Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your reply.

'while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.'


My response to that is that from everything we know about serial killers taking trophies from their victims, is it believable that he would dispose of them so soon?

If he did so, what would have been the point of taking them?

He obviously wanted to look at them afterwards, at his leisure.

What is the point of taking them somewhere where he isn't going to be able to do that - and instead discarding them?


I am familiar with the Brady Street entrance, as I walked down Durward Street before it was rebuilt and when there was a sign 'Essex Wharf' which, if it was in
the same location as the original Essex Wharf, was just about opposite the murder site.

I agree with you about that being an unlikely entrance for her.

I suppose you deal with Harriet Lilley's statement in your book?

On your first point, how different serial killers behave is based Obviuosly only on those caught.
I suggest, that maybe different killers take trophies for different reasons.
Yes I said he could easily dispose of, but he could equally have kept on his person.
Once removed from the body, they really wouldn't "bleed" that much. If wrapped I doubt they would be noticed.

And do we know if Lechmere had what would amount to a locker at Pickfords?
I don't think we do.
I am very much into looking at all possibilities.

Yes that's where Essex wharf was.
And yes I do mention Harriet lilley .
Its a shame she wasn't called to the inquest.
Baxter would either have exposed her or she would have stood up to scrutiny.
One issue with her statement is while we know what time the train was due to pass, we don't have records to show what time it did.
I suspect, it was nearer to 3.35 than 3.45, but again that's just my view.
Do I think she heard the attack?
Very possibly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The point is this….you have two young men coming from Poland, “low class” and living in the East end, one named Kosminski and one Klosowski. They would not have been differentiated as different classes of people by London gentiles like Anderson and Abberline. To suggest Anderson’s opinion of a Polish Jew suspect was based on anti-semitism but Abberline’s opinion of Chapman was ok because he technically not Jewish is a totally ridiculous argument. Both Kosminski and Chapman would have been viewed as low class foreigners. Abberline indeed did not elaborate that he felt definitively that Chapman WAS JtR. He did however say that Chapman was a likely suspect. And with what the police knew of serial killers in the Victorian era, Chapman absolutely would have been a likely suspect.

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I suspect, it was nearer to 3.35 than 3.45, but again that's just my view.

Are you referring to Paul's evidence about 3:45?
I think we can agree he arrived at about 3.40 or earlier.

I would say from her evidence, the murder could have taken place at something like 3.32, or about five minutes before Lechmere arrived on the scene, with the murderer having very recently disappeared into the darkness.

I did read that she made a statement, but as you say it seems she wasn't at the inquest.
I don't think there is anything in her statement that is obviously open to challenge.

When the newspapers asked how it was possible for the murder to have occurred without anyone hearing anything, it seems they were mistaken.

[Elamarna]

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

The question of if Anderson's suspect was based on Anti Semitism is far more complicated I suggest than you feel.

Anderson's view is so far as we know based mainly, on the claimed ID.
You are of course open to reject that ID, but in the end such objections are opinions.

There is nothing overtly Anti Semitic about that identification. We have a suspect, and a witness. That they are apparently both Jewish does not make the procedure or the conclusion Anti Semitic.

Yes Anti Semitism was rife as you say, but there was also alot of issues between the older established Jewish community, often from Western Europe and the newer arrivals from Eastern Europe. I assume you have read Fishman's East End 1888, if not you should. It gives a very clear view of the anti Semitic feelings at the time.


Abberline and Reid ran the case on the ground in Whitechapel yes, but they reported up to Swanson, who stayed with the case the whole time , from Nichols til after Coles.
He also coordinated on a daily basis with senior officers in the City Police.
He undoubtedly knew more about the case than anyone.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Are you referring to Paul's evidence about 3:45?
I think we can agree he arrived at about 3.40 or earlier.

I would say from her evidence, the murder could have taken place at something like 3.32, or about five minutes before Lechmere arrived on the scene, with the murderer having very recently disappeared into the darkness.

I did read that she made a statement, but as you say it seems she wasn't at the inquest.
I don't think there is anything in her statement that is obviously open to challenge.

When the newspapers asked how it was possible for the murder to have occurred without anyone hearing anything, it seems they were mistaken.

No I am talking about lilley.

