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

[Elamarna]

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.

Not at all, Herlock clearly does not think the alibi stands up to scrutiny, and you it seems question it yourself.
The statement is not INVENTION, it is based on an assesment of the known facts.

The suggestion that Kosminski "likely had an alibi for at least one of the murders", is based on nothing, there are NO FACTS that support the view that he had an alibi for any of the murders. the statement is unsupported speculation, that is invention.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

Kosminski did not have the chance to clear himself because he was not even a suspect. Post 812

There is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration. Post 821

Which is it please ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

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.


Macnaghten's comment removed to an asylum does not suggest a voluntary admission.

Macnaghten's comment suggests that it was a permanent incarceration - like Anderson's safely caged in an asylum - which does not match Cox's suspect who used to spend a portion of his time in an asylum.

I suggest that if another Kosminski than Aaron was admitted to an asylum about four months after the last murder, then it is stretching credulity to suggest that both of them practised solitary vices and that in both cases it was known to anyone else.



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.


Macnaghten's comment removed to an asylum - like Anderson's safely caged in an asylum - suggests that it was a permanent incarceration.

Aaron Kosminski was seen walking a dog in Central London about nine months after Kosminski's supposed removal to an asylum.

Macnaghten does not say that he left the asylum within months of entering it.

If he was really suspected of being the murderer, the police would have needed to know about something like that.

Consequently, Macnaghten's statement can hardly be true.



And, as I stated in my previous post, there is no evidence that Kosminski was a suspect prior to his incarceration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

PI, I’ve been posting on here for around 6 years and I have never met a poster who is less likely to debate honestly than you. You simply refuse to do so. It’s just absolutely impossible to have a reasoned conversation with you because you appear to feel the need not just to ‘win’ the debate but to ‘prove’ that every single point that you make is correct and that every single point everyone else makes is wrong. To do this you repeatedly move the goalposts or attempt to twist words. You said this about Druitt in post #801:

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

It has been shown by research to have been untrue. Even if the game that Druitt was playing in finished at the latest possible time Chris Phillips discovered that there was still one (or possibly 2 trains) that he could have caught which would have got him back well in time for the murder of Nichols. For him to have an alibi it would need to be shown that such was not possible. That has not been shown by anyone at any time. Therefore it is a fact to say that Druitt hasn’t got an alibi. It’s also a fact that he no longer has an alibi for Tabram.

So…unless you can provide alternative research (and not just your opinion or a ludicrous “he probably had an alibi,”) that proves this statement made by YOU is correct:

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

then you stand accused of not telling the truth. And you’ll remain in a position of not being truthful, as every single honest poster on here will see.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you stand accused of not telling the truth. And you’ll remain in a position of not being truthful, as every single honest poster on here will see.

The one who stands accused is Druitt - and the case against him is laughable.

There often comes a point when some information comes to light that should cause any reasonably open-minded person to realise that an accused person was not doing what he was accused of having done.

That point came with Druitt when the details of the cricket match were discovered.

The fact that a man accused of murdering and mutilating women in London was on a cricketing trip in Dorset at the time of the first murder is such a moment.

To continue to sustain what was always a ludicrously farfetched case against him, one requires the farfetched hypothesis that Druitt was visiting London during a visit to Dorset.

Unless there were some evidence that he was travelling back and forth during that trip, anyone investigating at the time would surely have accepted that he had an alibi - even if it was not cast iron.

As for your triple accusation against me - that I stand accused of not telling the truth, that I will remain in a position of not being truthful, and that I am not an honest poster, the kindest response I can think of is that these are the kind of hyperbolic statements by you to which I have become accustomed, but they do not - as I believe any fair-minded reader will agree - accord with reality.

[Elamarna]

Please see my replies below.

It would help to.use the quote facility correctly but not a problem.

1. You can be removed by your family, such would be classed as a voluntary admission, not done by the state. Again it's about interpretation .

2. A fair point, but then then I am not convinced that
a) Macnaughten had all the information made available to him
and
b) That the memorandum should be taken at face value. It really is the oddest document in the whole case.

But that's a different debate. The same applies to your later points about MM not mentioning short term committal.


3. Voluntary admission were usually for a fixed term, often 3 months.the family had to pay.
I have no problem with admission in Feb or March and walking a dog in December.
Neither do I have an issue with the killing of McKenzie.

4. The police would need to know? Again a reasonable suggestion.
However, I suggest in early 89, he was one of several people being watched. It seems a few were from what info we have, and that the police were not aware he was out again for sometime after his release.

And again I accept that is speculation and conjecture.


It would seem from Anderson's comments in 1890 he was still unsure who the killer was.
By 92, he is hinting he knows, but it is not until 95, that hints from both Anderson and more importantly Swanson, that its said the killer was identified and had died.
Such suggests the conclusion as to the Killers ID was reached sometime between 1890 and 1892.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one who stands accused is Druitt - and the case against him is laughable.

