Seaside Home?

[Jonathan H]

To Phil

Yes, I think a very pertinent question. To which somebody with a greater knowledge of the Scotland Yard filing system than I (eg. nothing) needs to assist, like Stewart.

I would say this, historically-speaking, with greater certainty.

There is nothing in what other policemen said and wrote to suggest that they knew anything about Druitt, or had ever heard of him. Littlechild thinks 'Dr D' is a garbled version of 'Dr T', Anderson and Swanson make no comment at all -- Tumblety being their tar baby -- Reid thinks the drowned doctor is a rpess beat-up, as does Abberline who does not know that Druitt was not a medical student, that he was suspected by his family, that he was not the subject of a report actually sent to the Home Office, and that the current Assistant Commissioner (Macnaghten, 1903) does believe in the suicided man's guilt to the exclusion of all others.

The official version of the Report was an unknown, unread, unmentioned document until its non-identical twin surfaced in 1959, and then Odell went looking for more -- and located the filed version.

When Doug Browne came to finish the history of the Yard book in the 50's he seems completely ignorant that Macnaghten did not disagree with his successor about the Ripper taking his own life. He seems not to know of the Mac Report, filed version, suggesting to me at least that it was not an easily accessible document if you were not looking for it.

Either because at that stage it was filed in 1894 files, or it was with -- and perhaps always was with -- the Whitechapel murders bundle, but its date was so late that nobody bothered to read it because, by that time, the Mac paradigm of the 1888 'autumn of terror' had its hooks into the popular understanding of the case for police, press and public.

[Phil Carter]

Hello again Jason,

Phil,
Apologies, I was being flippant about the lightning attack of masturbation by Kosminski. I simply wished to downplay any physical danger to residents of the Seaside Home during an ID procedure. The physical dangers to women and children at the Seaside Home had been brought up earlier in the thread.

Your flippancy is accepted without a problem.

As to the downplaying of the danger of physical attack on any resident of the Seaside Home, I understand where you are coming from on this aspect. However, I suggest that it is more reasonable for us to assume that ANY person, under suspicion for being a murderer, and the trouble taken to have him carted off 60 miles to meet a "witness", would have been regarded as dangerous.
No person would presume that it was only women of the night he was a danger to. Therefore, that "suspect-murderer" would be restrained in some form. Handcuffs is a likely option. The police would want to ensure that the "suspect" didn't attack the "witness" at the very least, especially if he was being identified in a positive form for being something the "suspect" KNEW he was baing presented to the witness as..i.e. a murderer. This is sound logic, I believe. Therefore the same logic would be used in regard to any resident. The police would ensure they were not in danger, if there at the time of the identification.

I fully realise the seaside home story has a lot of holes in it. This doesnt make it untrue. It was likely written by a man with detailed knowledge of the case. For this reason it should'nt be easily dismissed as the Maybrick Diary. Simply because its not immediately obvious to us why an ID would occur in Brighton does not mean it didnt occur.

No, it doesn't make it untrue. But I suggest that the more holes you find in this story, the more unlikely is that the story is, in it's presented form, "true". The fact that the story is "likely written by a man who had detailed knowledge of the case" (your wording), actually makes it even more baffling for

1) Swanson's detail is in error, (that the suspect had died shortly after admittance to the asylum).

2) The comments are not dated, for whatever reason, and have never been officially verified from any other source as to having been pertaining to a "Kosminski".' (see below linking Anderson)

3) The comment from Sir Robert Anderson's son, Arthur Ponsonby Moore Anderson, who wrote in 1947, in "The Life of Sir Robert Anderson (Sir Robert and Lady Anderson) the following:

" The only person who had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence." is a very near direct transcript from the TLSOMOL written by his father in 1910. I quote:-

"..the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once unhesitatiingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him." This is to be considered in conjunction with Anderson/Swanson viewpoints, further below. (12)

4) There are fair reasons for suggesting that if any ID "had" it occured could well be that of Sadler, not Kosminski, this has been suggested by, amongst others, H.L.Adam. This again raises the question of whether Swanson is in err when recalling the specific details of the supposed Kosminski identification. (It has been shown that he already has done this in (1) )

5) The mention of a Seaside Home 60 miles away from London used for identification purposes is unusual. That two possible identifications may have occured, Kosminski and Sadler, I would find very unusual indeed. Both connected to the Whitechapel murder series?

6) The "Seaside Home" is not identified, and has, only after due consideration, been the one connected to the Met Police, even though it is possible for the "Seaside Home" in question to have been another. It therefore leaves the precise identification of said place open. Likelyhood of it being the Home connected with the Police, can be considered if this was a known practice, and the Home has been identified in other cases of being used for this purpose in a natural time period pertaining to this era.

7) The Seaside Home itself, if the one used by the Met Police, was, as I understand it, used for rest, recuperation and holiday for serving, ex-serving and retired policemen. The question is therefore what a non-policeman, the witness, would be doing there?
a) Is he (the witness) living in the area in retirement/ having moved from London and it is therefore convenient for an identification of said suspect (we are not told) or
aa) is incapacitated and cannot be moved from the area? (we are not told)
b) He too has also has been transported to the Seaside Home for purposes of identifying the "suspect" (which seems rather odd to me) (we are not told)
c) The witness is an ex-serving, or retired, or holidaying policeman, that also happens to be of the Jewish faith? (we are not told of his occupation, past nor present)

None of the points in 7a, 7aa, 7b or 7c are noted in the marginalia nor the endpaper in order to enable us to establish any factual content or verification of that part of the story.

