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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.


[QUOTE=c.d.;n808623]

Except that we don't know whether or not he identified him as a murderer.

I agree.

We only have Anderson's word to go by and he might have embellished or have been blowing smoke to enhance his reputation.

I agree.

The witness might simply have said well he sort of looks like the guy I saw not knowing at that point what the police intended to do with that information.

He would have known exactly what the police intended to do with that information: charge the suspect with murder.

If he then got the impression that his identification would lead to the man being hanged he might have felt the need to walk back what he said.

In that case, he would not have made the identification.

And if the witness were devoutly Jewish he might have felt that he did not want to give testimony against another Jew that would result in his being hanged when he was not 100% sure.

If he was not sure, then he would not have been asked to testify.

My guess is that the witness was not sure and that Anderson used the whole Jewish thing to cover his butt.

My guess is that no such identification took place.

But again, if there are problems with Anderson's version of events it does not necessarily mean that no witness identification took place.

I suggest that there are too many problems with it for it to have taken place.

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

According to Swanson, the suspect was Kosminski.

The witness has never been named.

In my view it was Lawende , you may differ

Not just according to me!

Photographs of Kosminski's siblings show people with dark hair who look nothing like sailors.

But the witness [ almost certainly Lawende ] DID pick him out

Lawende would not have picked out a dark-haired East End Jew as someone he had described as a man having the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

See above answer

You still have not explained why the police would have asked Lawende to identify a gentile sailor if he had already identified a Polish Jew.

You never asked. But look at it this way , I think we can both agree that Lawende is likely to be the best witness, with the timescale and location. If Lawende had picked Sadler out his importance would have dropped. Picking two different people out of two different ID confrontations . But he didn't, which may have strengthened Anderson/Swansons view that he was a reliable witness. So it may have been seen as some kind of test much like an ID parade itself. Since Kosminski was not put on one, but confronted with the witness instead .

I would like to ask you a question - Why do you think that Swanson wrote private notes in a book remembering an event which you say never took place ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

According to Swanson, the suspect was Kosminski.

The witness has never been named.

In my view it was Lawende , you may differ

It must have been Lawende, IF you accept Anderson's story.


Not just according to me!

Photographs of Kosminski's siblings show people with dark hair who look nothing like sailors.

But the witness [ almost certainly Lawende ] DID pick him out

Only IF you accept Anderson's fantasy story.


Lawende would not have picked out a dark-haired East End Jew as someone he had described as a man having the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache.

See above answer

See above objection.


You still have not explained why the police would have asked Lawende to identify a gentile sailor if he had already identified a Polish Jew.

You never asked. But look at it this way , I think we can both agree that Lawende is likely to be the best witness, with the timescale and location. If Lawende had picked Sadler out his importance would have dropped. Picking two different people out of two different ID confrontations . But he didn't, which may have strengthened Anderson/Swansons view that he was a reliable witness. So it may have been seen as some kind of test much like an ID parade itself. Since Kosminski was not put on one, but confronted with the witness instead .

Anderson and Swanson needed Lawende to fail to identify Sadler or Grainger in order to be confident that Kosminski was the Whitechapel Murderer??


I would like to ask you a question - Why do you think that Swanson wrote private notes in a book remembering an event which you say never took place ?

Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.

His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describe him as harmless and not dangerous.

Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

Regarding the ID of Sadler . I believe that the ID of Kosminski took place early 1891 as did the ID of Sadler . Why not use Lawende in another attempt at ID ? He was there having just been used recently. Besides we do not know for certain what happened with the ID of Kosminski . It may have only reached Anderson at a later time why Lawende refused to testify . It may well be that different police forces used Lawende for the two different ID's [ City and Met ].

In the A6 murder case Valerie Storie viewed an ID parade were the first suspect for the murder Peter Alphon was present. She didn't pick him out, instead picking someone who was definitely innocent . Was she discredited ? Well, she was used again in another ID parade were she did pick out the murderer , Hanratty .
Asked later why she picked out an innocent man in the first parade she replied that she felt pressured into picking someone . Perhaps Lawende said something similar ?
Only later did the police feel he back tracked because he was picking out a fellow Jew .

Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.

His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describe him as harmless and not dangerous.

Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

That isn't answering the question . They are just your opinions on why you think it is all a fantasy [ the ID etc ] . Again why would Swanson write some personal notes which he would know to be false and never happened. It just doesn't make sense

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Regarding the ID of Sadler . I believe that the ID of Kosminski took place early 1891 as did the ID of Sadler . Why not use Lawende in another attempt at ID ? He was there having just been used recently.

