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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Would you please identify the assumptions and explain why they are questionable?

You have not, in your reply, identified a single assumption made by me!

This is the umpteenth time it has been alleged that I have made assumptions, but you cannot actually cite or quote one!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Almost every line is based on something we can't know for sure.

If that is your opinion, then should you not be declaring your agreement with me rather than saying that I am making assumptions?

In every line, I refer to the lack of reference by Anderson and Swanson to evidence of any kind.


We don't know when Kosminski first came to Police attention.

There is no evidence that he came to the attention of the police prior to his incarceration in an asylum.

Anderson never suggested otherwise.

My statements are not assumptions!


We don't know if Kosminski's relatives were questioned.

There is no mention by Anderson or Swanson of any search of the Kosminski home, of any evidence being found there, of Kosminski being arrested or questioned, of his relatives being arrested or questioned, nor of any charges being brought against either Kosminski or any of his relatives.

You are being rather generous to Anderson and Swanson.


We don't know what evidence the Police had on Kosminski if any.

We know they had nothing concrete.

According to Macnaghten, who had access to all the relevant files, the case against Kosminski was entirely circumstantial.

He does not even mention any identification evidence.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentions any concrete evidence.

Again, you are giving them an extraordinary amount of leeway.


We don't know if Kosminski ever used Prostitutes.

Again, there is no evidence that he did - not even from the alleged surveillance of him.


We don't know the details of Kosminski's transfer to the coast other than it was completed with difficulty. The fact that these are not mentioned or expanded on by Anderson or Swanson does not mean they did not happen.

The fact that Anderson implies that no such transfer happened does not mean it could not have happened?

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest.

Why would the Whitechapel Murderer consent to a trip to the coast to be identified without having been arrested?

What you call a difficulty would have been an impossibility.


The bottom line is this- Anderson wrote about an ID in his book that was made available to the public. I have seen no evidence his claim was ever dismissed as fantasy.

If you look at what Abberline, Macnaghten, Reid and Smith wrote in response, their comments were polite ways of saying just that!


Swanson annotated his personal copy of Anderson's book for reasons only he knew. He appears to have enjoyed annotating and did it extensively so it may have been as simple as he took pleasure in adding little tidbits. Maybe he felt that if in future his family read his personal copy of the book they would see the notes and be proud that the Ripper had actually been caught.

Maybe he thought they might publish his jottings after his death so that the world could see how clever he had really been.


We don't know. But why would he lie in a personal copy of a book? There is no reason for it.

He provides no information that would suggest that he had any inside information about what really happened: no arrest or interrogation of either Kosminski or his relatives, no search of the Kosminski home nor of any incriminating evidence found there, no evidence derived from surveillance of the suspect or his relatives, no mention of lack of an alibi, no mention of the suspect's first name nor of his brother's name, no mention of the name of the street in which he lived, no mention of the name of a single policeman involved in the transfer, identification, or surveillance, no dates, no explanation as to how the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish, how soon after the identification it happened, why no charges were brought, nor even the suspect's name.

There is no reason to suppose that Swanson was doing anything more than retelling a fantasy supplied to him.

The question of whether he lied is, in my submission, irrelevant.

[Michael W Richards]

Detective Inspector Reid who was actively engaged in the murders was quoted in The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

I was thinking about the same thing but was waiting to see Sunny's response to Trevor.

The main point, though, is that Reid claimed that it was never suggested at the time of the murders that the murderer was Jewish.

The police cleared John Piser, who had been unhesitatingly identified, and they ruled out the possibility that the murder weapon was a Jewish ritual slaughter man's knife.

There is no support from Macnaghten, Warren, Smith, Abberline, or Reid for Anderson's claim that Scotland Yard came to the conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

Instead, all five expressed their view that the murderer was a Gentile.

[Trevor Marriott]

That quote does seem to negate the evidence we have Trevor, because we do have a witness that claimed to have see Liz with Broad Shouldered Man just before the estimated time of her murder, we have a witness claiming to see Kate with "Sailor Man" shortly before she is found dead, and another who claimed to see Mary with Blotchy. Do you think Reids comments reflect an opinion that these witness reports cannot be trusted, or were not trusted?

