Schwartz v. Lawende

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did I mention Kosminski ?

No, but Swanson did mention him, and furthermore the alleged CID surveillance of him.

[Elamarna]

I can only think of two reasons why the city police would keep watch over a suspect.
1- The suspect was wanted for a crime committed in their territory
2- The suspect lived in their territory.

If the answer is Num 1 . The suspect must have evidence against him for the crime which took place in the City zone, otherwise why else would the Met police not take charge of a covert operation on a suspect who committed at least four and possibly six murders up until that point in their district, rather than just the one in the City's district. And the evidence was probably a possible sighting [ even if the ID failed ].

Apologies if I have missed something, Darryl

Of course in relation to #1, we should, I think allow for the city police watching someone on Met ground, at request of the Met.

That is City CID may be less well know in Met territory than local Met CID.

It is reported that they passed themselves off to the locals as Factor inspectors.
If it was on City ground, that is less likely to have worked I suggest.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course in relation to #1, we should, I think allow for the city police watching someone on Met ground, at request of the Met.

That is City CID may be less well know in Met territory than local Met CID.

It is reported that they passed themselves off to the locals as Factor inspectors.
If it was on City ground, that is less likely to have worked I suggest.

Steve

You are of course referring to CID officer Harry Cox, who claimed to have passed himself off as a factory inspector in the East End of London.

He described his alleged suspect as having short, black, curly hair.

That could have been Kosminski, but it could hardly have been the man with the fair moustache, seen in the City of London.

Cox also stated that his suspect occupied several shops in the East End.

That certainly could not have been Kosminski.

Again, I mention this because it was Swanson who claimed that the suspect was watched by CID and that his name was Kosminski.

[Elamarna]

You are of course referring to CID officer Harry Cox, who claimed to have passed himself off as a factory inspector in the East End of London.

He described his alleged suspect as having short, black, curly hair.

That could have been Kosminski, but it could hardly have been the man with the fair moustache, seen in the City of London.

Cox also stated that his suspect occupied several shops in the East End.

That certainly could not have been Kosminski.

Again, I mention this because it was Swanson who claimed that the suspect was watched by CID and that his name was Kosminski.

You are again implying that the witness was Lawende and his description was the one that was being used.
While such is of course possible, it is not an issue on which there is a consensus.
It is just one view, there are several others.
As we discussed the above the police, in the person of Swanson, questioned the value of Lawende's description.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are again implying that the witness was Lawende and his description was the one that was being used.
While such is of course possible, it is not an issue on which there is a consensus.
It is just one view, there are several others.
As we discussed the above the police, in the person of Swanson, questioned the value of Lawende's description.

Leaving Lawende out of the picture, would you not agree that Cox's suspect could not have been Kosminski?

[Elamarna]

Leaving Lawende out of the picture, would you not agree that Cox's suspect could not have been Kosminski?

I do not agree with your assesment.

We are back to was Kosminski, Aaron?
And we have no conclusive answer.

However, even if he was "Kosminski" that does not rule him out of having access to several shops.
We cannot preclude the possibility that he had access to premises run by his brothers, who were both tailors.
Nor do we know if he had access to other premises.
Therefore having access to several shops, cannot rule him out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not agree with your assesment.

We are back to was Kosminski, Aaron?
And we have no conclusive answer.

Both Macnaghten and the asylum records mention self-abuse.

What are the chances of two people by the name of Kosminski both practising self-abuse and both going to Colney Hatch?

And if there was a second Kosminski, why is there no record of him at Colney Hatch, and why would Macnaghten and Swanson not have specified the suspect's first name in order to avoid confusion?

However, even if he was "Kosminski" that does not rule him out of having access to several shops.
We cannot preclude the possibility that he had access to premises run by his brothers, who were both tailors.
Nor do we know if he had access to other premises.
Therefore having access to several shops, cannot rule him out.

i quote Harry Cox:

We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected

Does that seem like someone who merely had access to a shop owned by a relative?


