The Seaside Home: an alternative scenario

[Errata]

Without knowing the context its impossible to say...

If BSM was Schizophrenic then nothing he said would make any sense to anyone anyway...

Pirate

I don't know... schizophrenics aren't random, they are ordered within a false reality. Tourette Syndrome is pretty disordered. Schizophrenics tend to not shout random things. If anything they are rather more well known for a running monologue. If he shouted "Lipski" and was continuing in that vein in a sort of verbal play by play of his own thoughts, THAT would be pretty typical of schizophrenics.

It's certainly not impossible that BSM was schizophrenic, but nothing in his behaviour would suggest it.

[Jeff Leahy]

All to debunk the account of his former boss and to leave him with nothing that readers might construe or miscontrue as giving aid and comfort to Anderson's controversial claims.

.

Then why not just say so in plain English...Anderson would have to have proved what he said or shut up............he didnt.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi
Broad shouldered man yelled out "lipski" at the time Schwartz saw him. Would Kosminski, a jew, yell that?

.

Without knowing the context its impossible to say...

If BSM was Schizophrenic then nothing he said would make any sense to anyone anyway...

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

When Schwartz learned Kosminski was suspected of being Stride's killer and therefore the notorious Ripper, he stopped cooperating.
John

Wouldnt this assume that Schwartz was unaware that Stride was a ripper victim?

He identified the body......he must have known who she was?

So any ID he agreed to must have been a potential ripper suspect

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

I want to amplify what was written earlier about Macnaghten's dropping any reference to 'Kosminski' in his memoirs.

Macnaghten's 1914 chapter: 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' is clearly his own adaptation of his 'Aberconway' draft, or rewrite, though he claims to be writing from memory alone.

Therefore, Mac revises what he had written in that earlier document, about a cop witness allegedly sighting maybe the Polish-Jewish suspect, and also revises what he must have told George Sims about 'Dr D' having resided 'twice' in a mental institution -- diagnosed as a homicidal harlot hater.

Strikingly missing from either version of his Report is the Goulston St. graffiti, now suddenly deployed here, in 1914, as the only clue left behind by the murderer?! No ifs and no buts. Its meaning, according to Mac, is to blame the Jews for disturbing him -- therefore not written by a Jew. That's why he uses it here. It's agenda is anti-Anderson too.

All to debunk the account of his former boss and to leave him with nothing that readers might construe or miscontrue as giving aid and comfort to Anderson's controversial claims.

For example:

'On this occasion [the Double Event] it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming.'

So much for a terrific witness -- allegedly a cop no less. He probably did see the killer but could provide nothing of value (My God, how useless! Was he sacked?)

Further on he uses the putdown 'Simon Pure' about the murderer, eg. a Christian hypocrite and not a Jew.

'I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings.

True, Macnaghten is writing about a different suspect from his former boss, but he is also doing so with studied opacity. Therefore, he wants nobody to think that his chief suspect matches Anderson's, not even vaguely or allusively; no useful witness, and no asylum record, and a murderer who blamed Jews.

[Abby Normal]

Suppose police became convinced that Kosminski was a likely Ripper suspect and, without mentioning their true purpose, persuaded his family to allow them to have Kosminski seen at a private seaside asylum, ostensibly for treatment. Schwartz (and perhaps another possible witness) was taken to the asylum and given a chance to see Kosminski, at which time Schwartz identified him as the man he'd seen throw Stride to the ground outside Dutfield's Yard. When Schwartz learned Kosminski was suspected of being Stride's killer and therefore the notorious Ripper, he stopped cooperating. He insisted that he only saw Kosminski throw Stride to the ground, he saw no murder being committed. Schwartz reasoned, quite correctlly, that if he testified to only what he had witnessed, a jury might unfairly think that was enough to convict Kosminski of Stride's murder. Despite officers attempts to change his mind, Schwartz was adament that he would not testify against Kosminski. It was likely only Anderson's personal belief that the refusal to testify was based on the fact that both men were Jews.

John

Hi
Broad shouldered man yelled out "lipski" at the time Schwartz saw him. Would Kosminski, a jew, yell that?

