Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sadly, it is not I who am wrong on these issues.

So let's look

1. These are not personal attacks, th a comments are entirely justified, this is not an echo chamber. Desent is allowed.

2. ANDERSON, mentioning Schwartz "testimony" is not proof of trstimony being given. There is no record of such occurring.
To say I am plain wrong is simply wrong itself.
incidentally, I believe he may have given such testimony, but we can't prove it.

3. Using Wikipedia as a biography source is fraught with danger.
The truth is we have very little detail about him.
We DONT KNOW he was polish!!

4. What is astonishing is that you believe one can tell someone's age to within 7 years from a cursory glance .
Such is unrealistic, but does not surprise me.

It's for my peers to decide on the quality of my research and my contributions to Ripper Studies.

What is very cleat is that you feel your views are the only views that are credible.

ANDERSON, mentioning Schwartz "testimony" is not proof of trstimony being given. There is no record of such occurring.
To say I am plain wrong is simply wrong itself.


I said you were plain wrong about Anderson's letter being the 'only indication.'
I didn't say you were plan wrong about the degree of proof required.




Using Wikipedia as a biography source is fraught with danger.


I didn't simply cite an opinion in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia provides the sources which you claim I failed to provide!




What is astonishing is that you believe one can tell someone's age to within 7 years from a cursory glance .
Such is unrealistic, but does not surprise me.



I'm going by the evidence.

Anti-Kosminski people say a 23-year-old could have looked 30; Holmgren says a 39-year-old could have looked 30!

Saying that he could have looked seven years older than he was, could have looked blonder than he was, Levy could have looked four inches taller than he was (I am not alleging that you said that, but Levy has been accused), the man seen by Lawende could have been wearing a Jewish skullcap under his cap or Jewish religious fringes under his sailor outfit, or that Schwarz's suspect could have said much more than 'Lipski', that Schwarz or Lawende may have thought the suspect was Jewish, that Kosminski may have been an alcoholic who associated with prostitutes - these are speculations, not evidence, and they are far-fetched.


I am going by the evidence that we have, not the evidence we don't have, or the evidence we might like to have.

When I say that my suspect is a 30-year-old Nordic sailor, that is the conclusion I came to based on the evidence - based on Lawende's eyewitness evidence.

Lawende did not say that the man was a 23-year-old man of Jewish appearance, but a 30-year-old man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Similarly, Schwarz's description is of a 30-year-old semi-drunken, broad-shouldered anti-Semite.

He didn't say he was a 23-year-old thin Polish Jew.

You - and others - can say you think he was a 23-year-old Polish Jew, but your and their claim is unsupported by the evidence.

And that, in my submission, is the main difference between my approach and yours/theirs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What are you talking about.

The two situations are completely different.

Swanson, writes a private note, in his copy of Anderson's book , for himself.
He provides details Anderson does not give.


Warren, receives a letter from Anderson, he then sends his own letter to the Government, which in essence repeats almost word perfect Anderson's.

It is clear to most, he is using the information supplied to him by his head of CID, in effect forwarded it on.

I have made it clear that I believe there is a possibility that Schwartz was heard in camera, but we can't prove it.


The issue you are missing is that we have many reports of the inquest, there is no mention of Schwartz appearing.
So either for some strange reason the press do not report any comment about Schwartz, or he gives evidence in Camera, or he doesn't give any evidence at all.
That's the issue, you present your idea that he gave evidence as fact, when it's not.



Warren could only write such a letter, if the identification took place before he resigned.
Most, not all suggest the identification took place after, if not long after Warren resigned. Again to say I can't produce such a letter is a pointless statement.

Warren could only write such a letter, if the identification took place before he resigned.
Most, not all suggest the identification took place after, if not long after Warren resigned. Again to say I can't produce such a letter is a pointless statement.



Swanson could write notes about a Seaside Home identification that never happened, about three decades after the 'event', but Warren couldn't write something similar?

