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

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Anderson thought that the GSG and an alleged broken clay pipe in Kelly's room were key pieces of evidence in the case and, moreover, that Kosminski was the murderer, you don't need to be a detective to work out that Kosminski must have written the GSG and smoked a clay pipe.

Maybe you're having comprehension difficulties today, like every other day, but I thought I had made my position perfectly clear that Anderson did NOT genuinely think that the CSG and the broken clay pipe were "key pieces of evidence" and that he put forward feeble excuses in 1908 to try and explain his department's failure to arrest and convict Jack the Ripper.

Just humour me a moment and assume for the sake of argument, that Kosminski was always Anderson's prime suspect. He would have known full well in 1908 that he didn't have any good excuse for the failure of the CID to arrest and convict Kosminksi in 1888. It was an abject failure by his own department and thus by him personally. But he could hardly say this.

And let's also assume for for the sake of argument that he was frustrated by the failure of a Jewish witness to give evidence against Kosminski. Well, sure, he could have said this in 1908 but not only would that have been highly controversial (as it would prove to be two years later) but he might have wanted to save this exclusive (and possibly commercially lucrative) story for Blackwoods magazine and for his book. Why give away that big story to the Daily Chronicle?

So what I'm saying is that the Daily Chronicle article is irrelevant and not worthy of this extended discussion. It goes to a different point whereby he was trying to excuse his department's failure without having to controversially blame a Jewish person for that failure. This would come later and would be corroborated by Swanson.

But I have to add - because you compel me to do so - that it is entirely possible that Kosminski wrote the CSG and smoked a clay pipe because we don't have any evidence to assist us either way, so that part of your sentence remains as utterly ridiculous as it was when you first wrote it.


Now if you don't understand any of this, there is very little I am able to do for you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Of course Anderson was referring to Alice McKenzie's pipe, except that he did not realise he was doing so.

Alice McKenzie smoked a clay pipe, which was found near her body and subsequently broken, exactly what Anderson claims happened in the Kelly case.

Anyone can see that this is is just one of many examples of Anderson's confusion around the time of his life when he started making defamatory statements about Polish Jews.

Yet your reaction is to suggest that in addition to the intact pipe found in Kelly's room, which was claimed by her boyfriend, there was another clay pipe, which could have been broken, and could have belonged to Kosminski.

And you say the points I make are utterly ridiculous??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course Anderson was referring to Alice McKenzie's pipe, except that he did not realise he was doing so.

Alice McKenzie smoked a clay pipe, which was found near her body and subsequently broken, exactly what Anderson claims happened in the Kelly case.

Anyone can see that this is is just one of many examples of Anderson's confusion around the time of his life when he started making defamatory statements about Polish Jews.

Yet your reaction is to suggest that in addition to the intact pipe found in Kelly's room, which was claimed by her boyfriend, there was another clay pipe, which could have been broken, and could have belonged to Kosminski.

And you say the points I make are utterly ridiculous??

It's always fun to watch you misrepresent what I've posted but, that aside, can you please remind me what Inspector Abberline's report to ACC in November 1888 said about items found in Kelly's room and in the fireplace?

[Tom_Wescott]

Assumption: That the witness had to be either Lawende or Schwartz. But what if he/she was someone else?

If we read between the lines, we find Henry Smith SCREAMING (in his autobiography) that Anderson's suspect was Joseph Lawende. It's hard to interpret the discourse between himself and Anderson in any other way (IMO).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If we read between the lines, we find Henry Smith SCREAMING (in his autobiography) that Anderson's suspect was Joseph Lawende. It's hard to interpret the discourse between himself and Anderson in any other way (IMO).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I would advise anyone to read the actual lines written by Sir Henry Smith, in which he rubbished everything Anderson said about the Jews and dismissed his allegation that the Jews prevented the Whitechapel Murderer from being brought to justice.

[Tom_Wescott]

I would advise anyone to read the actual lines written by Sir Henry Smith, in which he rubbished everything Anderson said about the Jews and dismissed his allegation that the Jews prevented the Whitechapel Murderer from being brought to justice.

More importantly, he went to great pains to downplay his own suspect - Lawende - by pointing out that he never could have identified the man he saw. As he was writing in response to Anderson, I can see no reason why he would do this except to remind Anderson that his witness identification was worthless. And I do believe Smith would have been informed if not involved of every element of the Seaside ID. I should mention that none of this is a negative towards the suspect Kosminski, because clearly other factors made him a suspect, or why else have Lawende look at him? Only to point out that Smith is (IMO) inferring that Lawende was the witness whom Anderson describes in his memoirs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

More importantly, he went to great pains to downplay his own suspect - Lawende - by pointing out that he never could have identified the man he saw. As he was writing in response to Anderson, I can see no reason why he would do this except to remind Anderson that his witness identification was worthless. And I do believe Smith would have been informed if not involved of every element of the Seaside ID. I should mention that none of this is a negative towards the suspect Kosminski, because clearly other factors made him a suspect, or why else have Lawende look at him? Only to point out that Smith is (IMO) inferring that Lawende was the witness whom Anderson describes in his memoirs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

hey tom welcome back.
you keep referring to Lawende as a suspect..
you mean witness right?

anyway Sugden put the issue to bed on Lawende being the Seaside ID witness when he found a contemperaneous newspaper article referring to Lawende as the sadler ID witness and the witness in the Edoowes case.

