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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

It's not speculation it's all facts that I would urge to to read and digest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Kattrup.

Please see my replies below.

Hello PI

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


So do I.



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.


It is not I who made that assumption.

That assumption has been made by other posters here, who have speculated that Levy recognised the man in Duke Street as a relative of his.



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.


If he learned it only 'after the Seaside Home', then why was the suspect not charged in the meantime?


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.


Can you or anyone else point to another case in which such an indiscretion was committed by the police?

Considering that Anderson was, according to him, of the opinion that Polish Jews would not testify against one another, and that the only witness we know of who was asked by the police to try to identify a suspect in this case was a Polish Jew, is it believable that the police would have provided the witness with such information as to enable him to refuse to testify against the suspect?

Elamarna has already suggested that the suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious clothing which enabled the witness to identify his religion.

Why would someone who had the appearance of a sailor be transformed into someone who had the appearance of a religious Jew?

Would the police have allowed the identification procedure to go ahead if the suspect had dressed himself so differently for it?

Elamarna also suggested that it is probable that in such a situation, the witness and the suspect would have had a conversation in Yiddish following the identification.

Please ask Trevor Marriott to estimate the chances that such a conversation would have been permitted by the police.

No interaction between witness and suspect would have been permitted.

As for your suggestion about mannerisms, why would the suspect have displayed no Jewish mannerisms in the informal setting in Duke Street, but displayed them in the very formal situation of a police identification?


As I pointed out yesterday in #306 of Letīs talk about that identification again:


It is not as though this is the only murder case in which Anderson alleged that Polish Jews perverted the course of justice in order to protect a Polish Jewish murderer.

In both cases, he described witnesses who he alleged refused to cooperate with the police as low class Polish Jews.

And in both murder cases, he alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew, even though he knew that according to the best eyewitness evidence, the murderer in both cases had fair hair.


It is quite obvious that the man seen by Lawende in Duke Street was not Jewish, just like the man who committed the murder in the other case.



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.


I refer you to the original edition of Anderson's memoirs, in which he ruled out the possibility that the witness knew the suspect to be Jewish beforehand.

I would suggest that either the witness was reluctant to identify a Jewish suspect or he was not.

If he was reluctant, he would not have come forward in the first place and he would not have made the identification.



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.


We do not know that.

The alleged identification was not mentioned by anyone until more than two decades after the murders ended.

When Anderson did mention it, having given no hint to anyone in conversations, interviews and writings over the years, that anything of the kind had happened, his claim was rubbished by former colleagues.

When challenged to substantiate his claim, Anderson made no response.



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


Can you refer to any other case in which that happened?



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.


The suggestion that is being made is that Levy came forward because he recognised the man in Duke Street as a relative of his.

If he had no qualms about doing that, then why should he have had any qualms about testifying?

Can you point to another case in which such a reversal has happened?


But if Levy was Anderson's witness and refused to testify against the suspect upon learning that he was Jewish, then why did he need to be reminded that his relative was Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Hi again Kattrup.

I did not see your exchange with Trevor Marriott until after I had replied to your # 973 in my # 977.

Trevor Marriott certainly did not state a heap of unsupported speculation in his # 974.

He made ten points.

Here are the first five with my comments on them:


1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

That is a fact


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

That is a fact.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever refer to any incriminating evidence against him.


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

That is also true.

Anderson mentions only that the witness had a good view of the murderer but he says nothing about what the murderer was doing at the time.


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

That is also correct, except for Swanson's marginalia.


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

That is also correct.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest, nor even any questioning, of the suspect.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup.

Please see my replies below.

Hi PI

Thanks for replies. I probably should not have interjected as my purpose was not to enter into a discussion for or against the Seaside Home ID taking place, but merely to point out an unproven assumption in your argumentation.
Whether introduced by yourself or others.

You are of course correct that Anderson states the witness did not know beforehand that the suspect was Jewish.

Since we have practically no info about the ID, assuming for a moment that it took place, I think it’s useless to speculate about how the witness learned the suspect was Jewish. What I wrote were just scenarios to show that the witness could have learned about it, either through police, through viewing or hearing the suspect, or indeed from some other source, like servants’ gossip.

They were not meant as scenarios to be argued against, because it’s all pure speculation, so my argument was just that we can imagine many different ways for the witness to have gained that knowledge.

Therefore, the claim that the witness learned the suspect was a Jew after identifying him is, in my opinion, not a good argument against the ID taking place at all.

[Kattrup]

Hi again Kattrup.

I did not see your exchange with Trevor Marriott until after I had replied to your # 973 in my # 977.

