Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

I thought before I clicked the link that it might be you, but it wasn't clear to me from the reference made to it.

Well, I don't know how they came up with it, but as you know, Churchill called Anderson a fantasist.

I didn't actually accuse either Anderson or Swanson of lying, but I did say Swanson evidently had a vivid imagination.

I have previously explained my take on Churchills comments.
It was in my view a warning shot, to stay silent about Irish matters, given under full parliamentary privilege.
Just because someone calls you a fantasies, it does not mean you are.
Next year there is due to be a new book on Anderson published, it should make interesting reading for all.
I btw have no idea what it will say.

For a view on Swanson, not just his Ripper related stuff, one really should read Swanson by Adam Wood, ( the ripper stuff as a small part of it).
A great bit of research, which I humbly suggests does not support your view of him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But he wasn't the main witness so to speak. Both Anderson and Swanson hint that a prosecution could not go ahead without the witnesses testimony. If it could have then surely Anderson and Swanson would not have been so disparaging that the witness refused to testify.
In the case of the 1876 trial the defendant Issac Marks, Lawende was not a prime witness. Marks handed himself in and pleaded insanity with Lawende being a witness for the defence on Marks strange behavior.
The two cases are highly distinct.

Regards Darryl

To be honest, I wasn't quite sure - because it has been quite a while since I'd last read about the case - how important his evidence was to the prosecution, but I did recall reading that he was a prosecution witness.

A few minutes ago, however, I came across a record of his testimony.

There is no explicit indication in the record I saw of whether he appeared for the defence or the prosecution, but looking at what he said in his evidence, it is consistent with what you said - that he appeared for the defence.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Lawende had previously given evidence in 1876 at the trial of a fellow-Jew, which testimony led to that Jew being hanged.

Lawende is not, therefore, a credible candidate, regardless of where the Seaside Home may have been situated.

But he wasn't the main witness so to speak. Both Anderson and Swanson hint that a prosecution could not go ahead without the witnesses testimony. If it could have then surely Anderson and Swanson would not have been so disparaging that the witness refused to testify.
In the case of the 1876 trial the defendant Issac Marks, Lawende was not a prime witness. Marks handed himself in and pleaded insanity with Lawende being a witness for the defence on Marks strange behavior.
The two cases are highly distinct.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, if the Seaside home mentioned by Swanson could be a confusion with the Sailors Home in Well St [now Ensign St], or the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St, it may explain a lot.

Lawende is taken to either, for an ID [ what better place to identify someone who had the appearance of a sailor than in a place full of them ]

Kosminski is taken with difficulty to said place, The locations are less than a mile from Mitre Sq and Aldgate [Butchers row suspect?], in City Police territory [watched by City Police, so in effect their suspect for Catherine's murder] and less than a mile from Lawende's workplace, St Mary Axe.

And is then picked out by Lawende the minute Lawende is confronted with Kosminski.

A suspect who had the appearance of a sailor but wasn't, yet picked out by a witness at a Sailors home after perhaps looking at a few other seamen beforehand. Especially if afterwards when Lawende found out that Kosminski wasn't a sailor but a fellow Jew, after all the time previously believing he saw a sailor that fateful night. Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson over time that Kosminski was their man and that Lawende didn't want the murderers hanging left on his mind [ Swanson's words ]

Regards Darryl

Lawende had previously given evidence in 1876 at the trial of a fellow-Jew, which testimony led to that Jew being hanged.

Lawende is not, therefore, a credible candidate, regardless of where the Seaside Home may have been situated.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is the exact definition of an insult, if you want to go down into a gutter, then go alone, you shouldn't be talking like this in a serious forum.

And I am not going to withdraw anything I said, how many times are you going to ask?!


TB

I see.

So after insulting me, you get to decide what the definition of an insult is and then, when I respond, you say that I'm the one doing the insulting!

Has it ever occurred to you that you shouldn't be starting aggressive exchanges with people if you want this to be a serious forum?

On the matter of the photographs you produced, which I had seen before, why do you think that they contradict my contention that Kosminski wasn't - as you put it - blonde enough to have been the man described by Lawende?

[The Baron]

I would prefer that to having to get down into the gutter with you.

That is the exact definition of an insult, if you want to go down into a gutter, then go alone, you shouldn't be talking like this in a serious forum.

And I am not going to withdraw anything I said, how many times are you going to ask?!


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you mean 'Ignorance' is an insult, then think again, it is the lack of knowldege or information, when you try to disprove Kosminski on the base of his appearance as a recognisable jew or that he was not 'blond' enough, without studying the case or even trying to know how his family looked like, then it is ignorance on your side.

We should take your word, that the ripper must have been blond enough and a sailor and discredit Anderson and Swanson who lived there, knew the people, worked searched and died there, and you talk about the vivid imagination..


TB

If you mean 'Ignorance' is an insult, then think again, it is the lack of knowldege or information, when you try to disprove Kosminski on the base of his appearance as a recognisable jew or that he was not 'blond' enough, without studying the case or even try to see how his family looked like, then it is ignorance on your side.


I studied Latin at school so I know what ignoramus means, and using its derivative the way you did is insulting.


What you say is nonsensical.

You're complaining that I'm saying that Kosminski was not blonde enough to have been the man described by Lawende?