Abberline, who said he was still in close contact with Scotland Yard in 1903, and that he would have known had the murderer ever been identified, didn't know, I suppose - like me - what he was talking about?

The same goes for Sir Henry Smith.

Can you suggest why the identification was such a closely-guarded secret that only two men knew about it?

Can you explain why a 'definitely ascertained fact' was unknown outside a circle of two people?

Can you explain why Anderson would use that phrase in his memoirs, when knowing that the 'facts' he related were unknown to Scotland Yard?

[Pontius2000]

I believe you have accidentally quoted the a statement made by me relating to something else.

ah, so the Lipski comment. We have his statement that he didn’t know who the insult was directed at, and we have the Stride inquest testimony. There’s no Schwartz testimony in it, so the statement of record is that he didn’t know if the comment is directed at him or pipeman. You stated- falsely- that we have Schwartz’s inquest testimony changing his story when in fact, we have no such thing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

ah, so the Lipski comment. We have his statement that he didn’t know who the insult was directed at, and we have the Stride inquest testimony. There’s no Schwartz testimony in it, so the statement of record is that he didn’t know if the comment is directed at him or pipeman. You stated- falsely- that we have Schwartz’s inquest testimony changing his story when in fact, we have no such thing.

I am being accused once more of promoting falsehoods!

According to Anderson (whose integrity is obviously beyond question!) and Warren, Schwarz testified that the insult was directed at him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Warren could only write such a letter, if the identification took place before he resigned.
Most, not all suggest the identification took place after, if not long after Warren resigned. Again to say I can't produce such a letter is a pointless statement.



Swanson could write notes about a Seaside Home identification that never happened, about three decades after the 'event', but Warren couldn't write something similar?

Abberline, who said he was still in close contact with Scotland Yard in 1903, and that he would have known had the murderer ever been identified, didn't know, I suppose - like me - what he was talking about?

The same goes for Sir Henry Smith.

Can you suggest why the identification was such a closely-guarded secret that only two men knew about it?

Can you explain why a 'definitely ascertained fact' was unknown outside a circle of two people?

Can you explain why Anderson would use that phrase in his memoirs, when knowing that the 'facts' he related were unknown to Scotland Yard?

You have highlighted a number of important issues which many will choose not to accept because to reject those would rule out one of the prime suspects, and perish the thought that should happen after all these years.

I have always postulated that the seaside home did not take place as researchers have been led to believe, and bearing in mind the content of the marginalia I have always questioned who actually penned it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Swanson Schwartz was saying that the insult was aimed at Pipeman:

“On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

Abberline thought it was aimed at Schwartz himself:

“…as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

Anderson goes with Abberline:

“….With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.”

Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest of course.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have highlighted a number of important issues which many will choose not to accept because to reject those would rule out one of the prime suspects, and perish the thought that should happen after all these years.

I have always postulated that the seaside home did not take place as researchers have been led to believe, and bearing in mind the content of the marginalia I have always questioned who actually penned it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for your reply.

I suppose your second paragraph makes you an even bigger heretic than I am!

I have just had a look at exchanges you had here with others, including Robert House, 12 years ago.

Natalie Severn was suspicious that the end paper notes belatedly produce the name Kosminski.

I see that you have questioned why the News of the World would have failed to publish the story when they had it, if the end notes really had mentioned Kosminski by name.

Is there anything about the contents of the marginalia or end notes in their finished form that gives you doubts about their authenticity?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for your reply.

I suppose your second paragraph makes you an even bigger heretic than I am!

I have just had a look at exchanges you had here with others, including Robert House, 12 years ago.

Natalie Severn was suspicious that the end paper notes belatedly produce the name Kosminski.

I see that you have questioned why the News of the World would have failed to publish the story when they had it, if the end notes really had mentioned Kosminski by name.

Is there anything about the contents of the marginalia or end notes in their finished form that gives you doubts about their authenticity?

