Seaside Home?

[Cogidubnus]

Because those who support the Id parade suggest it must have occurred around 1891 before Kosminski was finallay incarcerated.

To be fair you only have to look ay the evidence of Lawende would that on its own secure a conviction. It would not even be enough to charge anyone.

But I'm not necessarily supporting anyone else's views Trevor...just casting around for ideas about what this little mystery just might be really about...and I'm certainly not yet ready to accept the witness was Lawende...Heck I'm not even sure who the suspect might be (with all due respect to Kominski fans) but until I know more, I'm not prepared to rule him out either.

I don't suppose for a moment that a confrontation ID would be enough to secure a conviction - but at least they'd KNOW - and if the guy was clearly nuts then a conviction didn't enter into it anyway...a commital might though!

Every good wish

Dave

[Wickerman]

Much to early you should not fall into the same trap as others trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Not too early if, as some have offered, that the Seaside Home was an error for Seaman's Home, within Whitechapel.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

1) The marginalia's scant details were true
2) The Seaside Home was the Police Home
3) That the witness either lived near or was unable to travel
4) That the witness was for unknown reasons that would have to be shrouded in secrecy would be unknown to almost everyone except only a few
5) That nobody, ever, whispered a word, not even a hand me down story
6) That all police papers were destroyed or 'lost' and could never be 'found'
7) ditto Home Office papers (they would surely have known about it too)
8) That any mention by the (later) insane Jewish suspect was never recorded at the asylum
9) That the suspect's family never spoke of it, ever
10) That Swanson had actually gone against ALL other people's actions on the matter and he alone mentioned what all others were sworn to secrecy about.

Hi Phil

I'm not falling into the trap of even discussing (1) on this thread Phil! (Sorry!)

(2) At this distance in time I would suggest it is difficult to tell

(3) does not necessarily follow if the witness is vulnerable and has been temporarily taken out of circulation for protection perhaps...or to be kept away from an over-intrusive press

(4) may well follow from that...

(5) But they did...at quite a high level in differing degrees

(6) Yes we know lots of papers have disappeared...I expect other archives of similar age have been equally denuded too!

(7) If the ID was unsuccessful I doubt they told the Home Office - relationships between successive head honchos and the Home Secretary seem to have been far from cordial...

(8) Any mention of what Phil...the ID? It was unsuccessful so how likely is the Asylum to be interested? Or if they were we don't know if it was Kosminski, Kaminski, Cohen or anyone else we've never heard of...depending how late this suspect died we mayn't have seen all the records we're going to just yet!

(9) In the 1890s and early 1900s would you Phil? Especially if I was an immigrant wanting to assimilate as quickly as possible, I'd be keeping my head down scratching a living, not boasting my son's a well known murderer

(10) Ah but publicly he didn't Phil...and even privately he only did after MM and RA had cleared the way....

The Seaside Home is a very awkward thing to factor in, for a variety of reasons (I've mentioned some earlier in the thread, as have others) but until it can be actually disproved I believe we're stuck with it!

All the very best...hope the move went ok...

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Even IF the witness was not one of those two, their testimony of a clear sighting would surely have been recorded by the police at the time, and or the Coroner, and or the Newspapers?

Even Lord Euston didnt get away with that sort of anonimity 2 years later in 1890 during the Cleveland Street nonsense.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Why is this too early Trevor? (Apart from predating the 1890 opening of the first formal Seaside Home that is)

Dave

Because those who support the Id parade suggest it must have occurred around 1891 before Kosminski was finallay incarcerated.

To be fair you only have to look ay the evidence of Lawende would that on its own secure a conviction. It would not even be enough to charge anyone.

[Phil Carter]

The bottom line though is the question of why either Schwartz or Lawende would have been staying in a police hospital when they weren't policemen which is something some people here seem to believe.

Hello Stephen,

Exactly. Way too much for us to believe based on zero evidence or back up.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Much to early you should not fall into the same trap as others trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Why is this too early Trevor? (Apart from predating the 1890 opening of the first formal Seaside Home that is)

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Sorry if I'm butting in Stephen/Caz but whilst we may surmise it was most likely either Schwartz or Lawende, it could well have been someone else the police were keeping quiet about...and apparently remained quiet about, donkeys years later...and if that's so, it may well influence the choice of venue for an ID confrontation...do you not think?