But you have produced photographs of close relatives of his and they all have dark hair!




Then you claim that I haven't studied the case.

Is that a supposition or a fact or an insult?


I made a documentary about Aaron Kosminski last year.

It's on YouTube and it's more than half an hour long.

So when you say that I haven't studied the case, it is just a a way of insulting me - isn't it?


Because from the beginning of this exchange, you've been spoiling for a fight.

So I ask you again whether you're going to withdraw the insult.

Presumably the moderators have seen our exchange.

Now, I haven't insulted you.

If you don't withdraw that remark and it's actually permitted on this forum, then I don't see how anyone can complain if I respond in kind!


So what's your response?

[The Baron]

If you mean 'Ignorance' is an insult, then think again, it is the lack of knowldege or information, when you try to disprove Kosminski on the base of his appearance as a recognisable jew or that he was not 'blond' enough, without studying the case or even trying to know how his family looked like, then it is ignorance on your side.

We should take your word, that the ripper must have been blond enough and a sailor and discredit Anderson and Swanson who lived there, knew the people, worked searched and died there, and you talk about the vivid imagination..


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And when are you going to get it, that the witness recognised and identified the suspect as the man he saw, and then he learned from the police that he was a jew?

That the man in the middle looks jewish to you is amazing .. haven't you seen a photo of Lechmere anytime?


TB

And when are you going to get it, that the witness recognised and identified the suspect as the man he saw, and then he learned from the police that he was a jew?


Is that a supposition or a fact?

If it's a fact, then I'm surprised I haven't heard it before.


You haven't answered my question: are you prepared to withdraw the insult you made in your previous post to me?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Narrator is myself.
That I didn't mention the earlier case is an omission on my part. But if I had included it, it would simply further support the conclusion I suggest.
I don't consider Lawende is the witness, he doesn't actually make the top 3 does he?

That you wish to believe Anderson and Swanson lied or invented the account is your choice and your right.

I thought before I clicked the link that it might be you, but it wasn't clear to me from the reference made to it.

Well, I don't know how they came up with it, but as you know, Churchill called Anderson a fantasist.

I didn't actually accuse either Anderson or Swanson of lying, but I did say Swanson evidently had a vivid imagination.

[The Baron]

And when are you going to get it, that the witness recognised and identified the suspect as the man he saw, and then he learned from the police that he was a jew?

That the man in the middle looks jewish to you is amazing .. haven't you seen a photo of Lechmere anytime?


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That just shows your ignorance

Those are Kosminski's family.


TB

I have seen them before, but couldn't remember where.

I would say the man would have been considered to have looked Jewish in Whitechapel at that time.

You've just directed a personal insult at me.

Will you withdraw it?

I would prefer that to having to get down into the gutter with you.

Before you reply, can you explain to the membership here how, if you think the Kosminski family did not look Jewish, it was possible for Kosminski to be identified as a Jew at the Seaside Home, unless you subscribe to the view that he replaced his more usual sailor's attire with religious garb?

[The Baron]

As for the two photos which you have attached, what exactly is your point?

Are you saying that the people in the photographs were Jewish but don't look Jewish?

That just shows your ignorance

Those are Kosminski's family.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have just finished listening to it.

Although the narrator tends to the view that, because he is reported to have cooperated with the police in later identification attempts, Lawende would not have refused to testify against a Jewish suspect, he does not mention the fact that he testified against a Jewish suspect in 1876.

I'm sure that that is at least the third time that I've mentioned this on this forum, so I don't know whether it yet qualifies to be an obsession, but I suggest that it should be enough to rule out Lawende.

As for Jacob Levy, I believe he was 5 foot 3 inches tall, whereas Lawende's suspect was 5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8 ins tall.

In my opinion, that discussion reinforces my submission that there really is no reason to suppose that the Anderson-Swanson story is true.

P.S. I would just add that the narrator's speculation that the alleged witness may have seen the murderer in the act of killing or mutilating a victim is rather far-fetched.

I think I can see why he makes that suggestion: unless the alleged witness saw something very incriminating, then his testimony could not be so vital to a prosecution case that without it it could not proceed.

I would point out that Anderson described his witness as 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer'.

He does not describe him as 'the only person who ever saw the murderer with a victim'.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well, if the Seaside home mentioned by Swanson could be a confusion with the Sailors Home in Well St [now Ensign St], or the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St, it may explain a lot.

Lawende is taken to either, for an ID [ what better place to identify someone who had the appearance of a sailor than in a place full of them ]

Kosminski is taken with difficulty to said place, The locations are less than a mile from Mitre Sq and Aldgate [Butchers row suspect?], in City Police territory [watched by City Police, so in effect their suspect for Catherine's murder] and less than a mile from Lawende's workplace, St Mary Axe.

And is then picked out by Lawende the minute Lawende is confronted with Kosminski.

A suspect who had the appearance of a sailor but wasn't, yet picked out by a witness at a Sailors home after perhaps looking at a few other seamen beforehand. Especially if afterwards when Lawende found out that Kosminski wasn't a sailor but a fellow Jew, after all the time previously believing he saw a sailor that fateful night. Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson over time that Kosminski was their man and that Lawende didn't want the murderers hanging left on his mind [ Swanson's words ]

Regards Darryl