The train should have passed at around 3.30, but it may have been a couple of minutes out, and her statement is not really pricise.

As for the time, I really don't like absolute times, they are meaningless in my view. We can talk of ranges of 2-3 minutes either way.
Trying to set events to the minute GMT is I suggest impossible. However, relative timings, how long after event x did event y happen, are usefully, but still not pricise.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is nothing overtly Anti Semitic about that identification. We have a suspect, and a witness. That they are apparently both Jewish does not make the procedure or the conclusion Anti Semitic.


Abberline and Reid ran the case on the ground in Whitechapel yes, but they reported up to Swanson, who stayed with the case the whole time , from Nichols til after Coles.
He also coordinated on a daily basis with senior officers in the City Police.
He undoubtedly knew more about the case than anyone.

Steve

Well, Anderson's attitude was indeed prejudiced, which is why he was criticised after publication of his memoirs.

The question I would ask is: if his identification of the suspect was not also based on prejudice, then why is it that the alleged witness cannot be identified?

The witness cannot have been Schwarz or Lawende - and there are not any other candidates.

The story of the witness is part and parcel of Anderson's prejudiced approach to the case.

According to Anderson, just as according to the newspaper editor with his remark about gentile justice, the Jewish witness - if he ever existed - refused to help bring a fellow Jew to justice.

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Is it actually believable that the whole case against Kosminski depended on eyewitness evidence, as alleged by Anderson and Swanson?

That would mean that there was nothing against Kosminski that could convince a court that he had committed the murders, other than the say-so of a witness that he had actually seen him around the time of one of the murders - presumably eating from the gutter.

I remember reading Paul Begg's first book soon after it was published and his remark that he was surprised that Anderson's Polish Jew accusation had not been taken more seriously.

I am surprised that it is still being taken seriously at all.

[Harry D]

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Presumably, the witness didn't know the suspect was a Jew until the identification?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Presumably, the witness didn't know the suspect was a Jew until the identification?

What would have been different about his appearance at the seaside home from his appearance in the East End?

Inspector Abberline recorded his opinion that the man who assaulted Stride shouted an anti-Jewish insult at the witness Schwarz because of Schwarz's Jewish appearance.

We know from a newspaper report that Kosminski was religious.

That suggests that he was recognisably Jewish.

What would happen at the seaside home to make him look more Jewish?

[Pontius2000]

As I pointed out previously, overt anti-Semitism was rife during the period in which the Whitechapel Murders took place and that was something the police had to deal with.

That is a recorded fact.

The accusation made at the time that the murderer was a Jew was not based on evidence but on prejudice.

Anderson expressed that prejudice and was heavily criticised for it by both the City of London Police Commissioner and Inspector Reid.

Anderson was not the only one to make the accusation that the murderer was protected by fellow Jews: a newspaper editorial alleged that the Jews of the East End would not hand over one of their number to 'gentile justice'.

The murderer himself tried to exploit the anti-Semitism by writing an accusation against them.

A senior Home Office official by the name of Godfrey Lushington recorded that he was convinced that the man who assailed Stride 1/4 of an hour before she was murdered was Jewish even though he had shouted an anti-Semitic insult.

Now we come to inspector Abberline.

He rejected what Lushington wrote and instead recorded that he believed that the anti-Semitic slur was directed at Schwarz, the witness, because of his 'Jewish appearance'.

The Jewish butcher theory was revived by Robin Oddell in the mid 1960s.

Old habits die hard!

When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the kind of knives used by Jewish slaughter men could not have caused the injuries caused by the Whitechapel murderer, Odell admitted it was so and then remarked, 'but I still think a Jewish slaughter man committed the murders'!

I cannot remember who was in charge of the investigation at the time - whether it was Reid or Abberline - but the police did investigate whether such a theory was tenable and came to the conclusion, 77 years before Odell wrote his book, that it was not.

I have not seen any evidence that Abberline shared Anderson's prejudices.

no one has denied that anti-semitism existed in the 19th century just as it does now (see Kanye West for further proof). The problem is that you seem to be suggesting that the existence of anti-semitism exempts any Jew from being the killer or even the suspect. And that Anderson’s/Swanson’s suggestion that a witness wouldn’t give a positive identification because the suspect was a fellow Jew is based only on anti-semitism. That is absurd. Not sure where you’re from or your circumstances, but as an American police officer of 21+ years now, I’ve seen this exact scenario play out more times than I can even remember.