But there is no direct evidence to show the men seen with the victims was the killer because the killer has never been identified. I think Reid is being honest in his approach to the evidence bearing in mind the exact time of death of the victims cannot be firmly established

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

There is no support from Macnaghten, Warren, Smith, Abberline, or Reid for Anderson's claim that Scotland Yard came to the conclusion that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

Instead, all five expressed their view that the murderer was a Gentile.

Only Macnaghten did (indirectly) by endorsing Druitt.

[Michael W Richards]

But there is no direct evidence to show the men seen with the victims was the killer because the killer has never been identified. I think Reid is being honest in his approach to the evidence bearing in mind the exact time of death of the victims cannot be firmly established

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I realize that, but being pragmatic, the men I mentioned excluding in Marys case, were supposedly "witnessed" minutes before the victims were killed. That in reasonable terms would make them primary suspects. In Liz's case the medical estimate of the cut time allows for the possibility that she was possibly cut within 1 minute or so of Schwartz's "sighting". Surely that sighting, if deemed honest and accurate by the authorities, provided the most probable killer of Liz Stride. The murder of Kate, if accepting Lawendes ID, means that there is less than 8 minutes before she is found dead...inside the square.

Its the time lapse between alleged sighting and the discovery that makes those men primary suspects for those murders. IF the sighting was believed.

[Sunny Delight]

Detective Inspector Reid who was actively engaged in the murders was quoted in The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am of the same mind as Reid. Nothing I have seen suggests to me that the Police had any idea who the murderer was. Nothing I have seen suggests to me that Kosminski was anything other than a poor suspect. I don't know how this relates to Anderson and Swanson's comments on the ID though?

[Sunny Delight]

Please see my replies below.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through your comment line by line. As I state we do not know a lot of what you are assuming. Can you give me a reason why two senior officers would allude to an ID of a suspect, why MM stated Kosminski strongly resembled a man seen near Mitre Square but all be telling lies? For that is what you are suggesting is it not? The ID took place- that should not be in dispute. I won't be engaging anymore in this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Only Macnaghten did (indirectly) by endorsing Druitt.

The writing on the wall may have been written - and, I think, probably was written - to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews.

(Sir Henry Smith)



I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr. Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street Murder cleared up, and thus to divert from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.

(Sir Charles Warren)



I cannot help feeling that this (Chapman) was the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago.

(Inspector George Abberline)



Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders.

(Inspector Edmund Reid)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through your comment line by line. As I state we do not know a lot of what you are assuming. Can you give me a reason why two senior officers would allude to an ID of a suspect, why MM stated Kosminski strongly resembled a man seen near Mitre Square but all be telling lies? For that is what you are suggesting is it not? The ID took place- that should not be in dispute. I won't be engaging anymore in this.

I did not make any assumptions.

When I asked you to cite any, you could not do so.

It was Anderson who made an assumption that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I have never accused Macnaghten of lying about an alleged sighting of Kosminski in Mitre Square, and he seems not to have believed it himself, as he removed mention of it and expressed his inclination to exonerate Kosminski, who obviously did not resemble the suspect seen by Lawende.

If Anderson himself had really believed his story to be true, why did he remove reference to the suspect's incarceration having preceded his identification, and why did he remove mention of the witness learning that the suspect was Jewish?

And why was he silent when challenged by Reid to substantiate his claim that Scotland Yard had narrowed down its pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am preparing a full rebuttal of the claims and arguments you have made the last few weeks.
However, such takes time if it's to be correct.

Quite.

In the meantime, I refer you to your comments elsewhere about Anderson's witness:

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness , followed by a completely unnamed witness and then Joseph Hyam Levy.

You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates

(Elamarna, # 187 Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)


Your third candidate is Joseph Hyam Levy, who is alleged to have recognised the man in Church Passage as a fellow Jew.

If Joseph Hyam Levy was Anderson's witness, who refused to testify against the suspect when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, can you explain why Levy needed to be reminded that the suspect was Jewish when he already knew so?

Can you also explain why Levy would have come forward in the first place and why he would have unhesitatingly identified the suspect, if he was unwilling to incriminate someone he already knew to be Jewish?

