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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Not that I really expected and admittance of error from you PI but I did hope that you might have realised the position that you’re in and that you would accept the truth.

[Elamarna]

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

Hi George,
I can only go on the info supplied by Anderson and Swanson.
My thoughts on the witness, and why I consider Lawende a surpringly poor choice,( I surprised myself, I must say) are covered in the podcast on ripper cast from Oct 2021 on the Seaside Home witness

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can only go on the info supplied by Anderson and Swanson.

I refer to my # 836:


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 very different from what he wrote in his memoirs and what Swanson wrote in his marginalia, namely that it was due to the refusal of a witness to testify that no-one could be prosecuted.

The information supplied is contradictory.

[Elamarna]

I refer to my # 836:


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 very different from what he wrote in his memoirs and what Swanson wrote in his marginalia, namely that it was due to the refusal of a witness to testify that no-one could be prosecuted.

The information supplied is contradictory.

No, I gave you reasoned an answer for that apparent contradiction, that you do not accept such, is your choice.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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 ?

Both.

There is no evidence that he was ever accused of the crimes nor that he failed to provide any alibi.

If Pizer had been accused in such a surreptitious way as Kosminski has been, we would likely have similar things being written about him today.

Pizer was accused, and even identified, yet he provided alibis.

Kosminski had no opportunity to provide an alibi because he was never accused to his face.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Both.

There is no evidence that he was ever accused of the crimes nor that he failed to provide any alibi.

If Pizer had been accused in such a surreptitious way as Kosminski has been, we would likely have similar things being written about him today.

Pizer was accused, and even identified, yet he provided alibis.

Kosminski had no opportunity to provide an alibi because he was never accused to his face.

The person who identified Pizer proved to be totally unreliable.

There is no evidence Kosminski had an alibi . If he had why is he suspected ?

How can he never be a suspect yet, according to you he was a suspect after he was incarcerated.You can't have it both ways and yet you say both in different posts

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The person who identified Pizer proved to be totally unreliable.

There is no evidence Kosminski had an alibi . If he had why is he suspected ?

How can he never be a suspect yet, according to you he was a suspect after he was incarcerated.You can't have it both ways and yet you say both in different posts

I have never conceded that Aaron Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence Kosminski had an alibi . If he had why is he suspected ?

He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

There is no case against him.

[Trevor Marriott]

He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

There is no case against him.

There is one point that has been overlooked with Kosminski and that is the extent of the police investigation into him being regarded as a suspect.

It would be standard procedure with any suspect for the police to enquire into the habits of a suspect, one such enquiry would be to speak to family members to find out what habits he had for example and most importantly was he in the habit of being out, or going out late at night. Any such enquiry would have been carried out by a Detective Sergeant or a Detective Inspector yet not only do we have officers of those ranks telling us the ID procedure did not take place, but there is also no evidence from them in any form to show Kosminski was ever investigated or regarded as a suspect.

The other part of the marginalia that doesn't sit well with me is the events as described after this mythical ID parade. I find it hard to believe that after Kosminski had been identified they simply took him back to his brother's house. It is clear in the absence of anything to prove to the contrary that at no point either before or after the ID procedure was he ever arrested, surely after being identified the police had the option to arrest him and interview him after all I think it is highly unlikely that had he been identified the police would have told him the outcome because that is not how ID procedures work they could have arrested him and then interviewed him and put to him the positive identification because he would have known he had been identified but would not have been told the witness would not give evidence.So he may well have confessed. but again we have no evidence from those officers on the ground that anything of this nature ever took place.

For those who suggest that he was taken from a mental institution that also doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because It is highly unlikely that the medical authorities would have allowed a patient under their care to be taken out by the police, and if he had have been in a mental institution and the authorities allowed him to be taken out, how come they didn't return him back to the same instead of taking him to his brother's house?

I have to say yet again that as far as Kosminski is concerned the marginalia is unsafe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.
so why write about Kosminski ? Why pick on him rather than say David Cohen who on the face of it is a much better suspect.
There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.
Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar
There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.
Watched by city CID
There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.
If he did and it checked out why do you think two senior policemen would waste so much time on him
There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.
Yes an unsuccesful ID but the point is he was still sent for an id and if the id was successful he may have been charged
There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.
Why was he suspected then ?
There is no case against him.
Again Anderson, MM Swanson and perhaps Sagar

For someone who just answers questions by asking other questions seems to me that you can't admit when you have made an error IE Druitts alibi

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

It would be standard procedure with any suspect for the police to enquire into the habits of a suspect, one such enquiry would be to speak to family members to find out what habits he had for example and most importantly was he in the habit of being out, or going out late at night.


If Kosminski was in the habit of going out late at night, how was it possible for the Kosminski residence to be watched day and night?

It seems he did not go out much during the seven months that Elamarna claims the house was being watched.

Except possibly to take a dog for a walk.



Any such enquiry would have been carried out by a Detective Sergeant or a Detective Inspector yet not only do we have officers of those ranks telling us the ID procedure did not take place, but there is also no evidence from them in any form to show Kosminski was ever investigated or regarded as a suspect.


Swanson does not name any such detective.

