Seaside Home?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caroline,

I refer to my previous post.

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.

This has been done, with a sure-fire example of how an ID was, at the time, done. It relates to the JTR murders, with named suspect, witness, date, location, police prescence, and all details given to a newspaper. The witness positively ID'd the suspect, who was a Jew.

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.

This thread was started asking about the alleged ID at the alleged Seaside Home and whetheq it could be a true story or not.

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.

All of which tells this poster the details- or complete lack of them- in the marginalia, need corroberrating evidence. There is not one iota of proof that it happened how it did, why it did, where it did, in the manner it did, without a named witness, without a fully named suspec , without a named policeman, in an unnamed location, in a very unlikely situation of transportation, without any indication of how alleged suspect came to be at alleged identification location and ALL of this without record in Police files, Home Office files or Newspaper reports. (which HAVEN't been culled, lost or destroyed).
In 25 years none of the above has been shown in any way to have been even done in any other case at this time in ID methodology, as opposed to the Pizer/Violina ID situation which is proven to have actually occured.

Therefore until proof of the above can be shown, in my humble opinion the Seaside Home ID didnt happen.
I cant answer WHY it was written. All I know with certainty is that everything points to a story without corroberation or proof, and that AARON Kosminski's link with this marginalia is non existant.

No Caroline. I didnt make up the REAL method of identification used on a Jewish JTR suspect.

Kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I pretty much agree with that.

Didn't Edward II die from having a red-hot poker shoved up his bottom though - which would be pretty difficult to write off as suicide or accidental death? (Or was that just the Christopher Marlowe version?).

Why do I get the feeling I've just walked into a trap in saying that?!

Regards, Bridewell.

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.

[Bridewell]

Just So

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

Hi Caz,

I'm sure there's a kernel of truth in this somewhere. Finding it is the problem. I share your opinion on credibility. Why would anyone make up such a bizarre incident? The lack of documentation of arrest is not, in my view, necessarily indicative of no arrest having taken place. Since the introduction of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (effective 1st January 1986) it has been a legal requirement that a record be made of all arrests. That was not previously the case.

As for Trevor's question about why the police would release a suspect after such an identification: if there was no evidence to support a charge against this man, they would eventually have had to release him.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Gary,all,

It has occured to me that there was nothìng covert in the Pizer/Violena witness confrontation. I believe I am correct on the following-

There didn't need to be anything covert or conspiracy based

The point that was made is that this kind of confrontation ID was common in 1888. Or at least not improbable..

Where as by the time Gene Hunt was doing them they were not..

Yes the Brighton ID was odd. But you have been given various senarios that might have explained this and chosen to ignore them.

Yours Jeff

[caz]

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

[Phil Carter]

The issue is one of context, though, Trev. Whereas in the Seventies investigators had recourse to fingerprinting and bloodtyping, the Victorian police had no such luxury. As a consequence witness testimonies and identifications assumed far greater importance in police investigations and subsequent criminal trials. So whilst the Seaside Home affair might appear odd by latter-day standards, it clearly wasn't an extraordinary occurrence for those engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt.

As for the rarity of the 'direct confrontation', I seem to recall that the Pizer-Violenia encounter was just such an event. Perhaps, then, it was more common than is generally recognized.

Hello Gary,all,

It has occured to me that there was nothìng covert in the Pizer/Violena witness confrontation. I believe I am correct on the following-

The Pizer/Violena ID took place at a police station in the heart of East London.(Leman St)
That newspaperreports on the occurrance are extant
That Violema positively ID'd Pizer.
That some policemen were present in the incident.
That date and place and outcome were made public.
The address of Violena is memtioned.

Which means even at the height of the killings the Police had no problems conducting ID situations in the area, with named suspect, named witness, namf policemen, named location and revealed the outcome and all of the above, to the public.

Compared to the time when the alleged Seaside Home ID story took place, then the obvious is clear.

The Police would have no reason to keep the ID of ANY Jew or any witness secret or clandestine.
Infact, thìs prime example showr how the Police IN REALITY acted in ID situations.


What eloquent reasoning against this will be pulled out of the excuse box to make the alleged ID so special now? For THIS is proof of how it was done.

Next?

Kindly

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

The issue is one of context, though, Trev. Whereas in the Seventies investigators had recourse to fingerprinting and bloodtyping, the Victorian police had no such luxury. As a consequence witness testimonies and identifications assumed far greater importance in police investigations and subsequent criminal trials. So whilst the Seaside Home affair might appear odd by latter-day standards, it clearly wasn't an extraordinary occurrence for those engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt.

