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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Macnaghten wrote he had been incarcerated in March of '89, which doesn't fit with Kozminski's records, so did he get the date wrong, or the name wrong?


The date.



That aside, given the fact Mac. did believe Kozminski had been sent to an asylum, why would Anderson leave that detail out?
If it were true, he could have simply included the asylum detail after the ID instead of before?


I presume you are referring to his omission of the incarceration in his final version.

I think he left it out because it would have conflicted so obviously with his previous account of what had happened.



Right, which means the ID must have taken place before March of '89 (Macnaghten).


I don't know how you arrived at that deduction, but I think Anderson and Swanson both had in mind a similar date to that given by Macnaghten, because Anderson's theory has the murders stopping because of the suspect's incarceration and Swanson has the murders stopping after the suspect's identification.



So, which ever theory we choose, we are required to argue a high ranking policeman got it wrong, and this without any firm evidence.


Well, Anderson got plenty wrong.

He claimed that his conclusions that the murderer did not live alone, and that he must therefore have been Jewish, were shared by his colleagues.

Surely, no-one actually believes that.



I'm not so sure about that.
The police can have him locked up if he can be certified as insane, but the police still need to know if he was responsible for the murders, even though they cannot charge him with any of them. Something must call a halt to the murder investigation at some point, even without a trial.


If Anderson was not seeking to put the suspect on trial, why did he claim that the suspect refused to testify against him?

And why did Anderson remove the part about the suspect already having been certified at the time of his identification, unless because it made a nonsense of his claim that he was indeed seeking a conviction?

[Sunny Delight]

People are overthrowing this. The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse. The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating. A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife. It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states. Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states. His records confirm that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse.


It is most likely that the identification did not take place at all.

Both Anderson and Swanson believed that the identification coincided with the cessation of the murders, yet we know that Aaron Kosminski was walking a dog in the City of London more than a year after the last murder.

Furthermore, Anderson believed that the suspect was already incarcerated at the time of his identification, and a witness refused to testify against him, which would have been legally impossible, and flatly contradicts Swanson.



The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating.


That is most unlikely.

There is no reason to suppose that the police knew of the knife incident prior to Kosminski's incarceration.

Why would the police be interested in Kosminski in July 1890, when the knife incident did not come to light until February 1891?

If Kosminski was violent and suspected of having committed a string of murders, why was he not arrested?



A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife.


And presumably kept nice and secret from the police by the Jews, who would not give up one of their own to Gentile justice.



It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states.


It is easy to organise a fictional ID, which is what Swanson did.

The police would never have sent a London-based suspect to meet a London-based witness in Brighton.

They would have staged a parade in London.

The Whitechapel Murderer would never have agreed to travel to the coast in order to help police with their enquiries.

If, as Anderson claimed, the suspect was already incarcerated, then the identification would have had to take place in the asylum, which is the only explanation for a parade not having taken place.

Swanson has Kosminski not in an asylum, but cannot explain why in that case a parade was not held in London.



Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states.


Definitely NOT as Swanson states.

If Kosminski had been identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, he would not have been sent home!

He would at least have been held in custody while police applied pressure to the reluctant witness.

But we have only Anderson's word for it that the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish and refused to testify.

In reality, he would not have found out till the trial and Kosminski would have been charged with murder.



His records confirm that.


His records confirm that he was 'released to his brother in laws care' on 15 July 1890, an event which Swanson was evidently unaware of.

Swanson thought the release took place almost immediately following the identification, something which could hardly have happened.

If one grasps the fact that the police were the ones who would have been running the show - and not, as Anderson claims, the Jews - the whole Anderson /Swanson fable collapses like a pack of cards.

[erobitha]

People are overthrowing this. The ID most likely took place in July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse. The Police must have been alerted to the fact Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife and felt this was worth investigating. A man of unsound mind threatening someone with a knife. It is difficult to organise an ID as Swanson states. Then he is released to his brother in laws care just as Swanson states. His records confirm that.

Was she actually threatened with a knife? My understanding it was a pair of scissors.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Was she actually threatened with a knife? My understanding it was a pair of scissors.

I believe that may have been Cutbush with the scissors

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Was she actually threatened with a knife? My understanding it was a pair of scissors.

I hope this was an attempt at humor.

[erobitha]

I hope this was an attempt at humor.

What joke would that be then RJ?

