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

[Darryl Kenyon]

There is plenty more to say on this matter.

First, what you are claiming is untrue.

What I wrote is a reasonable speculation.

That is not invention.

Even if it were, as you claim, unsupported speculation, that is NOT invention and everyone here knows it.

Pizer was accused of committing Whitechapel murders.

He had alibis.

Druitt has been accused of committing the Whitechapel murders.

It turns out that he had an alibi for the first murder.

It is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for others in the series.

That is not invention.

Lechmere almost certainly had alibis for at least some of the Whitechapel murders, which took place before he had even set out for work or on days when he can reasonably have been expected to be with his family.

From what we know of Kosminski, it is reasonable to speculate that he had alibis for at least some of the murders.

And that, as I think you know deep down, is not invention.

Pizer may have been looked at as a person of interest at the time, but that's because at the time he was suspected of being a man who had ill used prostitutes.
He was checked out and cleared with incidentally a policeman helping his case .
If Kosminski had an alibi in my opinion he would have been cleared to . You seem to be suggesting here that Anderson and Swanson were knowingly lying.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Pizer may have been looked at as a person of interest at the time, but that's because at the time he was suspected of being a man who had ill used prostitutes.
He was checked out and cleared with incidentally a policeman helping his case .
If Kosminski had an alibi in my opinion he would have been cleared to . You seem to be suggesting here that Anderson and Swanson were knowingly lying.

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect.

A careful reading of Anderson's memoirs reveals that even according to Anderson, his conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew was not arrived at as a result of any search yielding any positive result and that the suspect was no longer living in Whitechapel at the time that he became a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Pizer may have been looked at as a person of interest at the time, but that's because at the time he was suspected of being a man who had ill used prostitutes.
He was checked out and cleared with incidentally a policeman helping his case .
If Kosminski had an alibi in my opinion he would have been cleared to . You seem to be suggesting here that Anderson and Swanson were knowingly lying.

Well someone was less than economical with the truth thats for sure

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect.

.

Leaving aside your opinion for a second can you provide us with the concrete proof that he was never suspected please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)

Would Elamarna kindly tell us whether the statement quoted above is invention?

It was you that made the assertion. How about you giving an answer to the question I directed at you (a note that I mentioned in my post that you would try and swerve the question.)

Will you now concede that you were wrong?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well someone was less than economical with the truth thats for sure

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think in Anderson's case, that is clear, but does it really matter whether he knew that what he wrote was not true?

We know that when he claimed to have discussed the murders with the Home Secretary, William Harcourt, Harcourt was not Home Secretary.

We know that he confused Alice McKenzie with Mary Kelly.

We know that he confused the political parties of leading politicians.

We know that he thought a clear-cut case of murder was a natural death.

We know that Winston Churchill called him a fantasist.

We know that he changed an important detail about his suspect's history when he realised it could not have happened.

We know that when challenged by Inspector Reid, he made no response.

What does that tell you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

Because it’s not speculation it’s perfectly true. We know for an absolute fact that Druitt had 2 or 3 different trains that would have got back to London well in time for the Nichols murder. And we know that the cricket match that he was supposed to be playing in when Tabram was killed didn’t take place.

So these are facts arrived at by research. Not speculation.

I know that it might stick in your throat PI, but the evidence is there and unequivocal…So…..will you accept that you are wrong?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect.

A careful reading of Anderson's memoirs reveals that even according to Anderson, his conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew was not arrived at as a result of any search yielding any positive result and that the suspect was no longer living in Whitechapel at the time that he became a suspect.

MM in his memorandum specifically calls Kosminski a suspect . I suppose you think he was making it up as well

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The only way anyone could prove that Druitt did not have an alibi would be if they could find a record that he had been unable to provide one when challenged by police.

He was never challenged because he did not become a suspect until after his death, just as Kosminski did not become a suspect until after his incarceration.

The statement

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

cannot be substantiated and, according to Elamarna's definition, amounts to invention.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

MM in his memorandum specifically calls Kosminski a suspect . I suppose you think he was making it up as well

Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor, that Ostrog was on the outside, that Kosminski was put away in March 1889, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of women.