I suppose the excuse which will be offered on his behalf is that he was not writing a formal report nor a biography of Kosminski.

Strange then that he managed to find the space to mention Kosminski's hands being tied behind his back, but could not say by whom.



The other part of the marginalia that doesn't sit well with me is the events as described after this mythical ID parade. I find it hard to believe that after Kosminski had been identified they simply took him back to his brother's house.


What about Joshua Rogan's point that after a witness had 'unhesitatingly' identified Pizer, he returned to his brother's house?



It is clear in the absence of anything to prove to the contrary that at no point either before or after the ID procedure was he ever arrested,


Is that why Swanson claims that Kosminski was 'sent with difficulty' - because he knew Kosminski was never arrested?

Does anyone here believe that the Whitechapel Murderer would have consented to being sent anywhere without first being arrested?



surely after being identified the police had the option to arrest him and interview him after all I think it is highly unlikely that had he been identified the police would have told him the outcome because that is not how ID procedures work they could have arrested him and then interviewed him and put to him the positive identification because he would have known he had been identified but would not have been told the witness would not give evidence. So he may well have confessed. but again we have no evidence from those officers on the ground that anything of this nature ever took place.


Anderson could not mention any such attempts to break down the suspect because (1) he initially had him in an asylum when the identification took place and (2) his sole purpose is to blame the Jews for his own failure to apprehend anyone for the murders.



For those who suggest that he was taken from a mental institution that also doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because It is highly unlikely that the medical authorities would have allowed a patient under their care to be taken out by the police,


... which is why Anderson, who originally had the identification taking place in an asylum, never mentioned a parade!



and if he had have been in a mental institution and the authorities allowed him to be taken out, how come they didn't return him back to the same instead of taking him to his brother's house?


Why take him to his 'brother's house in Whitechapel' at all, unless he is Pizer?



I have to say yet again that as far as Kosminski is concerned the marginalia is unsafe to rely on.


Evidently.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

we have officers of those ranks telling us the ID procedure did not take place,

after being identified the police had the option to arrest him and interview him

For those who suggest that he was taken from a mental institution

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which officers specifically say an ID never took place ?

But the ID failed

What asylum was he taken from ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Darryl Kenyon.

My comments appear in bold:


He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

so why write about Kosminski ? Why pick on him rather than say David Cohen who on the face of it is a much better suspect.

Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale.



There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar

None of them provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.



There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

Watched by city CID

No such CID officer has ever been named nor identified himself.

And that is not the same as being arrested.



There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

If he did and it checked out why do you think two senior policemen would waste so much time on him

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?



There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

Yes an unsuccesful ID but the point is he was still sent for an id and if the id was successful he may have been charged

There is no evidence to support your statements.

Not a single witness to the identification and an unnamed, non-existent, witness, and a sending which as you well know, without an arrest having been made, the Whitechapel Murderer would never have consented to.



There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

Why was he suspected then ?

He was not a police suspect.

He became a 'suspect' only on account of his incarceration.



There is no case against him.

Again Anderson, MM Swanson

None of them cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.

[Darryl Kenyon]

In reply to Darryl Kenyon.

My comments appear in bold:


He is suspected because of totally unsubstantiated writings by Anderson and Swanson.

so why write about Kosminski ? Why pick on him rather than say David Cohen who on the face of it is a much better suspect.

Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale.



There is no evidence that Kosminski was ever a police suspect.

Anderson, MM, Swanson and perhaps Sagar

None of them provided any evidence even that Kosminski was ever arrested or questioned.



There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.

Watched by city CID

No such CID officer has ever been named nor identified himself.

And that is not the same as being arrested.



There is no evidence that he failed to provide an alibi when challenged to do so.

If he did and it checked out why do you think two senior policemen would waste so much time on him

If his alibi did not stand up, why did your two senior policemen never mention it?



There is no evidence that he was ever identified as the murderer.

Yes an unsuccesful ID but the point is he was still sent for an id and if the id was successful he may have been charged

There is no evidence to support your statements.

Not a single witness to the identification and an unnamed, non-existent, witness, and a sending which as you well know, without an arrest having been made, the Whitechapel Murderer would never have consented to.



There is no evidence that any incriminating evidence was ever found against him.

Why was he suspected then ?

He was not a police suspect.

He became a 'suspect' only on account of his incarceration.



There is no case against him.

Again Anderson, MM Swanson

None of them cited one shred of incriminating evidence against him.

According to Macnaghten, the case was wholly circumstantial and, according to Anderson and Swanson, depended on identification by a witness who obviously did not exist, which is why he was never named.

PI - Because Anderson latched onto Macnaghten's comments about Kosminski, insanity, and the murderer dying soon after the murders ended, and in his confusion made them into one tale

I think this says it all .

[Abby Normal]

There is no evidence that he was ever arrested.
Watched by city CID

Bingo DK-
and taken away "with his hands tied".
Koz was obviously a police suspect, was sent for an ID (probably by the witness Lawende), was surveilled, and mentioned as such by three police officials.
He had no alibi.
To try an argue he wasnt as suspect is absolutely ludicrous.