I suggest a more plausible explanation is that Anderson created the identification from actual attempts at identification, including - as suggested by Joshua Rogan - that of Piser, who was also 'unhesitatingly' identified.


Besides we do not know for certain what happened with the ID of Kosminski .

We do not know that he was ever identified nor that he ever entered the Seaside Home.


It may have only reached Anderson at a later time why Lawende refused to testify .

Elamarna has argued repeatedly that the reason other senior police officers knew nothing about the identification is that they were not part of a privileged circle who knew of it and yet now you are saying that even Anderson did not know what had happened!


It may well be that different police forces used Lawende for the two different ID's [ City and Met ].

In the A6 murder case Valerie Storie viewed an ID parade were the first suspect for the murder Peter Alphon was present. She didn't pick him out, instead picking someone who was definitely innocent . Was she discredited ? Well, she was used again in another ID parade were she did pick out the murderer , Hanratty .
Asked later why she picked out an innocent man in the first parade she replied that she felt pressured into picking someone . Perhaps Lawende said something similar ?
Only later did the police feel he back tracked because he was picking out a fellow Jew .

The case against Hanratty was not built on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory like Anderson's.


Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.

His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describe him as harmless and not dangerous.

Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

That isn't answering the question . They are just your opinions on why you think it is all a fantasy [ the ID etc ] .

They are not just my opinions.

If they are, why have you made no attempt to refute them?

I cited facts.


Again why would Swanson write some personal notes which he would know to be false and never happened. It just doesn't make sense

Who says he knew them to be false?

It makes more sense that they never happened than that Swanson was remembering actual events.

I suggest you have a go at refuting the five points I made above.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Who says he knew them to be false?

This is just bizarre . Swanson was a man at the very epicentre of the investigation . He would know if an important ID happened or not

[Darryl Kenyon]

Elamarna has argued repeatedly that the reason other senior police officers knew nothing about the identification is that they were not part of a privileged circle who knew of it and yet now you are saying that even Anderson did not know what had happened!

I never said Anderson didn't know . What I was getting at is the police may [ note may ], not have found out that Lawende refused [ or thought it ] to testify against a fellow Jew until a later date.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Elamarna has argued repeatedly that the reason other senior police officers knew nothing about the identification is that they were not part of a privileged circle who knew of it and yet now you are saying that even Anderson did not know what had happened!

I never said Anderson didn't know . What I was getting at is the police may [ note may ], not have found out that Lawende refused [ or thought it ] to testify against a fellow Jew until a later date.

In that case, would you please explain why the police did not charge Kosminski or even arrest him - and instead allowed him to go home?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Who says he knew them to be false?

This is just bizarre . Swanson was a man at the very epicentre of the investigation . He would know if an important ID happened or not

Would he know whether the murders stopped before or after the Seaside Home opened?

Would he know whether Kosminski returned to his brother's house after a brief stay in a workhouse or after a brief trip to the seaside?

Would he know whether Kosminski was dangerous and, therefore, whether he needed to be placed under restraint?

Would he know when Kosminski died - to within less than 30 years?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

That is just your opinion . Again if he wasn't remembering anything what was he doing making private notes ?

His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.
No it does not
We simply do not know how Swanson thought about serial killers and how they operate . This was the first case of its kind. For instance MM believed that the killers mind would likely give way after Mary and that he would commit suicide . Perhaps one of the reasons he preferred Druitt over Kosminski but acknowledging at the same time that Kosminski was a strong suspect.
The idea that serial killers cannot suddenly stop killing for any length of time is now a defunct one. And how do you know that is what Swanson believed anyway? He could have believed as Anderson put that he would only kill when the mania affected him and may lay dormant for other periods of time.

His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

There have been other cases in history were the police, or certain police officers have had a prime suspect but not enough to charge them [ Green river killer for instance ] . I suggest with Kosminski they knew without a positive ID there was no way they could make the case stick.

In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

That was in 1890 . I suggest the ID happened early 1891

His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describe him as harmless and not dangerous.

I would suggest that it was common practice for the police back then to put someone in a strait jacket who had threatened someone with a knife and was showing signs of insanity

When Hyam Hyans was put in an asylum for predominantly attacking his wife and his mother in law plus having a weak mind . He was sent there under restraint and described as violent and dangerous. Yet he was released only a few months later as having been cured . Kosminski never was.

Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

I believe [ and I have written a piece elsewhere ] that the confusion over Kosminski's death occurred when he was transferred to Leavesden

Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

So why did he write what he did then ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

In that case, would you please explain why the police did not charge Kosminski or even arrest him - and instead allowed him to go home?

Because without the ID they did not have enough to charge him. But they still considered him a strong suspect otherwise the City CID would not have kept watch on him . Which I believe is something you dispute

[Darryl Kenyon]

Would he know whether the murders stopped before or after the Seaside Home opened?