There often comes a point when some information comes to light that should cause any reasonably open-minded person to realise that an accused person was not doing what he was accused of having done.

That point came with Druitt when the details of the cricket match were discovered.

The fact that a man accused of murdering and mutilating women in London was on a cricketing trip in Dorset at the time of the first murder is such a moment.

To continue to sustain what was always a ludicrously farfetched case against him, one requires the farfetched hypothesis that Druitt was visiting London during a visit to Dorset.

Unless there were some evidence that he was travelling back and forth during that trip, anyone investigating at the time would surely have accepted that he had an alibi - even if it was not cast iron.

As for your triple accusation against me - that I stand accused of not telling the truth, that I will remain in a position of not being truthful, and that I am not an honest poster, the kindest response I can think of is that these are the kind of hyperbolic statements by you to which I have become accustomed, but they do not - as I believe any fair-minded reader will agree - accord with reality.

You’re seeking to distract. Again.

Just to be clear on the meaning of ‘alibi’ so there can be no confusion:

“a claim or piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when an act, especially a criminal one, is alleged to have taken place.”

So this means that for Druitt to have an alibi you would have to provide unequivocal evidence that Druitt was in Devon at around 3.40 am on August 31st. Not where he was the day before, or where he was earlier in the day, or where he was the next day but at that particular time. And that means absolute proof, not ‘might’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ but absolute proof. Is this clear enough for you? Clear enough? We’re not taking about “how likely is it,” or “what are the chances of…” Ok….so….


Question: Is this statement made by yourself true?

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

Its a question that can be answered in one word. Indeed it demands a yes or a no.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The one who stands accused is Druitt - and the case against him is laughable.

There often comes a point when some information comes to light that should cause any reasonably open-minded person to realise that an accused person was not doing what he was accused of having done.

That point came with Druitt when the details of the cricket match were discovered.

The fact that a man accused of murdering and mutilating women in London was on a cricketing trip in Dorset at the time of the first murder is such a moment.

To continue to sustain what was always a ludicrously farfetched case against him, one requires the farfetched hypothesis that Druitt was visiting London during a visit to Dorset.

Unless there were some evidence that he was travelling back and forth during that trip, anyone investigating at the time would surely have accepted that he had an alibi - even if it was not cast iron.

As for your triple accusation against me - that I stand accused of not telling the truth, that I will remain in a position of not being truthful, and that I am not an honest poster, the kindest response I can think of is that these are the kind of hyperbolic statements by you to which I have become accustomed, but they do not - as I believe any fair-minded reader will agree - accord with reality.

Why do we have to always have these silly disagreements, and a refusal to accept the truth? It's no wonder we have unpleasantness from time to time here.

Fact one. PI, you wrote that he had an alibi.
Fact two. He didn't.

If he could have travelled to London in the timescale involved, and he could have, then he doesn't have an alibi. Debating whether he is likely to have gone to London or not is irrelevant. He doesn't have an alibi.

Oooops snap!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It would seem from Anderson's comments in 1890 he was still unsure who the killer was.
By 92, he is hinting he knows, but it is not until 95, that hints from both Anderson and more importantly Swanson, that its said the killer was identified and had died.
Such suggests the conclusion as to the Killers ID was reached sometime between 1890 and 1892.

Neither Anderson's logical deduction in 1892 that the murderer could not have been sane, nor his perfectly plausible theory, conceived by 1895, about a lunatic murderer, suggests that he had in mind a person who had actually been identified by a witness.

As late as September 1908 he indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer.

Again, that is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

[Elamarna]

Neither Anderson's logical deduction in 1892 that the murderer could not have been sane, nor his perfectly plausible theory, conceived by 1895, about a lunatic murderer, suggests that he had in mind a person who had actually been identified by a witness.

As late as September 1908 he indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer.

Again, that is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

it was clearly being hinted in various press reports the the killer was identified, had been locked away and was dead from 1895 onwards. Such clearly implies that he was talking of a specific individual.

Securing proof would relate to a court case, without the cooperation of the main witness or of friends or family, there could be no proof that would stand up in court .

It is clear that you don't accept the comments of either Anderson or Swanson, yet are happy to accept those of men , who were either not directly involved, or involved at a lower level, or not involved for the full duration of the case.

It is clear you decided long ago that a Jewish person could not have committed the crimes, thereby excluding many of the local population.

As I said yesterday, and several months ago, there really is little point in attempting to debating with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As late as September 1908 he indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer.

Again, that is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1)


Securing proof would relate to a court case, without the cooperation of the main witness or of friends or family, there could be no proof that would stand up in court .