[Tom_Wescott]

hey tom welcome back.
you keep referring to Lawende as a suspect..
you mean witness right?

anyway Sugden put the issue to bed on Lawende being the Seaside ID witness when he found a contemperaneous newspaper article referring to Lawende as the sadler ID witness and the witness in the Edoowes case.

Hi Abby. I can't believe I referred to Lawende as a suspect. That's what I get for posting while I'm working. I'm not sure what you mean by what Sugden put to bed. Regardless of how Lawende may or may not have been used later on, the Anderson-Smith biographical war of words makes it pretty clear that Smith is naming Lawende as Anderson's witness. If it were Schwartz, I think Smith would have made veiled references to his problematic evidence as opposed to how his own witness - Lawende - was problematic. Same holds true for Lawende's cohorts that evening. Also, Schwartz completely disappears from the police accounts after November 1888, never to emerge again evening in later musings and rememberings. Which, by the way, I consider extremely strange.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... the Anderson-Smith biographical war of words makes it pretty clear that Smith is naming Lawende as Anderson's witness.

I am not sure that is what you mean.

Smith made it clear that he was convinced that Lawende saw the murderer, but he also made it clear that he did not believe a word of Anderson's allegations about Jews thwarting what Anderson called gentile justice.

Smith evidently did not believe Anderson's claim that anyone had been identified as the murderer, or else he would not have described Anderson's efforts to identify the culprit as a fruitless investigation.

[Sunny Delight]

Robert Anderson writes

'......the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.'

Donald Swanson adds:

'...because witness was also a Jew and because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be means of murderer being hanged, which he did not want left on his mind'

Malcolm McNaughton:

' Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in heart of the district where the murders were comimitted............... This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.'

It is interesting that Swanson does not contradict Anderson. He adds to Anderson's certainty that the witness had told them he did not want to testify as he did not want the hanging of a fellow Jew left on his conscience. It is also interesting that McNaughton states in a draft version of his memorandum that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. This all ties in. But McNaughton seems to believe that the ID was not conclusive.

For me Anderson and Swanson were convinced the ID was fairly successful and had informed McNaughton that the witness had stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man he had seen near Mitre Square. Over the years much like the Police force becoming wholly convinced that Colin Stagg had killed Rachel Nickel in the 1990's Anderson became convinced of Kosminski's guilt. It became indisputable in his mind. The ID formed the central plank in this. Maybe he and Swanson were right. Maybe it was cast iron. Have we ever considered that they were?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For me Anderson and Swanson were convinced the ID was fairly successful and had informed McNaughton that the witness had stated Kosminski strongly resembled the man he had seen near Mitre Square.

That would mean the witness being a Jewish policeman.

Where is the evidence that a Jewish policeman was ever in the vicinity of the site of any murder?

[Tom_Wescott]

I am not sure that is what you mean.

Smith made it clear that he was convinced that Lawende saw the murderer, but he also made it clear that he did not believe a word of Anderson's allegations about Jews thwarting what Anderson called gentile justice.

Smith evidently did not believe Anderson's claim that anyone had been identified as the murderer, or else he would not have described Anderson's efforts to identify the culprit as a fruitless investigation.

No, it's what I mean. Smith states that Lawende did see the Ripper but not well enough to identify him. Meanwhile, he's bagging on Anderson, who is claiming to have identified the Ripper. Reading between the lines, Smith is telling us A) Lawende was the witness, and B) his witness evidence holds no value.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?

[Tom_Wescott]

I know which part of Smith's memoir you are referring to:

"You will easily recognize him, then," I [Smith] said. "Oh no!" he [Lawende] replied ; "I only had a short look at him."

Are you suggesting that Smith may have been conceding that a confrontation, with Lawende as the witness, may have taken place but that Anderson's claim that Lawende identified the suspect was untrue?

Yes. The Seaside Home ID happened as Anderson said, but Smith is pointing out that the witness the police are using is not a good one. And he WOULD have been aware that the witness ID happened, and that the city witness Lawende had been used. That's why he doesn't contradict Anderson on that point, But he does give to history his knowledge that Lawende would not have been able to identify the man he saw with Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is certainly true, as you say, that Smith does not deny in his memoir that the identification confrontation, claimed by Anderson to have happened, actually happened.

On the other hand, he does not concede that it did.

Is it possible that, as he knew nothing about it, he was arguing that IF such an identification confrontation did take place, it COULDN'T have resulted in the witness saying that he recognised the suspect?