must have had a reasonable command of the language after having lived in England for several years.

Why, if a Polish Jew could spell all the other words correctly, he had not learned how to spell the very word that described him.


The other clue Anderson referred to was the clay pipe.


Please refer us to evidence that Aaron Kosminski smoked a clay pipe.

I imagine you may require some time to come up with that.

You're entirely missing the point.

It's got nothing to do with Kosminski.

Anderson in 1908 was simply trying to put forward (very weak) excuses as to why his department had been unable to prove the identity of the killer.

He was subtly blaming Warren for destroying the writing and a doctor for smashing the clay pipe. It wasn't HIS fault, in other words, why the killer was never arrested and convicted.

This is very different from the question of who he thought had committed the murders. As to that, he was very consistent over a number of years, starting from 1895, in stating his belief that the killer had been committed to a lunatic asylum.

……

And perhaps you could explain why you can use the quote function when responding to any other poster but you appear to be incapable of doing it when responding to me?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think you're entirely missing the point.

If Anderson thought that the destruction of evidence in Goulston Street and supposed destruction of evidence in Dorset Street had wrecked the chances of solving the case, then that means the murderer couldn't spell the word Jews and smoked a clay pipe.

That rules out Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you're entirely missing the point.

If Anderson thought that the destruction of evidence in Goulston Street and supposed destruction of evidence in Dorset Street had wrecked the chances of solving the case, then that means the murderer couldn't spell the word Jews and smoked a clay pipe.

That rules out Kosminski.

Except that, as I already explained to you, he was putting this supposed destruction of evidence forward as an EXCUSE for not securing the proof to convict Jack the Ripper.

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.
,
But to focus on those distractions is to entirely miss the point (which you've now done twice in a row) which is that Anderson's 1908 article wasn't about Kosminski. It was him moaning about the destruction of clues by others, thereby explaining to the public why Scotland Yard CID under his leadership had not arrested and convicted Jack the Ripper.

Whether he genuinely thought he was impeded by that we'll never know but to repeat the point which you've simply ignored, he was consistent over many years from 1895 in expressing his belief that JTR had been committed to a lunatic asylum. That's the fact that you seem unable to acknowledge or confront.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

You are using the well-worn tactic of turning the evidence into the opposite of what it suggests, by means of unwarranted speculation.

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly.

That is obviously not what the evidence suggests.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your points are utterly ridiculous anyway. Kosminski could easily have been unable to spell the word "Jews" in English, or he could simply have been pretending not to be able to spell it in order to throw attention off himself (while giving himself away with his handwriting), and could, for all we know, have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

You are using the well-worn tactic of turning the evidence into the opposite of what it suggests, by means of unwarranted speculation.

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe.

That is obviously not what the evidence suggests.

[Herlock Sholmes]

MY points are utterly ridiculous??

.

Yes. For the reasons I already explained

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes. For the reasons I already explained

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe?

Is that what you are saying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kosminski could have been a fair-haired, drunk, anti-Semitic Polish Jew, who had the appearance of a sailor, whose spelling of English words was perfect, but who was unable to spell the word Jew correctly, and who smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe?

Is that what you are saying?

No. You must be imagining things.

What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes", or he might have done so deliberately. Do you have any idea how competent Kosminski was in writing English?

He might also have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe. Do you have any idea whether he did or did not do so?

All the rest seems to have come from your imagination, having nothing to do with what Anderson said in 1908.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

No. You must be imagining things.

What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes", or he might have done so deliberately.


Can you cite the case of a Jewish person living in England who knew English well enough to spell words such as 'blamed' and 'nothing' correctly, yet was unable to spell the name of his own people?

It is obvious that the message was written by a gentile.



Do you have any idea how competent Kosminski was in writing English?


No.

And neither do you, which means you cannot say that he was able to spell words such as 'blamed' and 'nothing' correctly.

And if he could not, then he could not have written the message.

According to the report we have, nearly 15 months after the graffito was written in Goulston Street, Kosminski said 'I goes' instead of 'I go'.

How competent would you call that?



He might also have smoked a distinctive type of clay pipe. Do you have any idea whether he did or did not do so?


The clay pipe was reportedly smoked by Alice McKenzie, not Kosminski.

Next, I suppose you will be suggesting that she spoke Yiddish and her real name was McKosminski.



All the rest seems to have come from your imagination, having nothing to do with what Anderson said in 1908.


As you well know, 'all the rest' comes from posters on this forum, playing the same game as you are playing, making fanciful suggestions about Kosminski, on the ground that they cannot be disproved, even though they are completely unsupported by the evidence we have and even contradicted by it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

Ignore - posted on the wrong thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

I'm pretty sure that Alice McKenzie's clay pipe was never thrown into the fireplace by the doctor, which is what Anderson says of that pipe, so your assumption that he was talking about her pipe would seem to be misplaced (especially as in your #666 you referred to "supposed destruction of evidence at Dorset Street" showing that you are now arguing in pure bad faith).

But thank you for confirming that you have literally no idea whether Kosminski could have penned the writing on the wall nor whether he smoked a distinctive clay pipe. That's precisely why I described your points in #664 and #665 as utterly ridiculous.