The Seaside Home

[Wickerman]

So, that does leave a City PC.

Where I disagree is in this: I feel the obvious answer is Watkins.

Fleetwood, have you read something that leads you to pick Watkins or is this an intuative guess?

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

There is a suggestion that an attempt was made to use Lawende to identify Sadler after the Frances Cole murder in 1891. I'm coming round to the view, expressed in earlier posts, that the whole Seaside Home thing is a composite story rather than one single event but, in view of his age at the time of writing his marginalia (referred to by others), I wonder whether Swanson's reference to the "Seaside Home" might have been a slip of the pen. Did he perhaps mean "Seamen's Home"? The Queen Victoria Seamen's Rest Home opened in 1890, and was situated in Jeremiah Street, Poplar, just around the corner from the East India Dock Road? The location would be a lot more convenient than Brighton and might fit with a sending of Lawende to identify (or not) Thomas Sadler.

[lynn cates]

heresy

Hello Bridewell.

"I'm coming round to the view, expressed in earlier posts, that the whole Seaside Home thing is a composite story"

Well, in mediaeval times heretics were burnt at the stake. (heh-heh)

Do you not fully believe Anderson and Swanson?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

There is a suggestion that an attempt was made to use Lawende to identify Sadler after the Frances Cole murder in 1891.

Hi Bridewell.
The witness used to identify Sadler was only identified as "one of the Mitre Sq. witnesses" (paraphrase), no name given. We know there were three witnesses and Lawende is the most likely choice.

If Watkins had been a witness I find it difficult to see Lawende's evidence being superior to that of a City PC, given that Lawende was not even sure himself.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Lynn

I trust the integrity of Anderson & Swanson without reservation. It was pure conjecture on my part that he might have written "Seaside Home" (which would have come to mind automatically) when thinking of something similar. I just think the whole identification / refusing to testify thing is very odd (which is not to say that it is untrue - just odd).

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

You need to obtain a copy of the one of the great books on this contentious subject, 'Jack the Ripper -- Scotland Yard Investigates', by Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow (2006)

One of its final chapters proposes a theory as to how Swanson and/or Anderson confused the non-identification by Lawende of Sadler, with Aaron Kosminski who had just been sectioned shortly before. A Sailor's, or Seaman's Home even looms in the Sadler tale.

I won't try and reproduce again what these fine writers have done, a lot better than any summary.

This book is a must!

Except to add my own two cents worth.

I think that because Lawende described a man who looked as if he might be a seaman, this bit lodged in Andersona nd/or Swanson's failing memory.

Sea, Sea, Sea ... Sea-something ...?

If you remember that the Jewish witness decscribed a Gentile-featured man dressed like a seaman, then the Jewish suspect seen with the fourth victim by a beat cop (as told by Griffiths and Sims) is blown to Hell.

I argue that a fading memory has dealt with the nagging 'Sea...' element by turning the [non-existent] police witness into a police location and merged it with 'Sea...'; creating the unlikely and perplexing -- for us --'Seaside Home' location for the allegedly successful identification of Jack the Ripper.

In 1895, Lawende may have affirmed to another Ripper-sailor suspect, William Grant, and this disappointment too has lodged and then been inverted by a fading, self-serving memory.

[Steven Russell]

"But otherwise the description does not seem to have been circulated widely immediately after the murder. The article in the Evening News on 9 October criticised what it called the "idiotic secrecy" of the police, which had caused a delay in making public the partial descriptions provided by the witnesses.[2] (The following month, an article in the Daily Telegraph criticised the fact that the description had been circulated among the police but withheld from the public. The article suggested that the aspect the police had particularly wished to suppress was the suspect's resemblance to a sailor.[5])"[/quote]

Astonishing. It seems I owe you and Fleetwood Mac an apology.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Bridewell]

Steve,

No apology required by me - though it was gracious of you to offer one. There's not much point in having these forums if we can't express contrary opinions, pool our thoughts and thrash things out.

Best Wishes, Colin (aka "Bridewell")

[Steven Russell]

Very true, Colin and admirably well put.

Brest wishes,
Steve.

[The Rookie Detective]

One of the possible reasons why City officers would be watching the home of a suspect situated in Met Police territory, could be that the suspect was a Met Police Informant or a Met Police officer.

A degree of objectivity would then need to be implemented and give credence to the idea that City Police were operating in Met territory.

Perhaps the Met Police were compromised in some way?

Who polices the police?

Just a thought.

[Barnaby]

Church Passage was only 3' wide at the time

My comment is unrelated to the general thread, but I wanted to thank Bridewell for this neat detail. Having walked down this passage a few times, I had no clue it was that narrow in 1888.

[Scott Nelson]

One of the possible reasons why City officers would be watching the home of a suspect situated in Met Police territory, could be that the suspect was a Met Police Informant or a Met Police officer.

A degree of objectivity would then need to be implemented and give credence to the idea that City Police were operating in Met territory.

A more reasonable explanation could be that the victim was murdered in city territory, the city police were involved, but a suspect they watched lived within MET territory.