Seaside Home?

[Stephen Thomas]

Still on Reid's gauntlet : of course, the "we-haven't-the-power-of-the-French-police" argument wouldn't have worked with Reid.
That was just a trick to abuse the general public, and Reid was a real policeman, which Anderson was not.

Hello David

Alice: The point is...

Caterpillar: The point is... who is to be master.

(quoted from fragile memory)

[Bridewell]

Gender Specific

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

Hi David,

You had me scrabbling for my copy of The Ultimate there. The marginalia are gender-specific though, are they not?

"...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind."

You have, in turn, flagged up a left-field thought in me:

"...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...". It would still be suggestive of a fellow-Jew, I suppose.

There is also the possibility that the witness was in fear of another person of Semitic descent: "because the suspect was also a Jew, like the person he owed money to", "like the person who had attacked him in the street the previous week", "like the person who threatened to kill him if he ever visited a police station"? Pure speculation, which I completely acknowledge is not evidence, by the way!

Before someone jumps in and claims otherwise, I am not saying this is what it does mean, only that it is an alternative, however unlikely.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

Bingo.. YES YES YES...

Thats exactly it, thank god someone has figured it out

Yours Jef

[Cogidubnus]

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

H

The content of the SM has been shown, with certainty, to go against known ID MET police methodology.

NO IT HAS NOT ...ARE YOU AN IDIOT?

We spent ages today demonstrating that this was STANDARD practice in 1888

Can you not understand English..were all the posters who advised you including Monty talking rubbish? no they were not!!

Jesus

Yours humbly groveling and acting like you would, sorry admin

Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bridewell,

Yes, twas a one-liner, fear not,

The content of the SM has been shown, with certainty, to go against known ID MET police methodology. This cannot be denied although personal commentary, labelling and name calling and goading will not, sadly, subside in some quarters.

The question of onus has, in the nature of the content of the marginalia, been answered with concrete known occurrance and fact. When an example is presented of an ACTUAL ID, performed in the manner it was by the Met Police, then ANY written claim from ANY Met Policeman, of ANY rank, that suggests something in complete contrast to the KNOWN methods used, must be shown to have some basis of factual occurranse to have credibility attached in the face of known fact.

I agree with your posting on some of the other poimts.

Kindly

Phil

[Bridewell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVV
Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was such a straightforward invective.
Hello David,

Maybe Swanson and Anderson thought the onus of proof was on Reid and even Abberline!
Hehe

Kindly

Phil

Hi Phil,

I entirely agree (assuming that you are indeed joking). Isn't that what happens in the upside-down world of internet forums:- someone makes a claim and expects everyone else to prove them wrong? In real life, it is the person making the assertion who has to support their claim with evidence. I suspect that Reid made his challenge in the full knowledge that there was no proof whatever that the Ripper was Jewish.

In the case of the Swanson Marginalia, who should prove their case? I think it's arguable either way, if I'm honest, but the text asserts the authorship of DSS, so I think that should stand until his authorship is discredited. The content is perhaps another matter.

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Still on Reid's gauntlet : of course, the "we-haven't-the-power-of-the-French-police" argument wouldn't have worked with Reid.
That was just a trick to abuse the general public, and Reid was a real policeman, which Anderson was not.
Hence Anderson's silence ?

In France, the dispute would have been cut short by a duel - although it was forbidden, and notwithstanding the extensive power of local police.

[Jeff Leahy]

We, those who do not believe that the marginalia has any base of reality, have been told that the onus of proof is upon us to disprove it could/would happen in the way Swanson described.

Denialist Ripperologist' s please use there collective noun

People can argue until the sun goes down on why anybody would write what is in the marginalia, but the fact is that the onus of proof must now be on provenance of it actually happening in that manner when faced with this concrete example of how an JTR ID situation ACTUALLY happened.

NO IT ISNT. The onus is on anyone Denying that it happened to demonstrate why Swanson would make it up or lie in notes made to himself. He simply wouldnt do that. And as has been explained to you endlessly. He is coroborating the head of the CID a highly intelligent and religious man..

What you need to do is supply some sort of evidence that he wasnt telling the truth something the 'Denialists' have constantly failed to do.

100% iron-clad proof of an example of a REAL , not alleged, ID has been provided, it also ticks ALL the boxes the SM does not, and to help it along, its ID'ing a Jew- in the heart of the East End Full of Jewish people, all occuring WITHOUT any follow-on 'riot', please note.

Therefore until proof of the above can be shown, in my humble opinion the Seaside Home ID didnt happen.
l

Your humble humble opinion is baseless twaddle. Denialist History at its worst. Please demonstrate why Swanson would have lied or made up what he wrote in the marginalia ..you can not

Give my greetings again to master Copperfeild. Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Here's a few familiar ingredients, courtesy of "a Scotland Yard detective"—.

"The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased . . .

" . . . They knew who the man was perfectly well, shadowed him persistently in the East End, knew his address, and several of his friends and accomplices. Yet they could not complete their chain of evidence. The man was never nailed, and he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police. But he has never to this day been arrested."

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Ingredients.... I like that terminology.

Best wishes

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

Those who believe the whole Seaside Home story was a figment of someone's fertile imagination - presumably someone who wanted Macnaghten's Kosminski to be promoted above his Druitt - ought perhaps to be asking themselves what story they would have come up with instead, that would have sounded perfectly plausible to ripper, police and crime historians, modern day policemen and ripper researchers alike. As it is, they are arguing that it never happened because none of it makes any sense, the details just don't add up and it cannot be reconciled with the existing records. We all know that, but most of us realise there must be more to it than that.

For a start, 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?

Love,

Caz
X

well put.

Also-Swanson did not put question marks next to Andersons comments or correct the statements-he added and expanded on it.

The ID probably happened, just not the way Anderson "remembered" it.

It probably went something like this:
Lawende: it looks like him, but I cant be sure
Anderson years later: he positively IDed him, but since they were both Jews would not swear to it. i had the case solved all along.

[Phil Carter]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was such a straightforward invective.

Hello David,

Maybe Swanson and Anderson thought the onus of proof was on Reid and even Abberline!
Hehe

Kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a few familiar ingredients, courtesy of "a Scotland Yard detective"—.

"The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased . . .

" . . . They knew who the man was perfectly well, shadowed him persistently in the East End, knew his address, and several of his friends and accomplices. Yet they could not complete their chain of evidence. The man was never nailed, and he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police. But he has never to this day been arrested."

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was a straightforward invective.

[Bridewell]

Phew!

No trap. Sources differ. Some say that he was killed that way, others that he died from natural causes, others that he was deposed and lived out his life elsewhere.

I quite like the Marlowe version. I'm always reminded of Edward II whenever I go to Nottingham Castle, because of the secret passage (no double entendre intended*) allegedly used there and still known locally as Mortimer's Hole (likewise*!).

Regards, Bridewell.