Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[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

Am I right that the original version of Anderson's writing about the alleged suspect was somewhat different from the final version?

I quote:


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, Part VI, 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, Chapter IX, 1910)


It is quite clear from the original version that Anderson has the suspect in a mental asylum at the time of his identification.
That seems to suggest that the identification itself took place in a mental asylum.
There is of course no mention of a Seaside Home.

Either Anderson got it right and Swanson imagined a Seaside Home, or Swanson knew more about the case than Anderson did, which would be amazing.

If the identification actually took place, as so many people seem to believe, why is it that the only two people who have ever mentioned it said it happened in different places?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Goes without saying. Does the term end soon?

I think that's up to the headmaster.

[Pontius2000]

You can put on my end-of-term report: 'Needs to try harder'.

Goes without saying. Does the term end soon?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It took me about 30 seconds to find the phenomenon of mesirah even with the extra s. If it took you over a week, I’d have to guess you weren’t looking very hard.

You can put on my end-of-term report: 'Needs to try harder'.

[Pontius2000]

It took me about 30 seconds to find the phenomenon of mesirah even with the extra s. If it took you over a week, I’d have to guess you weren’t looking very hard.

[Elamarna]

I see.

You think your auto-correct anticipated the word 'Messiah'?

I wrote El Amarna, without checking your screen name first, because El (more correctly Al) is the definite article in Arabic.

But I shall remember the distinction.

The auto correct on my phone throws up some very odd spellings for words it appears not to know.

It's spelt correctly on the slide show in the podcasts section which was done on the laptop over a year ago.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A typo, probably autocorrect on the phone.
I didn't notice the misspelling.

The user name is contracted, it's Elamarna, not EL Amarna, minor point but might throw up odd results in a search.

I see.

You think your auto-correct anticipated the word 'Messiah'?

I wrote El Amarna, without checking your screen name first, because El (more correctly Al) is the definite article in Arabic.

But I shall remember the distinction.

[Elamarna]

Are you aware that Messirah was very actively practiced amongst new arrivals from the east.

(EL AMARNA to me, 10-31-2022, 07:40 PM, # 70)


I'm sorry, but I don't think I have heard of Messirah.

(My reply to EL AMARNA, 11-01-2022, 12:01 AM, # 78)


You have not heard of Messirah, and it's possible significance, thats fine, look it up.

(EL AMARNA to me, 11-01-2022, 05:47 AM, # 92)



I did look it up but couldn't find it.

if you want someone to look something up, then you really have to spell the name of the subject you want him to look up correctly!

I finally found it a few minutes ago.

It is Mesirah, not Messirah.

Although the word Messiah is an English version of the Hebrew word, in truth there is no such thing as a double 's' in the Hebrew language.

A typo, probably autocorrect on the phone.
I didn't notice the misspelling.

The user name is contracted, it's Elamarna, not EL Amarna, minor point but might throw up odd results in a search.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your research apoears to be limited, much seems to be based on very old desertations on this site.

You have not heard of Messirah, and it's possible significance, thats fine, look it up.

Are you aware that Messirah was very actively practiced amongst new arrivals from the east.

(EL AMARNA to me, 10-31-2022, 07:40 PM, # 70)


I'm sorry, but I don't think I have heard of Messirah.

(My reply to EL AMARNA, 11-01-2022, 12:01 AM, # 78)


You have not heard of Messirah, and it's possible significance, thats fine, look it up.

(EL AMARNA to me, 11-01-2022, 05:47 AM, # 92)



I did look it up but couldn't find it.

if you want someone to look something up, then you really have to spell the name of the subject you want him to look up correctly!

I finally found it a few minutes ago.

It is Mesirah, not Messirah.

Although the word Messiah is an English version of the Hebrew word, in truth there is no such thing as a double 's' in the Hebrew language.

[Elamarna]

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.

Ok, Swanson was apparently writing after the identification took place.

For Warren to have known of such it would have to have occurred before he resigned.

Few have suggested that was the case.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.