Anderson himself stated that he was not saying JtR killed because he was Jewish, but that it was simply a matter of fact that the killer was Jewish. For some reason, you and other people who study this case, have turned Anderson himself into a villain and can’t accept this simple explanation at face value.

but no matter how you feel about it, and despite the fact that we will likely never definitively know the identity of JtR, there are certain facts that cannot be denied….

(1) soon after the murder of Mary Kelly, police got “hot on the trail” of certain suspects, at least 1-3 if not more. At least one of these suspects, probably at least two, and possibly more, happened to be Jewish. It would go almost without saying that one of these suspects was Kosminski because he was specifically named by two high ranking police officials.
(2) after police got hot on trail of suspect/suspects, the blitz style murder and disembowellments of east end prostitutes abruptly ended.
(3) the following year, the final entry into Scotland Yard’s Whitechapel Murder file was made, suggesting that, for all intents and purposes, the police considered the case closed.

so you can go on saying that the case against Kosminski was a fairy tale based only on anti-semitism until you’re blue in the face. But unless you can refute those facts, I’ll give Anderson and Swanson’s opinion more value than I give yours.

[Elamarna]

Well, Anderson's attitude was indeed prejudiced, which is why he was criticised after publication of his memoirs.

The question I would ask is: if his identification of the suspect was not also based on prejudice, then why is it that the alleged witness cannot be identified?

The witness cannot have been Schwarz or Lawende - and there are not any other candidates.

The story of the witness is part and parcel of Anderson's prejudiced approach to the case.

According to Anderson, just as according to the newspaper editor with his remark about gentile justice, the Jewish witness - if he ever existed - refused to help bring a fellow Jew to justice.

Why would this alleged witness have come forward in the first place, if he were not prepared to help the police?

Is it actually believable that the whole case against Kosminski depended on eyewitness evidence, as alleged by Anderson and Swanson?

That would mean that there was nothing against Kosminski that could convince a court that he had committed the murders, other than the say-so of a witness that he had actually seen him around the time of one of the murders - presumably eating from the gutter.

I remember reading Paul Begg's first book soon after it was published and his remark that he was surprised that Anderson's Polish Jew accusation had not been taken more seriously.

I am surprised that it is still being taken seriously at all.

We will disagree as to why he was critised for a start.

Churchill is giving a warning shot, Anderson knew far too much about events in Ireland.
By critising in the house, Churchill exercise parliamentary privilege, he could say anything liked with no legal comeback.

Why would you assume the witness would be identified by Anderson or Swanson?
Or do you mean identified today?

As for your statement the witness COULD NOT BE Schwartz or Lawende that's just your opinion PI1, no more no less.

The witness mat not have initially realised the suspect was Jewish.



Are you aware that Messirah was very actively practiced amongst new arrivals from the east.
And of course the editor of the largely anglised Jewish chronicle was going to deny such existed. The issues between The old established Jewish community and the new comers was large.

The witness saw him eating out of the gutter?

Seriously that's pure ..... well I dont to be rude.

The witness got a view of the killer, and the identification would have lead to conviction, that what is said.

Such would mean that he saw something that would leave no doubt probably an attack on a victim.

I assume you have not listen to the podcast from last year's Casebook online conference?

One further point, you are attempting to extrapolate the comments by Jacob Cohen from 1891 back to 1888, that's really not realistic..

While I said based mainly on the ID, there was I suggest other less conclusive evidence.

It seems that you still do not understand the theories, or are aware of new research. This is why earlier I said one needs to read the arguments in New books.

[Scott Nelson]

The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End?
John Malcolm 2018

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

1. In reply to Pontius 2000:

The problem is that you seem to be suggesting that the existence of anti-semitism exempts any Jew from being the killer or even the suspect.


I didn't!

I have said that if the man seen by Schwarz was the killer - which I am sure he was not - then the murderer could not have been Jewish.

I have also said that the writing on the wall is strong evidence that the murderer was not Jewish.

