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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Charles Sandell of the NOTW wrote in an internal memo to his News Editor that Sir Charles Warren's 15th September 1888 order addressed to Alexander Carmichael Bruce [appointing Swanson to be his eyes and ears] was in fact written by head of CID Sir Robert Anderson. The memo is attached to a 12-page document which can be found in Ripperologist 128.

Two things.

Robert Anderson was not head of CID at this time. Also, he did not receive his knighthood until November 1901.

On 15th September 1888 Robert Anderson was allegedly in Switzerland, having been there for a week, so how could he have issued this order?

Simon

[Lewis C]

Well, Reid claimed that the idea that the murderer was a Jew was not suggested in police circles at the time.

All Anderson needed to say in response was that he had at the time informed Abberline that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Abberline would doubtless have confirmed that that had happened.

For some reason, Anderson seemed to want to say very little. I've never understood why he believed that the traditions of his department would have suffered if he had said more.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not talking about the identification, just the view that Kosminski was the killer.

Well, Reid claimed that the idea that the murderer was a Jew was not suggested in police circles at the time.

All Anderson needed to say in response was that he had at the time informed Abberline that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

Abberline would doubtless have confirmed that that had happened.

[Lewis C]

In that case, all Anderson had to do when he was practically accused of making up his story was to mention that Abberline had been aware of the identification of the suspect at the time that he was identified.

If Anderson was confident that the killer had been confined at the time of the identification, then why did he omit that detail from the final version of his memoirs and why was Swanson apparently unaware that the suspect was already confined at the time of the identification?

I'm not talking about the identification, just the view that Kosminski was the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Re: the first question, maybe Anderson or Swanson told Abberline that Kosminski was the killer, but Abberline didn't buy it. Just a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that Anderson could be confident that the killer was confined, but not announce it publicly. It was a very high profile case, resulting in much public concern, and such an announcement would have helped give the public closure on the case.

In that case, all Anderson had to do when he was practically accused of making up his story was to mention that Abberline had been aware of the identification of the suspect at the time that he was identified.

If Anderson was confident that the killer had been confined at the time of the identification, then why did he omit that detail from the final version of his memoirs and why was Swanson apparently unaware that the suspect was already confined at the time of the identification?

[Lewis C]

Why withhold the conclusion reached from Abberline, who needed to know of developments in the investigation?

And why the secrecy about the identification and its result?

As Abberline himself remarked, even if it had proven impossible to convict the suspect, why would Scotland Yard not have boasted of its achievement in identifying the murderer?

Why wait two decades before mentioning it to anyone and then refuse to elaborate?

Re: the first question, maybe Anderson or Swanson told Abberline that Kosminski was the killer, but Abberline didn't buy it. Just a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that Anderson could be confident that the killer was confined, but not announce it publicly. It was a very high profile case, resulting in much public concern, and such an announcement would have helped give the public closure on the case.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe this is the best way to reconcile everything. When Anderson said "we" and "our", he's referring to a very small number of people.

Why withhold the conclusion reached from Abberline, who needed to know of developments in the investigation?

And why the secrecy about the identification and its result?

As Abberline himself remarked, even if it had proven impossible to convict the suspect, why would Scotland Yard not have boasted of its achievement in identifying the murderer?

Why wait two decades before mentioning it to anyone and then refuse to elaborate?

[Lewis C]

That's right.

Anderson claimed that in or shortly after October 1888:

the conclusion we came to was that [the murderer] and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;

He claimed further:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

Anderson never explained whom exactly he meant by we and our.

The only person who has been suggested as having belonged to that circle of people supposedly in-the-know is someone who was reported in the press in 1895 to have believed that the murderer was already dead, and we know that the only Scotland Yard suspect who was dead was Druitt, who had been named by Macnaghten as a suspect the previous year, and was evidently not Jewish.

We know that Inspector Abberline continued to look for Gentile suspects and personally believed that the murderer was a Gentile.

Does anyone seriously believe that he was looking for Gentile suspects, even though the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

Why would Anderson not have informed him of the supposed breakthrough?