The first four statements are untrue and the last two unsupported.

Macnaghten is hardly a reliable source - is he?

He does not provide any evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration - and neither do Anderson or Swanson.

Nothing.

Not even a reference to a search carried out or something incriminating found.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

[Elamarna]

Druitt definitely didn’t have an alibi for Nichols

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


According to Elamarna, unsupported speculation amounts to invention.

It follows that, according to Elamarna, Herlock's statement above amounts to invention.

If he disputes that, he is welcome to do so.

Not sure exactly what the point is here.

We know Druitt was playing cricket the day before the murder of Polly Nicholls, away from London.

We know he could in theory, depending on the finish time of play , have caught a train to get him to London in time to kill Polly

However, we do not know what time the matched finished, so cannot say if he could have caught said train.

Therefore, while for some people, there is an alibi( they reject the possibility of him catching the train, they consider it unlikely) it is far from what would call a cast iron alibi.

The statement that Druitt "definitely didn't have an alibi " is maybe a tad too strong, too definitive.
It is however based on the information that he could if he wanted have got to London after the cricket( again it's all dependent on the finish time, which we do not know.) thus nullifying the alibi that he was playing cricket outside of London the day before.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not sure exactly what the point is here.

We know Druitt was playing cricket the day before the murder of Polly Nicholls, away from London.

We know he could in theory, depending on the finish time of play , have caught a train to get him to London in time to kill Polly

However, we do not know what time the matched finished, so cannot say if he could have caught said train.

Therefore, while for some people, there is an alibi( they reject the possibility of him catching the train, they consider it unlikely) it is far from what would call a cast iron alibi.

The statement that Druitt "definitely didn't have an alibi " is maybe a tad too strong, too definitive.
It is however based on the information that he could if he wanted have got to London after the cricket( again it's all dependent on the finish time, which we do not know.) thus nullifying the alibi that he was playing cricket outside of London the day before.

I did state a few months ago that the cricket alibi is not cast iron.

But it did seem clear, on the evidence presented at that time, that he had an alibi.

When I say that I think it likely that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the murders, that becomes pure invention.

When Herlock says that Druitt definitely did not have an alibi, when he evidently had some kind of alibi, that becomes a tad too strong.

That is obviously a double standard.

[Abby Normal]

This is absolutely untrue. I have no time for Lechmere as a suspect (and neither does Steve, as everyone knows) but to say that he “almost certainly had alibis.” Is not only untrue it’s completely meaningless. Can any of us imagine the police office who would say:” yeah we can dismiss suspect x because he’s probably got alibis.”

Alibis have to be presented and not speculated upon.

So yes, it’s a 100% invention.

you are absolutely 100% correct Herlock. People on here are constantly tossing around the word alibis like it was nothing. Its unbeleiveable.
lech didnt have an alibi
Druitt didnt have an alibi
Koz didnt have an alibi

so yes to say a suspect had an alibi is total invention. and saying someone probably had an alibi is ludicrous. you either have one or you dont. its like saying someone is probably pregnant. it dosnt work like that.

you know who had an alibi? ostrog. he was in a french prison. thats an alibi.

[Elamarna]

Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor, that Ostrog was on the outside, that Kosminski was put away in March 1889, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac, that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of women.

The first four statements are untrue and the last two unsupported.

Macnaghten is hardly a reliable source - is he?

He does not provide any evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration - and neither do Anderson or Swanson.

Nothing.

Not even a reference to a search carried out or something incriminating found.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

It is entirely possible that the person called Kosminski by MM was in an asylum in early 1889.
Such would almost certainly be a voluntary admission, arranged either by the individual or by his family.
Such is in keeping with the comments attributed to Henry Cox, who said of an unnamed suspect he watched

“From time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.”

Such is of course I concede speculation.

However, more importantly we have NO records to show if Kosminski was IN an asylum in early 89 or if he was NOT.

So your claim that Macnaghten's statement that Kosminski was in an asylum in early 89 , is untrue, is incorrect.

It is unknown.