I followed him to Lehman Street, and there I saw him enter a shop which I knew was the abode of a number of criminals well known to the police.

Does that seem like Kosminski?

Did anyone ever mention any connection between him and known criminals?


He was never arrested for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes.

In that case, how could he possibly have been Swanson's Kosminski, who was allegedly taken to the coast in order to be subjected to identification as the murderer?

Such a procedure could hardly have been contemplated unless there had been some scraps of evidence against the suspect.

[Elamarna]

Both Macnaghten and the asylum records mention self-abuse.

What are the chances of two people by the name of Kosminski both practising self-abuse and both going to Colney Hatch?

And if there was a second Kosminski, why is there no record of him at Colney Hatch, and why would Macnaghten and Swanson not have specified the suspect's first name in order to avoid confusion?

While I personally believe Aaron is on present information the best fit for Kosminski, such is not a concesus view, even amoungst those who subscribe to the general Anderson's suspect theory.
There are well respected researchers in that grouping who do not accept Aaron was "Kosminski"

i quote Harry Cox:

We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected

Does that seem like someone who merely had access to a shop owned by a relative?

That is open to interpretation, we clearly disagree on that interpretation.

I followed him to Lehman Street, and there I saw him enter a shop which I knew was the abode of a number of criminals well known to the police.

Does that seem like Kosminski?

Did anyone ever mention any connection between him and known criminals?

Given, the little that is known about Aaron Kosminski, it is impossible to reach a meaningful conclusion about who he knew or how he behaved.

You are making assumptions, apparently based on your own beliefs about the type of individual Aaron was.

He was never arrested for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes.

In that case, how could he possibly have been Swanson's Kosminski, who was allegedly taken to the coast in order to be subjected to identification as the murderer?

Such a procedure could hardly have been contemplated unless there had been some scraps of evidence against the suspect.

The debate is that without the cooperation of the witness there was no evidence that was certain to convict, such is fully in keeping with the statement of Cox.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is open to interpretation, we clearly disagree on that interpretation.

Is it?

Cox implied that the shop was the suspect's, not someone else's.

Given, the little that is known about Aaron Kosminski, it is impossible to reach a meaningful conclusion about who he knew or how he behaved.

You are making assumptions, apparently based on your own beliefs about the type of individual Aaron was.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs!

We know what type of individual Aaron Kosminski was.

He was an unemployed hairdresser, of eccentric character, who used to eat bread from the gutter, and the known extent of whose connection with criminality was his heinous crime of walking a dog in public without a muzzle.

He lived with his relatives who cared for him.

He was not a shopkeeper who frequented a shop which was itself the abode of criminals.

The debate is that without the cooperation of the witness there was no evidence that was certain to convict, such is fully in keeping with the statement of Cox.

No it is not!

You yourself have speculated at length about what evidence it was that prompted the police to be interested in the Polish Jew / Kosminski.

You have suggested, for example, that incriminating evidence may have been found during a search of his home.

That is rather more than just 'scraps of evidence'.

[Elamarna]

Is it?

Cox implied that the shop was the suspect's, not someone else's.

You are taking the words used in a press article, written many years later, and interpreting them they say the suspect owned the premises. That is just one interpretation.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs!

It is all to do with your beliefs, you have made those very clear many times in relation to the possibility Anderson and Swanson being correct.

We know what type of individual Aaron Kosminski was.

No we know very little, from very limited sources.

He was an unemployed hairdresser, of eccentric character, who used to eat bread from the gutter,

Which really tells us very little, other than he apparently had mental health problems, possibly cyclical.

and the known extent of whose connection with criminality was his heinous crime of walking a dog in public without a muzzle.

A lack of knowledge about any connection to criminality does not mean there was none, particularly when the known information about him is very limited.

He lived with his relatives who cared for him.

While we know that at least from the workhouse visit in 1890 onwards he was living with family, we do not know who he was living with before that date.
Although it's speculate that he lived with family before this, most often living with Woolf is suggested, there appears to be no record of such.