There is a plethora of doubt about the marginalia as to what is set out in the marginalia, the history of how it came to be offered to the press, and how as you say the only two who knew about it are Anderson and Swanson. All of this and much more is set out in a lengthy chapter in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is a plethora of doubt about the marginalia as to what is set out in the marginalia, the history of how it came to be offered to the press, and how as you say the only two who knew about it are Anderson and Swanson. All of this and much more is set out in a lengthy chapter in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I haven't read it, but I heard of you long before I joined this site.

[Elamarna]

ANDERSON, mentioning Schwartz "testimony" is not proof of trstimony being given. There is no record of such occurring.
To say I am plain wrong is simply wrong itself.


I said you were plain wrong about Anderson's letter being the 'only indication.'
I didn't say you were plan wrong about the degree of proof required.




Using Wikipedia as a biography source is fraught with danger.


I didn't simply cite an opinion in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia provides the sources which you claim I failed to provide!




What is astonishing is that you believe one can tell someone's age to within 7 years from a cursory glance .
Such is unrealistic, but does not surprise me.



I'm going by the evidence.

Anti-Kosminski people say a 23-year-old could have looked 30; Holmgren says a 39-year-old could have looked 30!

Saying that he could have looked seven years older than he was, could have looked blonder than he was, Levy could have looked four inches taller than he was (I am not alleging that you said that, but Levy has been accused), the man seen by Lawende could have been wearing a Jewish skullcap under his cap or Jewish religious fringes under his sailor outfit, or that Schwarz's suspect could have said much more than 'Lipski', that Schwarz or Lawende may have thought the suspect was Jewish, that Kosminski may have been an alcoholic who associated with prostitutes - these are speculations, not evidence, and they are far-fetched.


I am going by the evidence that we have, not the evidence we don't have, or the evidence we might like to have.

When I say that my suspect is a 30-year-old Nordic sailor, that is the conclusion I came to based on the evidence - based on Lawende's eyewitness evidence.

Lawende did not say that the man was a 23-year-old man of Jewish appearance, but a 30-year-old man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Similarly, Schwarz's description is of a 30-year-old semi-drunken, broad-shouldered anti-Semite.

He didn't say he was a 23-year-old thin Polish Jew.

You - and others - can say you think he was a 23-year-old Polish Jew, but your and their claim is unsupported by the evidence.

And that, in my submission, is the main difference between my approach and yours/theirs.

Given that the Warren letter is almost certainly based on the Anderson letter, it is in reality the same source.

Sources given in Wikipedia are known to on occassions be wrong.
My point was the certainty you always display, when things are not as clear cut as you seem to believe.

We have no idea of Kosminski's physically build in 1888, only when he died and his weight is given.
Such cannot tell us if he coukd be described as being broad shouldered in 1888.

The main difference in approach, is I do not state an opinion to be fact.

[Elamarna]

Warren could only write such a letter, if the identification took place before he resigned.
Most, not all suggest the identification took place after, if not long after Warren resigned. Again to say I can't produce such a letter is a pointless statement.
Swanson could write notes about a Seaside Home identification that never happened, about three decades after the 'event', but Warren couldn't write something similar?

Can I get this right?
You do not believe there was any seaside home identification, that I understand.

So you ask why could Warren not have written a similar comment in advance!!!

Talk about whataboutery and unrealistic comments.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Can I get this right?
You do not believe there was any seaside home identification, that I understand.

So you ask why could Warren not have written a similar comment in advance!!!

Talk about whataboutery and unrealistic comments.

I don't understand what you're driving at.

Maybe you have misunderstood what I wrote.

My point was simply that if Swanson knew about an identification and wrote down what he knew, why couldn't Warren do the same?

I'm not talking about any particular time limit.

[Pontius2000]

In that case, you're making an incorrect assumption.

