Tweet
Originally posted by Abby Normal
View Post
-
I hate to rain on your parade but we do have a German sailor suspect !!!!!
-
-
if you cant even place him in the country, let alone London, a suspect you do not have. not even a person of interest.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostComment
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
It does sound familiar.
Now take a look at Swanson's marginalia:
...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...
If a reluctant witness already knew the suspect was Jewish, he would not have identified him and would not even have gone to the police in the first place.
If he did not know he was Jewish, he would not have learned that he was until after the suspect was charged - possibly not until the trial.
Anderson and Swanson's assertion that the suspect was not charged because of a witness learning of his religion is hardly possible.
And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...
Since Kosminski was seen walking a dog in the City of London in December 1889, the identification could not have taken place until more than a year after what Scotland Yard considered to be the last murder in the series.
Swanson's claim that the alleged identification of Kosminski coincided with, or could explain, the cessation of the murders is obviously unfounded.
after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification,
If the police had so much difficulty in being able to arrange the identification of Isenschmid, then what are the chances that they could have sent Kosminski to a seaside resort?
Why would the Whitechapel Murderer - a murderous psychopath - allow himself to be transported from London to the coast when he was not even under arrest and perfectly within his rights to refuse to cooperate?
Why would anyone have authorised the transportation of a London-based suspect to the coast to be identified by a London-based witness?
Swanson's claim is unbelievable.
and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel
And this is where it becomes clear that Swanson is muddled.
Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after spending three days in a workhouse, not following a trip to the seaside.
It is hardly possible that, having been identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, Kosminski would have been allowed to go home.
He would have been arrested - something which, curiously, neither Anderson nor Swanson ever claimed ever happened to the suspect.
he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night.
Either Swanson is referring to a time prior to 1890, in which case he is describing someone who cannot be Kosminski, or he is referring to a time so long after the murders that there would have been no point in watching Kosminski day and night.
In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse
There is no evidence that Kosminski had to be placed under any kind of physical restraint in some three decades of asylum records.
He was described therein as not dangerous and as harmless.
Such a person does not need to be placed under restraint and, consequently, Swanson cannot be telling the truth.
and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS
And these last remarks are so obviously wrong that it is a wonder that Swanson is still taken seriously.
Swanson is unaware that Kosminski was released from the workhouse after just three days and thinks that instead he died soon after being sent to an asylum.
From beginning to end, Swanson's marginalia and further remarks are completely unbelievable.
Comment
Comment