Trevor Marriott certainly did not state a heap of unsupported speculation in his # 974.

He made ten points.

Here are the first five with my comments on them:


1. Swanson or Anderson never names the witness

That is a fact


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

That is a fact.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever refer to any incriminating evidence against him.


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

That is also true.

Anderson mentions only that the witness had a good view of the murderer but he says nothing about what the murderer was doing at the time.


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

That is also correct, except for Swanson's marginalia.


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

That is also correct.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentions an arrest, nor even any questioning, of the suspect.

Hi PI

None of these claims have any bearing on whether the ID took place or not, which is why Trevor Marriott’s post was unsupported.

They were also irrelevant to the post I made.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

None of these claims have any bearing on whether the ID took place or not, which is why Trevor Marriott’s post was unsupported.

They were also irrelevant to the post I made.

You described those five points as a heap of unsupported speculation.

They are evidently not, as they are in fact correct!

They also DO have a bearing on whether the ID took place, for the following reasons:

(1) If the identification procedure did take place, then Anderson or Swanson should be able to indicate who the witness was, in private if not in public.

(2) If the identification procedure took place as a result of Kosminski's having become a suspect, then Anderson or Swanson should have been able to say why he became a suspect.

(3) If the prosecution of the suspect really depended upon the witness' being prepared to testify against him, then what the witness saw must have been dramatic and worthy of mention; yet neither Anderson nor Swanson states what the witness saw.
All Anderson says is that the witness had a good view of the murderer.
That casts doubt on the identification story.

(4) The fact that not a single police officer came forward to support Anderson when he was practically accused of having made up the identification story, and that he himself made no response, suggests that the identification did not actually happen.

(5) In order for the identification to have taken place at the seaside, the suspect would have had to be arrested.
If he was positively identified by the witness, then he would have been arrested immediately and certainly before the witness would have had a chance to change his mind or to learn that the suspect was Jewish.

The fact that Anderson and Swanson imply that no such arrest took place suggests that the identification could not have taken place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

Thanks for replies. I probably should not have interjected as my purpose was not to enter into a discussion for or against the Seaside Home ID taking place, but merely to point out an unproven assumption in your argumentation.
Whether introduced by yourself or others.

You are of course correct that Anderson states the witness did not know beforehand that the suspect was Jewish.

Since we have practically no info about the ID, assuming for a moment that it took place, I think it’s useless to speculate about how the witness learned the suspect was Jewish. What I wrote were just scenarios to show that the witness could have learned about it, either through police, through viewing or hearing the suspect, or indeed from some other source, like servants’ gossip.

They were not meant as scenarios to be argued against, because it’s all pure speculation, so my argument was just that we can imagine many different ways for the witness to have gained that knowledge.

Therefore, the claim that the witness learned the suspect was a Jew after identifying him is, in my opinion, not a good argument against the ID taking place at all.

Points taken, Kattrup.

I think that a more important question than how the witness would have learned that the suspect was Jewish is why the police would have failed to arrest the suspect following the identification.

[Kattrup]

You described those five points as a heap of unsupported speculation.

They are evidently not, as they are in fact correct!

I concede that I was too brief in characterizing them as such; I meant that the conclusions that Trevor Marriott so evidently wished to draw from those claims were unsupported.
That is, throwing up a list of random facts to support his position, when those facts do not support it at all.

They also DO have a bearing on whether the ID took place, for the following reasons:

(1) If the identification procedure did take place, then Anderson or Swanson should be able to indicate who the witness was, in private if not in public.

How do you know they were not able to do so? They may have simply chosen not to.

(2) If the identification procedure took place as a result of Kosminski's having become a suspect, then Anderson or Swanson should have been able to say why he became a suspect.

How do you know they were not able to do so? They may have simply chosen not to.

(3) If the prosecution of the suspect really depended upon the witness' being prepared to testify against him, then what the witness saw must have been dramatic and worthy of mention; yet neither Anderson nor Swanson states what the witness saw.
All Anderson says is that the witness had a good view of the murderer.
That casts doubt on the identification story.

It does not; it is unknown if the witness must have seen something dramatic; perhaps the police primarily needed to place the suspect at the scene (if for instance the suspect had denied being in the area). One must also recognize that police officers may have a tendency to overemphazise the importance of single witnesses.

Not stating what the witness saw does not imply anything about what the witness saw. Even if the witness saw something "worthy of mention" - worthy, to who and by what scale? - why would they bother to mention it? Perhaps mentioning what the witness saw would have identified the witness, thus committing an indiscretion.