There obviously is a difference between the appearance of a 23-year-old and a 30-year-old; otherwise, police wouldn't ask witnesses to give an estimate.

well of course the police are going to ask a witness to estimate an age, they’d want to know whether they’re talking about a teenager or a 70 year old. But under normal circumstances, there are no greatly discernible differences between a 23 year old and a 30 year old, and you’ve offered literally nothing that says otherwise.

How would we know whether anything was said in Yiddish?

I suggest you re-read my previous answer.

On the contrary, I’ve read about enough in this point as you’re being purposely obtuse. He was asked in English and answered in English. If the judge had questioned him in Yiddish, that would’ve certainly made the paper.

I refer you to a comment I made, to which you have made no response:

It was well-known that public displays of drunkenness by Jews in the East End of London were unheard of.

And it was noted by a leading detective in the Whitechapel Murders case.

that is absurd to state that there are no cases of drunkenness, criminality, and all other sorts of normal and abnormal human behavior amongst East End Jews.

so a “leading detective in the Whitechapel Murders case” made a very generalized statement and you take that as carved-in-stone gospel that no East End Jew was ever drunk in public? If that’s what it’s come to in taking someone’s word as fact, then I’d remind you that THE commanding officer of the Whitechapel Murders case said that the killer was identified by a witness as an insane Jew named Kosminski.

That's a good question, but you have never mentioned the fact that Jacob Levy was 5 ft 3 ins.

I do hope you are not going to ask me how one can tell the difference between someone who is 5 feet 3 inches tall and five foot 7 inches tall.

I don’t know what connection you’re trying to make between Levy’s height and him being a Jew with syphilis. The point was that ethnic Jews would have been just as statistically likely to have immoral lifestyles as any other citizen. It’s ridiculous to imply that no Jews got drunk in public or consorted with prostitutes.

Suggesting that the content of rap albums has any relevance to the way in which Jews in the East End of London addressed each other in 1888 is obviously not a valid point.

it certainly is a valid point that just because a term is considered an insult doesn’t mean it has never been used as a joke or even a term of endearment. The black rappers using the n-word at each other is absolutely an example if how “Lipski” COULD have been used. I call my best friend “son of a b—“ and “mother f—er” all the time, so am I insulting him or joking with him? Lipski could have been used as an insult, but that is NOT a proven fact, as the witness could barely speak English and didn’t even know who it was directed at.

The evidence is that only one word - an insult - was spoken.
That makes it a fact, to the best of our knowledge, unless you want to dismiss Schwarz as a credible witness, in which case he cannot be used to prove Kosminski's guilt.
I know what the evidence is, but you don't accept it.

In that case, there is no case against Kosminski.

it may have been the only word and it may not have been. If that “evidence” “makes it a fact”, then it would also be a fact that Kosminski spoke English based on the evidence that he was questioned and answered in English and had “education: reading and writing” in his entry paperwork. You however won’t accept THIS as fact because you only accept something as fact or unproven based on how it fits into whatever narrative you’re trying to present.

Schwarz wasn't Hungarian.
He was Polish.
The word would not have taken a split-second to say, but about one second.
The man's pronunciation of the 'i's in 'Lipski' would have given away the fact that he was a native born Londoner and not a Pole.
That makes perfect sense if you know something about the Polish language and the differences in pronunciation.
If you don't have any familiarity with Polish, then you really have no right to say that my argument is illogical.

this has been put forward, but I have not seen it as proven fact where exactly Schwartz was from. But it is known he was a relative newcomer and could barely speak English. So it is very unlikely that he would know any differences in the pronunciations of one word. He didn’t refer to any race or ethnicity or accent of the person he saw.

Well, I think your argument is not credible, because if the witness thought the suspect was Jewish and was unwilling to testify against him on account of his being Jewish, then why on earth would he have gone to the police?