Would he know whether Kosminski returned to his brother's house after a brief stay in a workhouse or after a brief trip to the seaside?

Would he know whether Kosminski was dangerous and, therefore, whether he needed to be placed under restraint?

Would he know when Kosminski died - to within less than 30 years?

So you believe the main officer in the case Swanson was practically in the dark on who the suspects were ? And if he was why didn't he make enquires to Anderson on who this suspect in his biography was ? Or contradict him instead of seeming to back him up

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because without the ID they did not have enough to charge him. But they still considered him a strong suspect otherwise the City CID would not have kept watch on him . Which I believe is something you dispute

According to Anderson, he was identified by the witness.

The suspect would have been charged with murder or at least have been taken into custody.

There is no reason to think - and neither Anderson nor Swanson gives any reason to think - that the witness would have announced his refusal to testify prior to Kosminski's being charged or at least arrested.

Yet neither Anderson nor Swanson ever claimed that the suspect was ever arrested or charged.

Can anyone cite another case in British criminal history in which an unnamed witness is reported to have identified a murderer but the suspect is never arrested, let alone charged, and instead allowed to go straight home?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So you believe the main officer in the case Swanson was practically in the dark on who the suspects were ? And if he was why didn't he make enquires to Anderson on who this suspect in his biography was ? Or contradict him instead of seeming to back him up

Swanson did contradict Anderson on the location of the suspect at the time at which he was identified.

Anderson has him in an asylum whereas Swanson has him at the seaside.

But what reason is there to think that Anderson's familiarity with the facts about Kosminski and his relatives was any better than Swanson's?

According to Anderson, Isaac Kosminski, who was a freemason, was a low-class Polish Jew who, together with Kosminski's sister, hid the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer from the police, enabling him to continue to eviscerate women, and presumably helped him to dispose of organs from three of his victims.

Does anyone here actually believe such nonsense?

Does anyone here actually believe Anderson when he claims that Scotland Yard arrived collectively at the twin conclusions that the murderer could not be living alone and that he must therefore be Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Not only do I say that the identification in the Seaside Home never took place, but I say that Swanson was not actually remembering anything!

That is just your opinion . Again if he wasn't remembering anything what was he doing making private notes ?

Where is the evidence that anything Swanson wrote came from his personal recollection?


His claim that the murders stopped because of the identification means that the identification must have taken place before the Seaside Home opened, which means it could not have taken place where he claimed it did.

No it does not

Yes it does!

And nothing you have written in reply actually addresses this point.

If Swanson believed the murders stopped because of Kosminski's identification, then it could not have taken place in the Seaside Home as he claimed.

If you claim that Swanson means February 1891, 27 months after the last murder, then Swanson's claim cannot be sustained.

Either way, he is not remembering anything.


His claim that after having been identified, Kosminski was returned to his brother's house is unbelievable and without parallel in British criminal history.

There have been other cases in history were the police, or certain police officers have had a prime suspect but not enough to charge them [ Green river killer for instance ] . I suggest with Kosminski they knew without a positive ID there was no way they could make the case stick.

Anderson claimed they had a positive ID.

It is not believable that the witness changed his mind about testifying before Kosminski could be charged or arrested and this is another point you do not address.


In reality, Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after three days in a workhouse, not after a visit to the seaside.

That was in 1890 . I suggest the ID happened early 1891

And how would Kosminski have been sent to the seaside without any arrest and without his consent?


His claim that Kosminski was placed under restraint is contradicted by three decades of his asylum records, which make no mention of his ever having had to be placed under restraint and, on the contrary, describes him as harmless and not dangerous.

I would suggest that it was common practice for the police back then to put someone in a strait jacket who had threatened someone with a knife and was showing signs of insanity

When Hyam Hyans was put in an asylum for predominantly attacking his wife and his mother in law plus having a weak mind . He was sent there under restraint and described as violent and dangerous. Yet he was released only a few months later as having been cured . Kosminski never was.

But Kosminski was described as being harmless and NOT dangerous.

Where is the evidence that HE was put in a straitjacket or under any kind of restraint?


Swanson was necessarily unaware of the existence of those records because he thought that Kosminski died 30 years earlier than he actually did.

I believe [ and I have written a piece elsewhere ] that the confusion over Kosminski's death occurred when he was transferred to Leavesden

Anderson and Swanson always have to be got off the hook by reference to some misunderstanding.

It cannot be because they are describing events that did not happen.


Swanson cannot possibly be writing from memory.

So why did he write what he did then ?

One does not need to answer that question to know that he had no personal familiarity with the events he related.