As for the rarity of the 'direct confrontation', I seem to recall that the Pizer-Violenia encounter was just such an event. Perhaps, then, it was more common than is generally recognized.

I agree there can be no direct comparisons between then and now but in alot of instances some of their actions they took then were by the book.

So lets look at this so called ID,

If you were JTR aka Kosminski and police turned up at your door and said would you mind coming with us to Brighton we think you are JTR and we have a witness who we think might be able to interview you would you say ok I will get my hat and coat or tell them to go and take a walk. Likewise if you lived with your brother would you not think your brother would not make some protestations about this.

As a volunteer they would not have been able to use force to take him and detain him long enough to take him to Brighton or anywhere else for that matter. If they had arrested him then we get back to files records etc and plenty of subsequent talk, after all as has been said there are many others who were arrested or put forward whose names and details are still in the files.

We still get back to evidence of suspicion I would say that if the police had enough suspicion to put him on an ID parade they had enough to formally arrest that would have solved all their problems. Alterantively if he did go voluntarily then after the positive ID why was he not then arrested and interviewed at length. After all they would not have had a conversation with the witness in front of him so he would not know that the witness wasnt going to give evidence. But he would have been aware that he had been identified.

Surely the easiest option to the police would to have brought the witness to the London they then could have kept the whole issue low key as some on here suggest they wanted to. That way only a select few would have known about it.
.
And then after all this in the knowlege they had this fearsome killer in their grasp they take him back home as if nothing had happened and leave him in a situation where he could easily be in a position to kill again.

It reallly didnt happen !

[Bridewell]

As said, the murder of the princes in the tower or the alleged murder of Edward II are crimes, but I don't think they could under any circumstances be classified as a police investigation. I don't see how Jack the Ripper is any different, although obviously an understanding of the Victorian police is a distinct advantage, though being or having been a policeman isn't necessarily an advantage in that respect. Needless to say, I agree with the rest of what you say, with the single caveat that whilst I agree wholeheartedly that the weight of probability favours the existence of documentation, the point I have been trying to make, as you are evidently aware, is not that documentation existed but that one can't say it didn't exist.

Hi Paul,

I pretty much agree with that.

Didn't Edward II die from having a red-hot poker shoved up his bottom though - which would be pretty difficult to write off as suicide or accidental death? (Or was that just the Christopher Marlowe version?).

Why do I get the feeling I've just walked into a trap in saying that?!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Scott Nelson]

In 25 years NONE of these things have been answered. Why? Because there is no evidence to disprove any of these points.... In 25 years, they have not. The facts stand up on their own and are seen to be correct. No evidence has been shown to the contrary on any of the above points.

Is 25 years a long enough wait before shuting the door?

[Garry Wroe]

Well, Monty, one only has to recall the outrageous interrogations to which alleged rape victims were subjected in the Seventies to see how policing methods change over time. Context is everything.

[Monty]

Ker-ching Garry,

Spot on.

The contemporary aspect has been missing.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

i have only ever come across one direct confrotation used in an ID issue and that was in the 1970`s, pre PACE it was used as a last resort at police stations, simply because the police knew it had virtually no evidential value on its own and it was though that the suspect might suddenly confess.

The issue is one of context, though, Trev. Whereas in the Seventies investigators had recourse to fingerprinting and bloodtyping, the Victorian police had no such luxury. As a consequence witness testimonies and identifications assumed far greater importance in police investigations and subsequent criminal trials. So whilst the Seaside Home affair might appear odd by latter-day standards, it clearly wasn't an extraordinary occurrence for those engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt.

As for the rarity of the 'direct confrontation', I seem to recall that the Pizer-Violenia encounter was just such an event. Perhaps, then, it was more common than is generally recognized.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Actually, I found some testimony from a scant handful who liked it. But to be successful, one had to be exceptionally nimble and quick.

Cheers.
LC

Jack be nimble Jack be quick Jack jump over the candle stick

Sorry about the worst pun this year permission to shoot me I'm going stir crazy....have been working on nursery rhymes all day..

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

sweating

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Actually, I found some testimony from a scant handful who liked it. But to be successful, one had to be exceptionally nimble and quick.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Hmm, I have a 1000+ page report on the sweating inquiry. I could have a go at that.

What alternate names did Crawford have? Sometimes the Lords used various names/titles.

Cheers.LC

I'm afraid I dont know Crawford used different names. The theory was first expanded by Rob House so you could see if he has any more information, certainly he would be familiar with the sweater report.

To my knowledge Sweating was a practice no one liked including those involved and was largely forced by department stores demanding larger profit margins

Yours Jeff