Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[Elamarna]

I see.

So Swanson can validate what Anderson said about the Polish Jew 'suspect', but Warren can't validate what Anderson said about Schwarz having testified at the inquest!

You cannot produce a letter from Warren about a Jew refusing to testify against someone who was 'definitely ascertained' to have been the Whitechapel Murderer!

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is abundantly clear to most researchers that Warrens letter is taken from Anderson's.
Anderson's sends a report to Warren, who then sends a report to the home office.

Warren is clearly repeating what Anderson has written.

The point you don't seem to grasp is that we have no record at all of Schwartz appearing at the inquest, or of him giving testimony.

I would love to claim these letters prove he did give testimony, but they don't.
They ask the question.
They simply do not prove he did. That you think they do says so much.

I see.

So Swanson can validate what Anderson said about the Polish Jew 'suspect', but Warren can't validate what Anderson said about Schwarz having testified at the inquest!

You cannot produce a letter from Warren about a Jew refusing to testify against someone who was 'definitely ascertained' to have been the Whitechapel Murderer!

[Elamarna]

I see, the letter was interpreted wrong.

The letter from Anderson ( to warren) clearly suggests he actually gave evidence at the inquest.

" upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case"

Warrens letter to the home office, sent after Anderson's updates him with this information is even clearer

"evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case"

We both know there is no record of such evidence being given

So either he did , and it was in camera, or he did not.

I don't see there is any interpretation of the letter required, it's very clear.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I have to state that the opinion reached in this department upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth 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

(Sir Robert Anderson)

I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by the man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself

( Sir Charles Warren, 9 November)

It is abundantly clear to most researchers that Warrens letter is taken from Anderson's.
Anderson's sends a report to Warren, who then sends a report to the home office.

Warren is clearly repeating what Anderson has written.

The point you don't seem to grasp is that we have no record at all of Schwartz appearing at the inquest, or of him giving testimony.

I would love to claim these letters prove he did give testimony, but they don't.
They ask the question.
They simply do not prove he did. That you think they do says so much.

[Elamarna]

I despair at some of the comments made here, which simply cherry pick comments that support one argument, and at comments made without any real reference and which go against years of debate and research.

Those are unjustified and prejudiced comments on your part.

After announcing that you were going to comply with the moderators' request that you 'cool it' - in other words, cease your personal attacks on me - you're evidently raring to go again.




For instance, that Schwartz gave testimony at the inquest... Yet here we are told, that he certainly did give testimony.
The only indication is a letter from Anderson. Many of us have used this to argue he might have, but here we are boldly told he DID.



Well, you are plain wrong.


The only indication is not from Anderson.
There is also a letter from Charles Warren.
The wording of the two letters is remarkably similar, but the letters indicate that both men were aware of Schwarz's testimony.



2nd example, That Schwartz was Polish, this is presented as a definitive and conclusive fact.

No source is given, just the posters opinion is given as fact.




Again, that is a completely unfounded statement.

I provided a link to the biography of Schwarz in Wikipedia, which provides a list of sources.

It seems you did not read it.






Details about Schwartz are scarce, hence why it's far from clear What became of him.
Yet the poster KNOWS.



I don't recall claiming that I KNOW what became of him.
You're complaining about something I didn't even write!




And then the comment that if there is no difference in appearance at different ages the police would not ask for an estimate.

This is astounding ...
This is clearly unrealistic, it is theory driven.

And it's poor history and very poor research.




You're writing nonsense.

There is no shortage of so-called suspects aged 22 or 23: Levy, Kosminski, Kłosowski .

You are 'astounded' that I treat the witnesses with more respect than you do, but are you not astounded that there is no description of a suspect being younger than 30?

You're prepared to consider Kosminski as a suspect even though two witnesses at different locations both estimated the suspect's age as 30.




Such is research of the worst type.


You're being condescending for the sake of it.

You talk about 'research of the worst type'.




What kind of researcher is seriously prepared to put forward the proposition that a Polish immigrant East End religious Jew, whose close family members had very dark hair - as evidenced by photographs provided by another member with the accompanying insult that I was ignorant for not recognising them - could have dressed as a sailor with blond hair, speaking English specially for the occasion of eviscerating a woman, and then turned up for a police identification wearing a religious skullcap and religious fringes, prominently on display, and spoken Yiddish for the occasion, in order to tighten the noose around his own neck?

Crafty 'Jack' (or Yankel, as you would have it) had the cunning to escape from Bucks Row as Lechmere approached, to slip away from Dutfield's Yard when Diemschutz arrived, to escape from Mitre Square even as a policeman was approaching it, yet when he appears at a police identification, according to you he does everything to get himself hanged.

And you consider YOURSELF to be a serious researcher?

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.