It is clear you decided long ago that a Jewish person could not have committed the crimes, thereby excluding many of the local population

As I said yesterday, and several months ago, there really is little point in attempting to debating with you.

(Elamarna)



I have no idea how your last remark follows from the exchange we had just had.

You say without the cooperation of the main witness, ... there could be no proof that would stand up in court .

Anderson, little more than a year before serialisation of his memoirs, indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer, on account of lack of physical evidence.

That is not the same thing as identification evidence that would stand up in court.

That statement of his in 1908 is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

It seems that when you cannot counter a point like that, you make a comment about my alleged pro-Jewish prejudice and that there is no point in discussing anything with me.

Why don't you try playing the ball instead of the man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As late as September 1908 he indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer.

Again, that is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1)


Securing proof would relate to a court case, without the cooperation of the main witness or of friends or family, there could be no proof that would stand up in court .

It is clear you decided long ago that a Jewish person could not have committed the crimes, thereby excluding many of the local population

As I said yesterday, and several months ago, there really is little point in attempting to debating with you.

(Elamarna)



I have no idea how your last remark follows from the exchange we had just had.

You say without the cooperation of the main witness, ... there could be no proof that would stand up in court .

Anderson, little more than a year before serialisation of his memoirs, indicated that the police had failed to secure proof of the identity of the murderer, on account of lack of physical evidence.

That is not the same thing as identification evidence that would stand up in court.

That statement of his in 1908 is not consistent with his later claim that the murderer had been identified by a witness and that the police had known his identity.

It seems that when you cannot counter a point like that, you make a comment about my alleged pro-Jewish prejudice and that there is no point in discussing anything with me.

Why don't you try playing the ball instead of the man?

You’re avoiding this, as I predicted.

Just to be clear on the meaning of ‘alibi’ so there can be no confusion:

“a claim or piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when an act, especially a criminal one, is alleged to have taken place.”

So this means that for Druitt to have an alibi you would have to provide unequivocal evidence that Druitt was in Devon at around 3.40 am on August 31st. Not where he was the day before, or where he was earlier in the day, or where he was the next day but at that particular time. And that means absolute proof, not ‘might’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’ or ‘what if’ but absolute proof. Is this clear enough for you? Clear enough? We’re not taking about “how likely is it,” or “what are the chances of…” Ok….so….


Question: Is this statement made by yourself true?

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

Its a question that can be answered in one word. Indeed it demands a yes or a no.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

MJ Druitt played cricket in Bournemouth on 3 and 4 August and again on 10 and 11 August.

He was then playing in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September.

It is obvious that had he travelled back to London and back to Dorset during the trip, his absence would have been noticed.

In that case, why is there no mention of it in Macnaghten's Memoranda?

Macnaghten noted incorrectly that Ostrog's whereabouts could not be ascertained, but said nothing about Druitt's whereabouts at the time of the first murder not being capable of being ascertained, quite apart from the other murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

MJ Druitt played cricket in Bournemouth on 3 and 4 August and again on 10 and 11 August.

He was then playing in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September.

It is obvious that had he travelled back to London and back to Dorset during the trip, his absence would have been noticed.

It’s unlikely in the extreme, as to be unworthy even of mention, that Druitt would have simply disappeared with no explanation. Clearly he would have given a reason for his departure at the time. He would likely have told his friends that he would be returning to London after the game. There would have been nothing remotely suspicious about this.

In that case, why is there no mention of it in Macnaghten's Memoranda?

Because it was a memorandum not a biography. It didn’t mention what Druitt’s favourite food was either.

Macnaghten noted incorrectly that Ostrog's whereabouts could not be ascertained, but said nothing about Druitt's whereabouts at the time of the first murder not being capable of being ascertained, quite apart from the other murders.

This is irrelevant of course. As I said earlier MacNaghten wasn’t writing a biography of Druitt.

You genuinely can’t bring yourself to admit it can you?

We all know what an alibi is. I posted a definition to help you.

You claimed that Druitt had an alibi.

Ill ask again, do you accept that you were wrong to say that he had an alibi? Not every question can be answered properly with a yes or a no, but this one certainly can.

Over to you.

[GBinOz]

Of course I have long discarded. Lawende as the witness.
There is a talk on the podcast section of this site, from the 2021 online conference, in which I outline my reasoning in attempting to evaluate who the witness might be.
Lawende, actually surprised me, at just how far he didn't fit the bill, as the witness.

As for the timing of the ID, I would at this point tend to agree with you. However, that view is not set in stone, and could alter with new evidence.

Steve

Hi Steve

I recall reading somewhere that Lawende identified Grainger as the man he saw near Mitre Square, and that there exists a photo of Grainger that shows him to bear a remarkable resemblance to Druitt. It would seem illogical for him to be the Anderson witness and also identify Grainger, unless of course the reports are apocryphal. Do you have a comment?

Cheers, George