In most probability, the witness was Lawende, who saw the suspect with a women outside of Mitre square.

[Dr. John Watson]

Possible Solution to the Seaside Identity

Suppose police became convinced that Kosminski was a likely Ripper suspect and, without mentioning their true purpose, persuaded his family to allow them to have Kosminski seen at a private seaside asylum, ostensibly for treatment. Schwartz (and perhaps another possible witness) was taken to the asylum and given a chance to see Kosminski, at which time Schwartz identified him as the man he'd seen throw Stride to the ground outside Dutfield's Yard. When Schwartz learned Kosminski was suspected of being Stride's killer and therefore the notorious Ripper, he stopped cooperating. He insisted that he only saw Kosminski throw Stride to the ground, he saw no murder being committed. Schwartz reasoned, quite correctlly, that if he testified to only what he had witnessed, a jury might unfairly think that was enough to convict Kosminski of Stride's murder. Despite officers attempts to change his mind, Schwartz was adament that he would not testify against Kosminski. It was likely only Anderson's personal belief that the refusal to testify was based on the fact that both men were Jews.

John

[Errata]

Harry,
Not every Jew looks like Ron Moody as Fagin. There are stereotypical-looking Jews, there are also Jews who don't look Jewish at all.

I realize this probably a shout in the wind, but please understand that this "looking Jewish" thing has plagued me my whole life, being red haired and green eyed. I now want to commit bloody murder every time I hear someone say "Funny, you don't look Jewish..." So I'm gonna tell you what I know about Judaism, ethnicity, race etc. and just let it float in the ether for anyone to grab if they choose.

Judaism is not a race. It is a religion, and it is a culture, but not a race. It is specifically not a race because we as a whole do not share similar physical characteristics. Now, ethnically (not race. customs language etc.) there are two TYPES of Jews. After the diaspora (when the Jews were forced out of Palestine in about the 4th Century) they split off into two directions. The larger group (Ashkenazi) headed east, ending up in Russia, Poland, Hungary, etc. The smaller group (Sephardic) headed west, north and south, populating Africa and Spain and Portugal. Eventually Jews spread even Further, occupying every country in Europe and Africa, and a great deal of Asia.

Columbus's expedition to the new world was mostly populated with Jews, who had been thrown out of Spain and Portugal because of the Inquisition. The Jews expelled from Britain headed to the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Jews expelled from Russia went to Poland. In the 16th century, a Jewish student went with the Spaniards to South America and converted an entire mountain tribe in Peru (I think. It could have been Bolivia). So imagine everyone's surprise when in the 20th century, explorers discovered a tribe of South American natives speaking a sort of bastardized Hebrew and asking for prayer books, since the one they had fell apart a couple of centuries ago.

If you take a Russian Jew, and place her next to a Russian Eastern Orthodox, they look identical. They have what is known as a phenotype (genetics+environment=appearance). In this case, a set of physical characteristics common to a certain region. Russian Jews look like Southern Russians because that's where they settled and intermarried. Dutch Jews look like Dutch Christians for the same reason.

Due to the pogroms in Russia in the mid to late 19th century, A great deal of Russian Jews fled to Poland, to America, and to London. But a massive cholera outbreak 30 years earlier, and war 10 years after that, never mind the total lack of industrialization had sent Russians of all religion seeking better futures. So when the Russian Jews came to London, Russian Orthodox were already there. As well as other Jews. However there was also a significant Sephardic Jewish population, comprised mostly of Spaniards and North Africans. Who by the way, would look Spanish or North African.

If someone from this case says that someone "looks Jewish" they are saying that the person looked like a southern Russian. Southern Russians are the Jewish stereotype. The Whitechapel Jews were Polish, Southern Russian, and Sephardic. A good deal of Polish Jews would have gone unnoticed as Jews, having light complexions and light hair. Sephardic Jews would never have been identified as Jews at all (For example, they don't speak Yiddish, only Askenazi do). Russian Jews, with more of a leaning towards craft work like jewelry, tailoring, shoemaking, would have been the most visible.