[rjpalmer]

What joke would that be then RJ?

Well, since you asked...

That Aaron Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife is well-known to serious students of the case.

It comes from an account given by Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's, and can be found in Kosminki's records at Colney Hatch.

"He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister."

By contrast, the belief that Kosminski instead threatened someone with scissors is traceable to the exceedingly dubious 'Tilly' letter sold two or three years back on eBay, that contained a description of Kosminski's threatening behavior, along with the ridiculous line

"those ghastly scissors...."

[Kosminski had been described as a hairdresser].

This was recently alluded to by Chris Phillips on the 'Maybrick' thread that you've been contributing to over on JTR Forums. This is the letter that Phil Kellingley had been asked to authenticate.

Thus, I was hoping your comment was merely made in jest because, if not, it signals that you've confounded a hoax document with a real document which carries its own brand of irony.

Hope that helps.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That Aaron Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife is well-known to serious students of the case.

But it was not well-known to the police until after he was incarcerated.

So why would the police have been interested in him before his incarceration and why did it take the knife incident to result in his incarceration?

[erobitha]

Well, since you asked...

That Aaron Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife is well-known to serious students of the case.

It comes from an account given by Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's, and can be found in Kosminki's records at Colney Hatch.

"He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister."

By contrast, the belief that Kosminski instead threatened someone with scissors is traceable to the exceedingly dubious 'Tilly' letter sold two or three years back on eBay, that contained a description of Kosminski's threatening behavior, along with the ridiculous line

"those ghastly scissors...."

[Kosminski had been described as a hairdresser].

This was recently alluded to by Chris Phillips on the 'Maybrick' thread that you've been contributing to over on JTR Forums. This is the letter that Phil Kellingley had been asked to authenticate.

Thus, I was hoping your comment was merely made in jest because, if not, it signals that you've confounded a hoax document with a real document which carries its own brand of irony.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for your guidance. I'm grateful an eminent student like yourself is here to help. It is obvious I confused this detail with Cutbush.

Jacob Cohen could have possibly been referring to his sister rather than Kosminski in his statement.

Or have I got that wrong as well?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But we have only Anderson's word for it that the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish and refused to testify.

In reality, he would not have found out till the trial and Kosminski would have been charged with murder.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR # 888)


Can anyone cite another murder case in which a witness identified a suspect but refused to testify against him?

[c.d.]

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

c.d.

You are right CD. I don't see why the police would keep that sort of info from the witness, if he asked. And the suspect could have spoke in the Jewish tongue as he was being identified as well. Perhaps throwing expletives out at the police/witness . Swanson does allude to difficulties, and if the suspect was Kosminski he was near the end of his mental rope.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well if the suspect had a Jewish appearance I don't see what would have prevented the witness from asking the police if he was in fact Jewish. Would the police have a reason to lie in their response?

c.d.

That could hardly have happened because Anderson was quite definite that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance.

He wrote: the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him

That means that he would have known whether the suspect was of Jewish appearance when he saw him in London.

He wrote also:

the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

That means that the suspect could not have been recognisably Jewish.

If he had been, the witness would not have come forward in the first place.

And that is why, as I have pointed out about half a dozen times so far, without so much as an acknowledgement from him, Scott Nelson's suggestion that the witness recognised the suspect as a fellow Jew when he saw him in Duke Street is a non-starter.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You are right CD. I don't see why the police would keep that sort of info from the witness, if he asked.


Maybe you should ask Trevor Marriott the probability of the police giving the witness such confidential information so speedily following his identification of the suspect that they did not even have time to charge the suspect.

This is the only case in British criminal history in which it is alleged that an unnamed witness identified a man who had not even been arrested as an infamous murderer and yet the suspect was not even charged.



And the suspect could have spoke in the Jewish tongue as he was being identified as well.


That is hardly possible.

Anderson wrote: but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

He did not write: but when the suspect indicated to him that he was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.



Perhaps throwing expletives out at the police/witness .


Where is the record of that happening?

Where is there any mention of the suspect saying anything?



Swanson does allude to difficulties, and if the suspect was Kosminski he was near the end of his mental rope.


In that case, why transport a lunatic psychopathic serial murderer to Brighton rather than stage the identification in London?

And if Kosminski was so difficult to handle, why is there no mention in three decades of asylum records of any need to restrain him?

And why, if he was so difficult, was he described as harmless and as not dangerous?