Maybe this is the best way to reconcile everything. When Anderson said "we" and "our", he's referring to a very small number of people.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

He did not have to do anything.

He'd probably said all he wanted to say on the subject. Not responding does not indicate anything about his veracity or recollection, since we don't know why he did not respond.

I think it's important to realize that the various senior police officials had differing theories about who the killer was, or who was the best suspect. So just because Anderson wrote something that differs from what Abberline, Reid or someone else said, that does not necessarily make any of them wrong, liars or untrustworthy.

It just means they did not agree. Again, maybe Reid didn't know what Anderson knew, or Anderson thought that Reid did not know what he (Anderson) knew or vice versa.
Or they had different ideas about what constituted a good suspect or a good witness and therefore different evaluations about how strong the "Polish Jew" theory was - Anderson rating it highly while Reid dismissed it.
Their disagreement does not mean the Seaside ID could not have happened.

Anderson claimed in 1910 that the police concluded in or shortly after October 1888 that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

He never named any other police officer who was a party to that conclusion, not even after being challenged by Reid.

If what Anderson claimed was true, then Inspector Abberline could hardly have failed to know about it at the time.

Otherwise, we are expected to believe that Anderson and (according to believers in the Swanson marginalia) Swanson had narrowed down the pool of suspects to Polish Jews, but were allowing Abberline to continue to look for Gentile suspects, without telling him of the supposed breakthrough in the investigation.

As for the alleged seaside identification: if it really had happened, why was Anderson unaware in 1910 that it took place at the seaside?

And, once again, why the secrecy?

Why did Macnaghten, Reid, Abberline, and Smith not know about it?

And whereas the press heard about the attempted identifications of Sadler and Grainger, why did they never hear about the identification of the Polish Jew?

There would have had to be two closely-guarded secrets - about two breakthroughs in the investigation, including the identification of the murderer - with no explanation ever provided by either Anderson or Swanson for the secrecy.

The explanation is quite simple: the two breakthroughs never happened.

[Kattrup]

That is all he had to do.

Hi PI

He did not have to do anything.

He'd probably said all he wanted to say on the subject. Not responding does not indicate anything about his veracity or recollection, since we don't know why he did not respond.

I think it's important to realize that the various senior police officials had differing theories about who the killer was, or who was the best suspect. So just because Anderson wrote something that differs from what Abberline, Reid or someone else said, that does not necessarily make any of them wrong, liars or untrustworthy.

It just means they did not agree. Again, maybe Reid didn't know what Anderson knew, or Anderson thought that Reid did not know what he (Anderson) knew or vice versa.
Or they had different ideas about what constituted a good suspect or a good witness and therefore different evaluations about how strong the "Polish Jew" theory was - Anderson rating it highly while Reid dismissed it.
Their disagreement does not mean the Seaside ID could not have happened.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In 1891, some police thought that Thomas Sadler might be the Ripper, and in 1895, some police thought that William Grainger might be. Neither Sadler nor Grainger was a Polish Jew, so that would support Reid's bolded position.

That's right.

Anderson claimed that in or shortly after October 1888:

the conclusion we came to was that [the murderer] and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;

He claimed further:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

Anderson never explained whom exactly he meant by we and our.

The only person who has been suggested as having belonged to that circle of people supposedly in-the-know is someone who was reported in the press in 1895 to have believed that the murderer was already dead, and we know that the only Scotland Yard suspect who was dead was Druitt, who had been named by Macnaghten as a suspect the previous year, and was evidently not Jewish.

We know that Inspector Abberline continued to look for Gentile suspects and personally believed that the murderer was a Gentile.

Does anyone seriously believe that he was looking for Gentile suspects, even though the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to Polish Jews?

Why would Anderson not have informed him of the supposed breakthrough?

[Lewis C]

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.

In 1891, some police thought that Thomas Sadler might be the Ripper, and in 1895, some police thought that William Grainger might be. Neither Sadler nor Grainger was a Polish Jew, so that would support Reid's bolded position.

[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.

[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]

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?