So is there a reason that these people thought that Jews "looked Jewish"? Sure. Because about a third of Whitechapel did. The irony is that probably only about half of the people who "looked Jewish" actually WERE Jewish. The rest would have been Russian Orthodox.

So that's my spiel. The only reason this is relevant (aside from the fact it was irritating me) is that if you base an investigation on a description of "Looked Jewish" and only look at Jews, you are ignoring about half of the population who also looks Jewish, but isn't. You are also missing quite a few Jews who do not in fact "look Jewish". Its a fatal flaw in a murder investigation.

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson stated...

There is much that is germane, Stewart, but I thought there was nothing to be gained by bringing up points that risked diverting the thread from Harry's interesting question of when and how the witness discovered the suspect was a Jew.
...

'Harry's interesting question' may be addressed by quoting the only information that we have that is relevant to it.

Anderson stated, 'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, 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.' (Blackwood's Magazine, March 1910).

'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.' (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, Hodder & Stoughton, 1910).

Swanson wrote in his marginalia and endpaper notes, '...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.'

It is obvious that it simply cannot be ascertained with any certainty exactly when the witness realised that the suspect was 'a fellow Jew' other than it was apparently after the actual identification. And that based on Anderson's words above '...when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew' in the Blackwood's version.

[Stewart P Evans]

Innocent Man

Which may be what Swanson meant when he said that the suspect knew he had been identified - a somewhat superfluous comment if the suspect had been in a lineup and the witness had stopped in front of him and said "That's the man!" Or, indeed, if it had been a one-on-one confrontation. If steps had been taken so that the suspect was unaware of the witness, then presumably he would not have known he'd been identified (unless told). So maybe Swanson means that the suspect reacted to the witness, thus achieving the very purpose you suspect.

I should imagine that if a totally innocent man was accused of murder in such a confrontation it would provoke an adverse reaction (especially if the suspect was non compos mentis), which may have easily been misread as a guilty one. With what little we have and the less than satisfactory sources I think you are trying to read too much into too little.

[Stewart P Evans]

'No Shadow of Proof'

Had there been good evidence and a witness identification then the suspect could have been brought before a magistrate and the charges made, but in the case of Aaron Kosminski he would almost certainly have been certified insane and been committed before a trail could have taken place. The police would nevertheless have had an opportunity to claim they'd caught the Ripper.
When we have a result, it is perfectly legitimate to postulate a cause. The suspect was taken to an identification, therefore there must have been a reason why that happened. The 'must have been' and the 'something else' is therefore perfectly legitimate.
Anderson and presumably Swanson evidently thought he was a good suspect; so good, in fact, that they thought he was Jack the Ripper.
But this is all getting away from Harry's point.

Let's try not exclude these other relevant angles by narrowing the debate down to a tiny point made by one person.

The only 'result' we have is provided by the words of Anderson and Swanson. We know that there was no 'good evidence' as Macnaghten clearly tells us in his 23 February 1894 in an official report where he states, "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." And the list of suspects that follows that clear cut statement includes 'Kosminski'. The big problem is that no independent source has confirmed the identification and the premise is based on the blind acceptance of the Anderson/Swanson sources as the unquestionable truth.

Of course the other big question that remains is that if such a staggeringly important event as the positive identification of 'Jack the Ripper' had occurred how on earth did Macnaghten fail to mention it in this 1894 report?

But then, of course, we return to the preposterous suggestion that it was kept a secret to which only Anderson and Swanson were privy and never, ever, leaked out in any other way. Also it should be remembered that when Macnaghten wrote his 1914 memoirs he signally failed to mention any such event, dropped any mention of 'Kosminski', and instead opted for his suicidal Ripper.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not sure...

Well, I think you'll find Mallon needs to be treated cautiously as both accusations can and have been leveled at him too. Unfortunately, Anderson's sloppy writing and lack of thought is often the basis for much of the criticism levelled at him, particularly by later commentators, and is why his words must always be looked at with care.