(4) The fact that not a single police officer came forward to support Anderson when he was practically accused of having made up the identification story, and that he himself made no response, suggests that the identification did not actually happen.

No it does not; others may have been unaware of the criticism or they may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges, or not their place to do so. Ditto Anderson.

(5) In order for the identification to have taken place at the seaside, the suspect would have had to be arrested.
If he was positively identified by the witness, then he would have been arrested immediately and certainly before the witness would have had a chance to change his mind or to learn that the suspect was Jewish.

The fact that Anderson and Swanson imply that no such arrest took place suggests that the identification could not have taken place.

It suggests no such thing. I do not believe that assumption is necessarily correct; as was stated the suspect was an inmate of an asylum and there may have been other ways to commandeer his presence than an arrest.
And another assumption: he would have to be arrested immediately after identification; if he was already committed to an asylum, there'd be no need to arrest him.

All of the above points are arguing on the basis of an absence - because something was NOT said or mentioned, we can conclude that....

That is an invalid argument. So we return to the outset, Trevor Marriott posted a heap of (facts that he intends to use fallaciously to bolster his) unsupported speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, Kattrup, it looks as though you are defending Swanson's inability to explain how he could have transported the Whitechapel murderer from his home in London to the seaside without arresting him by relying on Anderson's claim that the suspect was already in an asylum!

Does not the fact that Anderson and Swanson could not even agree on where the suspect was to begin with cast doubt on whether the episode happened at all?

Excuse my flippancy, but your comment that Anderson and his supporters may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges reminds me of the closing remarks of the judge, as impersonated by the late Peter Cook:

You will have noticed that three of the defendants have chosen very wisely to exercise their inalienable right not to go into the witness box to answer a lot of impertinent questions.

I will merely say that you are not to infer anything from this other than that they consider the evidence against them so flimsy that it was scarcely worth rising from their seats and wasting breath denying these ludicrous charges.

[Kattrup]

Well, Kattrup, it looks as though you are defending Swanson's inability to explain how he could have transported the Whitechapel murderer from his home in London to the seaside without arresting him by relying on Anderson's claim that the suspect was already in an asylum!

Does not the fact that Anderson and Swanson could not even agree on where the suspect was to begin with cast doubt on whether the episode happened at all?

Excuse my flippancy, but your comment that Anderson and his supporters may have felt it beneath them to respond to such charges reminds me of the closing remarks of the judge, as impersonated by the late Peter Cook:

You will have noticed that three of the defendants have chosen very wisely to exercise their inalienable right not to go into the witness box to answer a lot of impertinent questions.

I will merely say that you are not to infer anything from this other than that they consider the evidence against them so flimsy that it was scarcely worth rising from their seats and wasting breath denying these ludicrous charges.

I’m not aware that Swanson was unable to explain it? Do you simply mean that he didn’t explain it?

The fact that A&S did not disagree about the it happening lends credibility to the episode happening. Minor discrepancies are well known to occur when different people discuss events, even more so after a 20-year interval.

Whatever smart remark some actor in a movie may have said, e silentio-arguments remain invalid.

Arguing that “Anderson should have replied! Since he didn’t, that means he knows his story was a lie” or “I would expect them to have mentioned more details about the ID, if it had happened” is an invalid argument.
If someone in 100 years were to probe the important emails I write at work, I’m sure they could find fault with them for not mentioning stuff that I deem irrelevant or assume already well established and known by the recipient.
That, however, does not mean that I am lying or hiding something.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not aware that Swanson was unable to explain it? Do you simply mean that he didn’t explain it?

The fact that A&S did not disagree about the it happening lends credibility to the episode happening. Minor discrepancies are well known to occur when different people discuss events, even more so after a 20-year interval.

Whatever smart remark some actor in a movie may have said, e silentio-arguments remain invalid.

Arguing that “Anderson should have replied! Since he didn’t, that means he knows his story was a lie” or “I would expect them to have mentioned more details about the ID, if it had happened” is an invalid argument.
If someone in 100 years were to probe the important emails I write at work, I’m sure they could find fault with them for not mentioning stuff that I deem irrelevant or assume already well established and known by the recipient.
That, however, does not mean that I am lying or hiding something.

There are simply too many important details which Anderson or Swanson could have provided but did not, e.g. the identity of the witness, how the suspect could have been forcibly transported without being arrested, incriminating evidence, why the suspect was never interrogated, why the suspect was not arrested after being identified, how the witness could possibly have discovered the suspect's religious affiliation, and why the suspect was allowed to go home after being identified as the Whitechapel murderer.