If They cared for him is another matter.

What exactly does that mean?
What source tells you just how he was cared for by his family?

None of the above gives anything other than a superficial view of the individual.

He was not a shopkeeper who frequented a shop which was itself the abode of criminals.

It is your interpretation that the suspect watched was a shopkeeper, it is not the view of many others.

We have no idea if he associated with criminals or not. There is simply no information on the subject, one way or the other.

No it is not!

Sorry but it completely inline with the statement of Cox.

You yourself have speculated at length about what evidence it was that prompted the police to be interested in the Polish Jew / Kosminski.

Yes, I have speculated, but that's all it is speculation, I have also clearly said over and over that the failure of the witness to cooperate meant no convict could be ensured, as anything else that may have been known was not guaranteed to convict.

You have suggested, for example, that incriminating evidence may have been found during a search of his home.

I have suggested that the Batty Street incident, the bloodied shirt left by a local tailor, could be connected. If so it would not be conclusive evidence, certainly not enough to convict on its own.

I do not recall specifically suggesting other incriminating evidence may have been found in search of a residences

However, one certainly cannot rule out such a find; but given the lack of forensics, such is again unlikely to be conclusive.

That is rather more than just 'scraps of evidence'.

We will disagree.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are taking the words used in a press article, written many years later, and interpreting them they say the suspect owned the premises. That is just one interpretation.

It is your interpretation that the suspect watched was a shopkeeper, it is not the view of many others.

He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months ...

We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected ...

... I watched him from the house opposite one night ... When darkness set in I saw him come forth from the door of his little shop ... I followed him to Lehman Street, and there I saw him enter a shop which I knew was the abode of a number of criminals well known to the police... In the end he brought me, tired, weary, and nerve-strung, back to the street he had left where he disappeared into his own house... Next morning I beheld him busy as usual... He was never arrested for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes.

(The Truth about the Whitechapel Mysteries told by Harry Cox, Ex-Detective Inspector, London City Police. Specially written for "Thomson's Weekly News")


The article is written in the first person and in a formal written style.

There are no quotation marks.

Cox recorded that he kept the alleged suspect under surveillance until February 1889.

Barely two years later, in February 1891, Kosminski's admission record to the asylum recorded: 'He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

That can reasonably be taken to mean more than two years, yet exactly two years before Kosminski's admission, Cox's suspect was running several shops in the East End of London.

The alleged suspect 'occupied several shops', had a 'place of business', lived in 'his own house', and was 'busy as usual' in the mornings.

There is no evidence that Kosminski occupied a single shop, let alone several shops, no evidence that he ever had a place of business, no evidence that he lived in his own house, and no evidence that he was in the habit of being busy in the morning.

The evidence we have is that he was an unemployed hairdresser who lived with relatives.

According to the record of his admission to the asylum, 'he eats out of the gutter ... He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

I suggest that the idea that he could have been the same person as the well-organised man, who appears to have been a shopkeeper, and lived in his own house, and was busy in the mornings, observed by Cox exactly two years before, is farfetched.

[Elamarna]

He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months ...

We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected ...

... I watched him from the house opposite one night ... When darkness set in I saw him come forth from the door of his little shop ... I followed him to Lehman Street, and there I saw him enter a shop which I knew was the abode of a number of criminals well known to the police... In the end he brought me, tired, weary, and nerve-strung, back to the street he had left where he disappeared into his own house... Next morning I beheld him busy as usual... He was never arrested for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes.

(The Truth about the Whitechapel Mysteries told by Harry Cox, Ex-Detective Inspector, London City Police. Specially written for "Thomson's Weekly News")


The article is written in the first person and in a formal written style.

There are no quotation marks.

Cox recorded that he kept the alleged suspect under surveillance until February 1889.

Barely two years later, in February 1891, Kosminski's admission record to the asylum recorded: 'He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

That can reasonably be taken to mean more than two years, yet exactly two years before Kosminski's admission, Cox's suspect was running several shops in the East End of London.