[Kattrup]

Your third candidate is Joseph Hyam Levy, who is alleged to have recognised the man in Church Passage as a fellow Jew.

If Joseph Hyam Levy was Anderson's witness, who refused to testify against the suspect when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, can you explain why Levy needed to be reminded that the suspect was Jewish when he already knew so?

Can you also explain why Levy would have come forward in the first place and why he would have unhesitatingly identified the suspect, if he was unwilling to incriminate someone he already knew to be Jewish?

Hello PI

I too look forward to reading Elamarna’s take, as he is usually very meticulous.

In the meantime, I’d like to point to an assumption in your post, that the witness would have already known the suspect was Jewish.

That is unknown. In my opinion, identifying in this case means only confirming that the suspect was the (to him unknown) man that he’d seen.

So he may only have learned the suspect was Jewish at or after the Seaside Home.

How could he have learned it? Through the police, either inadvertently or being told outright, or because the suspect was then recognizable as presumably Jewish through clothing or mannerisms, e.g. muttering or speaking in Yiddish.

Even if the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand, there are people, also today, who for various reasons help the police investigation but are unwilling to appear in court. One needs only consider anonymous tips, but many other witnesses and even victims refuse to testify.

Since we don’t know who the witness was, it’s futile to speculate on what reasons he may have had. All we know is the the police believed it to be not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.

Perhaps the victim feared retaliation from other members of the Jewish community, or feared being ostracized or whatever.

At any rate, while it may be, strictly speaking, illogical to help the police with the id but then refuse to testify, it happens, then as now, and does not really require an explanation. By which I mean, it’s not a viable argument against the Seaside ID taking place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello PI

I too look forward to reading Elamarna’s take, as he is usually very meticulous.

In the meantime, I’d like to point to an assumption in your post, that the witness would have already known the suspect was Jewish.

That is unknown. In my opinion, identifying in this case means only confirming that the suspect was the (to him unknown) man that he’d seen.

So he may only have learned the suspect was Jewish at or after the Seaside Home.

How could he have learned it? Through the police, either inadvertently or being told outright, or because the suspect was then recognizable as presumably Jewish through clothing or mannerisms, e.g. muttering or speaking in Yiddish.

Even if the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand, there are people, also today, who for various reasons help the police investigation but are unwilling to appear in court. One needs only consider anonymous tips, but many other witnesses and even victims refuse to testify.

Since we don’t know who the witness was, it’s futile to speculate on what reasons he may have had. All we know is the the police believed it to be not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.

Perhaps the victim feared retaliation from other members of the Jewish community, or feared being ostracized or whatever.

At any rate, while it may be, strictly speaking, illogical to help the police with the id but then refuse to testify, it happens, then as now, and does not really require an explanation. By which I mean, it’s not a viable argument against the Seaside ID taking place.

But this whole ID issue revolves around a number of important issues

1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

2. There is no evidence as to how Kosmiski became a suspect

3. No evidence as to what the witness allegedly saw in relation to the murders and what Kosminski was being ID for

4. No other police officials ever mention this mythical ID parade

5. No mention of Kosminski ever being arrested or interviewed about the murders either before or after the ID parade

6. If the witness had made a positive ID and didn't want to give evidence what was stopping the police still arresting Kosminski and putting the fact that he had been identified, after all, there would have been no need to tell him that the witness was not prepared to go to court, and that may have extracted a confession.

7. After this mythical ID parade are we expected to believe that the police simply dropped Kosminski off at a relative's house and did nothing after that? In reality, that would not happen.

8. Magnaghten makes no mention of this ID Parade, yet he was Swanson's immediate superior so I would have expected him to have had some knowledge

9. We do not know what ID procedure was used in this mythical ID parade. It reads like a direct confrontation which if that had been the case the ID would have been of no evidential value and would not have stood up in court as there were in place guidelines which were to be adopted for ID parades.

10. Neither Swanson nor Anderson mention why this ID procedure was carried out at a seaside home, and where that Seaside home was located.

As previously stated I personally have no faith in the content of the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

But this whole ID issue revolves around a number of important issues

“Thanks”, Trevor, for stating a heap of unsupported speculation that has no bearing on what I wrote to PI.