I'm not quite sure what source you are using to level the accusations at Mallon and exactly why he needs to be treated with as much caution as Anderson (bearing in mind that all such historical sources should be treated with a degree of caution anyway). If it is in relation to the 'Jubilee Plot' you must make very sure that you have marshalled the facts.

[Phil H]

Lechmere

I personally think they got it wrong and most of these later remarks are self-justificatory, after the event, ‘don’t you think we knew all along’ type statements, in which a weak suspect at the time is made a firm one years later.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the psychology that underlies your hypothesis above. But from my dealings with VERY senior civil servants and military officers over the years, I would suggest that the attitude was Olympian -"we see the big picture in which details are only one element of the whole, we draw judgements that lesser men do not, and our conclusion is..."

I am reminded of that minute sent by Warren (long thought to be Anderson as I recall) to Swanson, appointing him as the co-ordinator/focal point of the case. Doesn't he say in that minute that he could, if he had the time, solve the case single-handed in a couple of days? (I don't have access to the sources as I type.)

Thus Anderson may have reached a personal conclusion about Kosminski based on his involvement and reading of the case papers. Whether Swanson shared that view/conclusion is another matter.

I still see it as a possible and warranted reading of the marginalia that DSS was recording what he had been TOLD (by Anderson), not what he KNEW personally.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Most East End Jews were new arrivals from Eastern Europe, often from very poor, unsophisticated, almost medieval, small rural villages, and did not integrate quickly into the local community or indeed into western society. They had a very different look to them, their dress, hair style and so forth, compared to other East Enders.
Jewish people who had been here longer were less distinctively Jewish – Sarah Lewis perhaps fits that category.
It would be somewhat similar to looking at a group of Bengalis in the 1970s (who came from very poor unsophisticated, almost medieval, rural villages) when young and old would be wearing traditional dress, whereas now many are very westernised.

As for why the police may have carried out an identification that would have no legal force – they many have just wanted to know whether their particular suspect was the culprit so they could focus on watching him and not other potential suspects, and neutralise his threat by various means. Such as following him everywhere, observing him, getting him securely locked up for life in an asylum and so forth.

I personally think they got it wrong and most of these later remarks are self-justificatory, after the event, ‘don’t you think we knew all along’ type statements, in which a weak suspect at the time is made a firm one years later.

[Jonathan H]

Was it Grant's reaction being mis-remembered?

Consider that if the tale told by Swanson and/or Anderson is literally true we have quite a coincidence.

So, a Jewish witness said 'yes' to a Ripper suspect, 'Kosminski', and the latter was believed to have murdered five or so women -- yet, frustratingly, the murderer could not be brought to justice (satisfyingly, he allegedly died soon after anyhow).

Later, a Jewish witness -- presumably not the same one, or was it? -- said 'yes' to another Ripper suspect, Grant, who had certainly been caught trying to kill an 'unfortunate', but again, frustratingly one imagines, the suspect could not be brought to justice beyond this single, attempted murder.

Well ... coincidences do happen.

Of course, in the same article of 1895 mentioning a Whitechapel witness affirming to Grant, Swanson is supposed to have claimed that the real fiend had passed away.

Where did that come from?

And whom did Swanson mean?

It seems to match his mistake about 'Kosminski' being deceased, when he scribbled his annotation in 1910 -- or even much later?

On the other hand, Tom Divall would write in 1929 that Macnaghten had told him that the real fiend had died soon after fleeing to the States; expiring in a madhouse (a perfect nutshell jumble of M. J. Druitt, 'Kosminski' and Dr. Tumblety).

Did Mac tell the same tale to Swanson, or some variation thereof? After all, 'Kosminski' begins with Mac in the extant record -- plus he has a much better sense that the suspect was probably still alive in the asylum

Personally, I think that Swanson and/or Anderson, in that bit regarding the guilty, shocked, melodramatic reaction allegedly on the face of the murderer, is a half-baked recollection of the abject terror William Grant must have felt when Lawende unexpectedly affirmed to him being the 'sailor' whom he saw with Eddowes in 1888 -- though in the original description there were no scars or tattoos.