The disagreement between Anderson and Swanson about whether the suspect was living at home or in an asylum is not a minor discrepancy.

The fact that when Anderson was publicly challenged, he chose to say nothing, does indeed suggest that he was unable to substantiate his claims.

It is not, as you say, simply the case that Anderson did not substantiate the claims he made.

He had mentioned no arrest or even interrogation of the suspect, nor any incriminating evidence against him.

When challenged, he chose to say nothing.

[Kattrup]

There are simply too many important details which Anderson or Swanson could have provided but did not, e.g. the identity of the witness, how the suspect could have been forcibly transported without being arrested, incriminating evidence, why the suspect was never interrogated, why the suspect was not arrested after being identified, how the witness could possibly have discovered the suspect's religious affiliation, and why the suspect was allowed to go home after being identified as the Whitechapel murderer.

The disagreement between Anderson and Swanson about whether the suspect was living at home or in an asylum is not a minor discrepancy.

The fact that when Anderson was publicly challenged, he chose to say nothing, does indeed suggest that he was unable to substantiate his claims.

It is not, as you say, simply the case that Anderson did not substantiate the claims he made.

He had mentioned no arrest or even interrogation of the suspect, nor any incriminating evidence against him.

When challenged, he chose to say nothing.

Well, I think we disagree. I forget the very public challenge you’re referring to, could you refresh my memory?
At any rate, not elaborating in a manner convenient to us a century later is not indicative of falsehood.

Two senior police officers agreed the ID happened. The fact that the process, as described in the very lacking sources we have available, seems unorthodox, does not invalidate that. Which is of course why it’s still being discussed

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, I think we disagree. I forget the very public challenge you’re referring to, could you refresh my memory?
At any rate, not elaborating in a manner convenient to us a century later is not indicative of falsehood.

Two senior police officers agreed the ID happened. The fact that the process, as described in the very lacking sources we have available, seems unorthodox, does not invalidate that. Which is of course why it’s still being discussed

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.

(Detective Inspector Reid, Morning Advertiser, 23rd April 1910)


It is not as though this is the only murder case in which Anderson alleged that Polish Jews perverted the course of justice in order to protect a Polish Jewish murderer.

In both cases, he described witnesses who he alleged refused to cooperate with the police as 'low class Polish Jews'.

And in both murder cases, he alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew, even though he knew that according to the best eyewitness evidence, the murderer in both cases had fair hair.

What does that tell you about his own reliability as a witness to what really happened?

[Kattrup]

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.

(Detective Inspector Reid, Morning Advertiser, 23rd April 1910)

Ah, thank you, I thought you intended challenged on the ID taking place. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Again, not responding to stuff like Reid could have many many reasons and is not something that can be used as basis for anything. Maybe Anderson didn’t read the Morning Advertiser, maybe he was sick at the time, or too busy, or traveling.
maybe he thought or knew that Reid didn’t know anything about the suspect.
Anderson originally wrote that although he could name the suspect, he chose not to because no good would come of it and the traditions of his old department would suffer.
How, then, would you have him respond to Reid and publicly prove that the suspect was a Polish Jew?

Or maybe he just thought that some minor comment from a former subordinate did not merit a response.

Who knows? His lack of response is not indicative of anything.


As for his trustworthiness in general, I at present have no strong opinions about that at the moment, sorry.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ah, thank you, I thought you intended challenged on the ID taking place. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Again, not responding to stuff like Reid could have many many reasons and is not something that can be used as basis for anything. Maybe Anderson didn’t read the Morning Advertiser, maybe he was sick at the time, or too busy, or traveling.
maybe he thought or knew that Reid didn’t know anything about the suspect.
Anderson originally wrote that although he could name the suspect, he chose not to because no good would come of it and the traditions of his old department would suffer.
How, then, would you have him respond to Reid and publicly prove that the suspect was a Polish Jew?

Or maybe he just thought that some minor comment from a former subordinate did not merit a response.

Who knows? His lack of response is not indicative of anything.


As for his trustworthiness in general, I at present have no strong opinions about that at the moment, sorry.

I don't think there was a misunderstanding.

I understood Reid to include the claimed identification in his challenge.

Even if Anderson did not read the Morning Advertiser, he must have heard about the interview.

Anderson did not need to name the suspect in order to make some attempt at substantiating the claims he had made.

For example, Reid specifically challenged him on his claim that in 1888, the police came to the conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Anderson did not even respond by referring to a single other policeman who had been a party to that conclusion.

That is all he had to do.