Dave

Hello Dave,

Then one would be totting up an awful string of caveats and ifs?

We would have to assume:-

1) The marginalia's scant details were true
2) The Seaside Home was the Police Home
3) That the witness either lived near or was unable to travel
4) That the witness was for unknown reasons that would have to be shrouded in secrecy would be unknown to almost everyone except only a few
5) That nobody, ever, whispered a word, not even a hand me down story
6) That all police papers were destroyed or 'lost' and could never be 'found'
7) ditto Home Office papers (they would surely have known about it too)
8) That any mention by the (later) insane Jewish suspect was never recorded at the asylum
9) That the suspect's family never spoke of it, ever
10) That Swanson had actually gone against ALL other people's actions on the matter and he alone mentioned what all others were sworn to secrecy about.

ALL THIS for a poor insane Polish Jew?
not to mention the secret witness!
Sorry Dave, there's more chance of Popham Down turning round and beating Foinavon after refusing the fence that caused the carnage of the 1967 Grand National.

And Foinavon was the 100/1 outsider.
(I had 6d each way on Red Alligator which came 3rd )
i am showing my age!


Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

There's an interesting snippet from the Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888, which suggests Lawende was removed to a 'private location', or at least sequestrated away from the press & public, at the expense of the police.

"...the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."

But, where was he sequestrated?
And, during the first week of October, is this too early to be connected with the Anderson's Witness story?

Regards, Jon S.

Much to early you should not fall into the same trap as others trying to put square pegs in round holes.

For those who havent read it yet and because this thread was closed last night I posted other issues apperatining to the ID parade under a thread titles "Another Thought"

[Wickerman]

Sorry if I'm butting in Stephen/Caz but whilst we may surmise it was most likely either Schwartz or Lawende, it could well have been someone else the police were keeping quiet about...and apparently remained quiet about, donkeys years later...and if that's so, it may well influence the choice of venue for an ID confrontation...do you not think?

Dave

There's an interesting snippet from the Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888, which suggests Lawende was removed to a 'private location', or at least sequestrated away from the press & public, at the expense of the police.

"...the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."

But, where was he sequestrated?
And, during the first week of October, is this too early to be connected with the Anderson's Witness story?

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

The bottom line though is the question of why either Schwartz or Lawende would have been staying in a police hospital when they weren't policemen which is something some people here seem to believe.

Sorry if I'm butting in Stephen/Caz but whilst we may surmise it was most likely either Schwartz or Lawende, it could well have been someone else the police were keeping quiet about...and apparently remained quiet about, donkeys years later...and if that's so, it may well influence the choice of venue for an ID confrontation...do you not think?

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

what kind of clueless idiot is meant to have invented a scenario like this one, thinking it would satisfy anyone, let alone be accepted without question? Even Trevor or Phil could surely have come up with something a tad more believable if they had really tried?

Exactly, Caz. The bottom line though is the question of why either Schwartz or Lawende would have been staying in a police hospital when they weren't policemen which is something some people here seem to believe.

[Admin]

Since it appears that posters are not capable of recognizing polite requests, we are now going to be more specific. Expressly violating our requests and then posting "sorry admin" does not excuse you.

So let's be clear. The next person who posts a personal insult on this thread of any sort, expressed or implied, will receive a six month suspension from posting.

[Cogidubnus]

"...because the suspect was also a Jew..." has always been understood to point towards Schwartz or Lawende, meaning "because the suspect was also like the witness a Jew". It could be read as meaning "...because the suspect was a Jew as well as being something else...".

Actually, now you mention it, there IS something suggestive there....complicated isn't it?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

The marginalia are gender-specific though, are they not?

Well? In those days of non-equality the one covered the other so to speak...besides to protect the little lady wouldn't a gentleman feel justified in exercising a little subterfuge?

Again, just a thought

Dave