Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Varqm]

It's clear from.internal.police documents, Swanson, Abberline and Anderson that they did not consider Schwartz unreliable.
And that is after the inquest is concluded.

So his exclusion remains a mystery

Steve

I believe they did include him as an inquest witness,after all he was the most important witness but the Coroner had a different view.The only known reason the Coroner possibly thought so was his statement to the police and to the Star were vastly different.Can't have a witness with two different stories

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

Thanks Darryl, that's a very relevant and interesting post, cheers.

[Elamarna]

I believe they did include him as an inquest witness,after all he was the most important witness but the Coroner had a different view.The only known reason the Coroner possibly thought so was his statement to the police and to the Star were vastly different.Can't have a witness with two different stories

We will on this occassion disagree. But such is fine, we are discussion unknowns, there are no right or wrong answers .

I suspect Baxter would like to test the man himself, given how he dealt with the police. The mortuary staff, the slaughter men and the doctors in the Nichols and Chapman cases.

The key differences are a pipe or a knife and if the woman is pulled onto the pavement, or pushed back towards the gates.

The consensus appears to be that the differences are in the main due to translation.
I however, also consider that the press are attempting to sell a story.

Oh for Baxter' s long lost notes.

[Varqm]

We will on this occassion disagree. But such is fine, we are discussion unknowns, there are no right or wrong answers .

I suspect Baxter would like to test the man himself, given how he dealt with the police. The mortuary staff, the slaughter men and the doctors in the Nichols and Chapman cases.

The key differences are a pipe or a knife and if the woman is pulled onto the pavement, or pushed back towards the gates.

The consensus appears to be that the differences are in the main due to translation.
I however, also consider that the press are attempting to sell a story.

Oh for Baxter' s long lost notes.

The difference in the 2 stories was more than that,the translation problem I doubt.But I end there.

[S.Brett]

Anything is possible. Don't know if you heard my talk last year, but I give my reasoning for Schwartz, honestly I.prefer Levy over Lawende
Hope you are well.

Steve

Of course, I heard your talk. It was great.

I am quite well, thanks.