The alleged suspect 'occupied several shops', had a 'place of business', lived in 'his own house', and was 'busy as usual' in the mornings.

There is no evidence that Kosminski occupied a single shop, let alone several shops, no evidence that he ever had a place of business, no evidence that he lived in his own house, and no evidence that he was in the habit of being busy in the morning.

The evidence we have is that he was an unemployed hairdresser who lived with relatives.

According to the record of his admission to the asylum, 'he eats out of the gutter ... He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

I suggest that the idea that he could have been the same person as the well-organised man, who appears to have been a shopkeeper, and lived in his own house, and was busy in the mornings, observed by Cox exactly two years before, is farfetched.

We disagree, but we knew that before we started.
Your interpretation of the above article by Cox is just that , your interpretation, many others have a different interpretation, but I have said this in previous posts.

Your mind is set, you are opposed to the very suggestion of Anderson's suspect, no matter who that might be.

Further debate on this issue is futile.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We disagree, but we knew that before we started.
Your interpretation of the above article by Cox is just that , your interpretation, many others have a different interpretation, but I have said this in previous posts.

Your mind is set, you are opposed to the very suggestion of Anderson's suspect, no matter who that might be.

Further debate on this issue is futile.

I thought you might respond directly to my last two paragraphs:

According to the record of his admission to the asylum, 'he eats out of the gutter ... He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

I suggest that the idea that he could have been the same person as the well-organised man, who appears to have been a shopkeeper, and lived in his own house, and was busy in the mornings, observed by Cox exactly two years before, is farfetched.

I would add that the following line written by Cox could hardly be a description of Kosminski.

He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.

[Michael W Richards]

I think youve underestimated the value of the "Last Seen With" principle of investigating something like this, the person last seen in the company of a soon to be victim of a violent crime, particularly one who claims the person was seen assaulting the soon to be victim, is Suspect #1 until dismissed by virtue of some more compelling evidence.

No, I don't underestimate it. My response to Trevor was referring to a courtroom with the qualifier of no other evidence being presented. Quite different from an investigation as you seem to be stating.

There is no-one waiting to slide in and kill Liz after BSM's assault on her.

Are you certain of that? Not being seen does not equate with not being nearby. And if the idea of another killer is so far fetched why did Swanson allow for it in his report?

c.d.

I think Swanson recognized that despite Schwartz's statement that there is no evidence that suggests what he says happened actually did. So if there may not have been a BSM, that only leaves someone else...not seen by anyone with a street view.

Youve added a beat to this mystery that really isnt neccesary..the beat is the time between BSM's departure and whomever Jack is, suddenly arriving. A few problems with that...the timing being 1 of course. And the witnesses to the street who saw no-one. Only Leon at around 12:55am. So if the story is accurate, the witnesses were accurate and BSM is not the eventual killer, the only place the new Jack fella could have been is on the club property. First you want to accept that 4 people are suddenly on the street at 12:45...when there are multiple accounts that state the street was empty up until, and after, that point, then you want to have another someone come from the deserted street after BSM leaves?

If Israels story is accurate and honest, and BSM isnt her eventual killer, then its almost a cert that the killer is already at the club.Or maybe just returning to it.....? Either way, in your scenario Jack,... who you believe committed this crime, is at that club.

[c.d.]

I think Swanson recognized that despite Schwartz's statement that there is no evidence that suggests what he says happened actually did. So if there may not have been a BSM, that only leaves someone else...not seen by anyone with a street view.

Yeah, this is a tough one since we can't question Swanson to get a clearer understanding of why he wrote what he did. It could be that he was considering Schwartz's account to be more descriptive of a street hassle and thus there had to be an actual killer by default. So not based on actual evidence but more conjecture. If the killer was Jack I am sure he was keeping out of site if possible and not calling attention to himself. Plus it was dark and I don't think anyone was scanning the street with the intent of determining if anyone was about so I can't dismiss the possibility that the real killer Jack or someone else (not BS man) was not seen.

No real good answers to all this.

c.d.