The point is we don’t know the exact circumstances of the identification process, so we don’t know. The witness may have gone in having no idea beforehand he was going to see. And for that matter, we only ASSUME the witness was one of the double event witnesses. It could have just as well been a witness not named in any other documents, a witness who came later and had their identity protected by the police.

By 'these officials', I take it you mean Anderson and Swanson.
I didn't say they were lying - just fantasising.
If Anderson and Swanson were telling the truth, why is it that no-one else knew about it?

Abberline and Smith stated categorically that they had no idea who the murderer was.

Why did Anderson say previously that the man was never identified?

Why did Anderson say 'I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact' when neither Abberline nor Smith knew anything about it?

Why would the knowledge of a definitely ascertained fact be restricted to a circle of two people?

It's not as though Anderson was trying to keep the story secret - is it?

this was not restricted to a “circle of two people”. While he may not have agreed that Kosminski was JtR, McNaghten did agree there were many circumstances which made him a good suspect. Robert Sagar gave a description of a suspect who closely matches the circumstances of Kosminski and says this person “..was, without doubt, the murderer.” There were also numerous police officers quoted anonymously in newspapers who stated they were following suspects and many statements indicating they believe their suspect was JtR. We also don’t know the opinions of police officers who never put anything in print. But the point is, it was not a circle of just Anderson and Swanson. What you actually seem to be asking is why didn’t more officials come right out and NAME their suspect (whether Kosminski or not). On that, I would 100% agree. I understand libel laws and whatnot, but the police officials’ general absolute silence on naming suspects almost borders on malpractice of justice. On the other hand, a lot of these suspects and the evidence for or against them likely WAS in the suspect files at one point.

You seem to frequently bring up Abberline as if he were more of an authority than Anderson and Swanson, and I would totally disagree. I have no doubt that Abberline was a respected detective, but he also stated during the Chapman thing that he never believed JtR was a lunatic. Sorry, but if Abberline said that in anything other than jest, his opinion should be taken with a giant grain of salt. Whoever JtR was, he was most definitely a lunatic. It was Anderson- not Abberline- who seemed to understand from the outset that the murders were sexually targeted based on a severe mental illness, and it was Anderson -not Abberline- who seemed to understand that for the murders to stop after Kelly, it would require that the killer was in fact out of commission by one means or another soon afterwards. So you can continue to make Anderson out to be some dolt who didn’t have a clue, but I’ve seen absolutely nothing that would justify that opinion. He seemed to me to be pretty sharp in understanding psychology and human nature,

There is no evidence that Kosminski ever associated with prostitutes.

He had schizophrenia, not syphilis.

According to his carers, he was harmless, which doesn't suggest he had any 'uncontrollable fantasies of butchering women'.

There’s no evidence that he didn’t associate with prostitutes either. A young single man would have sexual urges whether he was mentally ill or not.

I agree he had schizophrenia.

according to what caregivers was he harmless? Can you provide a direct quote or link to that?

[Elamarna]

Wikipedia are known to on occassions be wrong.
My point was the certainty you always display, when things are not as clear cut as you seem to believe.

Just to clarify, the links on the Wikipedia page do not provide overwhelming evidence, while it is possible, if not probable that Schwartz was Polish , it's not something which as been proven beyond doubt .
The fact that no Hungarian Schwartz is found in the 1891 census argues against that being his nationality, but against that must be weighed the posdible that he changed names or moved, or simply slipped the net.

A better source I believe would have been this

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information.

Which gives all the arguments.

It's the certainty in your replies that i have issues with.

[Pontius2000]

I am being accused once more of promoting falsehoods!

According to Anderson (whose integrity is obviously beyond question!) and Warren, Schwarz testified that the insult was directed at him.

It doesn’t matter what Anderson said in a letter. YOU said we have Schwartz’s inquest testimony changing his story. We DON’T have that, we have an indication from Anderson that it possibly happened. Strange though that you can accept that from Anderson as fact, but then assume Anderson was lying when he said a witness identified a suspect.