I've also said the only description we have of the murderer was of a gentile.




And that Anderson’s/Swanson’s suggestion that a witness wouldn’t give a positive identification because the suspect was a fellow Jew is based only on anti-semitism. That is absurd.


My view evidently is not absurd, because it was shared by Inspector Reid and the City of London Police Commissioner.


For some reason, you and other people who study this case, have turned Anderson himself into a villain and can’t accept this simple explanation at face value.


I cannot accept his or Swanson's stories about the Jewish suspect/Kosminski and the alleged Jewish witness because they are not believable.

The story of the reluctant Jewish witness is obviously a fable, which with its telling became embellished.

The witness did not exist.

There were only two Jewish witnesses: Schwarz and Lawende.

Schwarz did not see the murderer, and try as Abberline could to find the man seen by Schwarz, he could not.

We keep hearing about how Swanson knew more than Abberline, but Swanson didn't interview Schwarz, and Abberline said the murderer was never identified, and so did Anderson.

We hear that Abberline said Kłosowski was the murderer.

Kłosowski was not Kosminski.

As I have pointed out, Kłosowski was not Jewish.

You said it doesn't matter whether he was Jewish.

It certainly does - because if he was the suspect, then why would a Jewish witness not be prepared to testify against him?

Schwarz could not have been the witness because the man he saw could not have been Kosminski because he was an anti-Semite.

Lawende could not have been the witness because not only did he say that he would not be able to identify the man if he saw him again, but he gave evidence in the murder trial of a fellow Jew.

There were two witnesses - Long and Hutchinson - in the Hanbury St and Dorset St murders respectively, who claimed they each saw a suspect of Jewish appearance, but both witnesses were obviously not Jewish.

So what are we left with?

A witness who was made up.




... there are certain facts that cannot be denied….

(1) soon after the murder of Mary Kelly, police got “hot on the trail” of certain suspects, at least 1-3 if not more. At least one of these suspects, probably at least two, and possibly more, happened to be Jewish. It would go almost without saying that one of these suspects was Kosminski because he was specifically named by two high ranking police officials.
(2) after police got hot on trail of suspect/suspects, the blitz style murder and disembowellments of east end prostitutes abruptly ended.
(3) the following year, the final entry into Scotland Yard’s Whitechapel Murder file was made, suggesting that, for all intents and purposes, the police considered the case closed.

so you can go on saying that the case against Kosminski was a fairy tale based only on anti-semitism until you’re blue in the face. But unless you can refute those facts, I’ll give Anderson and Swanson’s opinion more value than I give yours.



If I'm the only person to point out to you that what you're saying are not 'facts', then I would like to know why!

Please do tell me when the police got hot on the trail of Kosminski!

The only mention of Kosminski in the police files at Scotland Yard is from more than five years after the murders ended.

Anderson, after having said that the murderer had never been identified, claimed more than 20 years after the murders had ended that he had known all along.

Some time between 1909 and 1924, Swanson wrote his marginalia.

And what they said is completely unbelievable - specifically what they said about the witness who obviously never existed.


soon after the murder of Mary Kelly, police got “hot on the trail” of certain suspects... It would go almost without saying that one of these suspects was Kosminski ... after police got hot on trail of suspect/suspects, the blitz style murder and disembowellments of east end prostitutes abruptly ended.


It certainly doesn't 'go almost without saying' let alone 'go without saying' that police were 'hot on the trail of' Kosminski at the end of 1888.

Where is the evidence?

Swanson claimed that Kosminski was watched day and night by City CID, about 20 months after you claim the police were 'hot on his trail'.

And around the same time, he was allegedly identified at the seaside home, which had opened in March 1890.

And no more murders took place after July 1890?

As you Americans like to say: BIG DEAL!

[Abby Normal]

are we any closer to identifying where and what the seaside home was? If not whats the prevailing consensus?

[Scott Nelson]

To those who don't believe in Swanson's private marginalia notes: If he was the one who wrote them, why would he lie to himself?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To those who don't believe in Swanson's private marginalia notes: If he was the one who wrote them, why would he lie to himself?

Who said he was lying?

Remember what the late Paddy Ashdown said about Tony Blair: he believed what he said at the time that he was saying it.