8) It is reasonable to presume that the transportation of any witness under such circumstances would be under security, especially if the "suspect" was suspected of being the Whitechapel Murderer. Therefore, handcuffed. The witnessed would have been considered a danger to anyone, as it was not known that the "suspect" being transported only attacked females, at night, in London's East End or not. We have no mention of restraint, only that he was transported with difficulty. This suggests that the suspect didn't approve of being transported, or the practical problems transporting the suspect were great. It is not known exactly from the marginalia what this means exactly. Therefore the question od difficulty is open to interpretation, and not factually based.

9) Identifications were, as far as I am aware of at that time, "face to face". According to the marginalia, the witness identified him, and the suspect knew that he was identified. It must be taken as a truism therefore that the suspect would know for what crime he had been identified for having allegedly committed, if he hadn't already been told..see 9a, below
9a) Was the suspectalready aware of the reason to be transported 60 miles to be identified with a crime? Likely, I would suggest.

If either 9 or 9a are correct, then the following part of the story, that he was then transported back to his family and watched by the City Police, until they decide to send him away to an asylum, asks major questions as well. It assumes that the police would catch the man BNEFORE he committed a full, likewise crime, whilst in the act of attempting to commit a likewise crime.

10) Although identified as the murderer, and although for religious connections and moral grounds the witness refused to give evidence against the man, they let the man wander around Whitechapel and Spitalfields, the very area the crimes were committed, presumably, (because of Anderson's words relating to catching the man in the act,) in an effort to try to do exactly that, catch him at in the act? This is extremely risky given that the man has managed by minutes, in some cases (not, Eddowes) of avoiding policemen. If he is that elusive, then they are actually gambling on the chance that he would be caught BEFORE he slashes another woman's throat..which takes seconds. That's one heck of a risk. He only has to cross the road and walk up to a women, say hello, and slash her throat. The police would not have been able to react quick enough to stop it.

11) The comment in the margin, catches one's attention as well. "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London" Well.. The alleged identification was a few years after the main series of Whitechapel murders, but before other murders that were being attributed to the Whitechapel murderer, by Swanson himself. This makes Swanson's previous comments from around the time 1890-1896 seem to go against his own words after 1910. Thereby questioning the correctness of Swanson's comments at either time. Contradicting comments from the same man cannot both be correct.

12) The views of various other policemen do not corroberate the Swanson marginalia. By implication, Abberline, Godley and Littlechild reject it. Reid and Major Smith directly reject it. The only possible non-rejection in written form that would possibly corroberate it, is Anderson's book and Blackwood's comments. This weighs heavily against Swanson's comments being accepted by the policemen of the day. By 5 to 1 infact. The question therefore is who, if any, of the 5 men named above, would have been likely or had reason to not tell the "truthful" Swanson story, without naming Kosminski, and for what reason. If one of the 5 had reason, one would assume the reason good enough to cover all 5 men's comments on the matter. That would have to be a powerful reason, I'd suggest. If, however, Anderson, the one person that can be associated with corroberating the marginalia, could be shown to have, for whatever reason (as above, with the others), not told the truthful story of the alledged identification of the Whitechapel murderer, then Swanson's comments, made after Anderson's, from 1910, would be on very stony ground.

a)Simon Wood has shown proven documentary evidence to the fact that Sir Robert Anderson's version of his own departure from office was not truthful. (See thread that shows this evidence).

b)Anderson also himself, admits to the police engaging in "utterly unlawful things", which although probably innocuous by today's standards, must be taken into consideration when looking at Victorian values and not least, Anderson's own religious values and convictions.

c)If one takes into account, on balance, these same attitudes and asks the same questions of the 5 above, we have, at the moment, no reason to compare them with Anderson.
It is a fact that Anderson was the spymaster, who did things his way, to achieve a goal. The "traditions of his own department" comment appear to be a "I know but I'm not telling" attitude..which is not a good premisis for believing somebody's further comments when opening slightly on a subject in a book. One can easily be understood for assuming that Anderson was untrustyworthy in public commentary, especially as in his official capaciity, under "department" conditions, he is thoroughly rejected for his views on the Ripper.

13) Swanson's comments may just well be him writing additions on Anderson's story and views, and not his own. We do not know with certainty either way, I believe.

Above, are fair reason, after long consideration, in my honest and personal opinion, to question the value of the Swanson marginalia. It is of course up to all whether they have enough counter argument of their own to outweigh these observations, whether they be correct or not, or whether they mean so little as to believe in the marginalia enough to sway in favour their judgement upon said marginalia. I have no problem with that.

For my own part, until someone somewhere finds something else, so far unseen, that is tangible, official or otherwise, (of good provenance of course), my personal views, as I have now both expanded upon and explained, remain against the marginalia being of sufficient import to warrant any support in 2012 for the Kosminski theory, of which the marginalia is a bedrock. That is where my view comes in. Others are entitled to their own view.


best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Handcuffed?

Erm, why would we assume the suspect would have been handcuffed?

Is there evidence of arrest? Is there evidence suggesting he did not travel to an identity parade on his own suggestion, confident of his own innocence?

Im not stating he wasnt cuffed, Im stating theres a lot of assuming.

Monty

[PaulB]

Erm, why would we assume the suspect would have been handcuffed?

Is there evidence of arrest? Is there evidence suggesting he did not travel to an identity parade on his own suggestion, confident of his own innocence?

Im not stating he wasnt cuffed, Im stating theres a lot of assuming.

Monty

Hi Monty,
Wasn't the suspect sent rather than taken? If sent then whoever took him, maybe a member of his family, would they have handcuffed him?
Paul

[Monty]

Hi Monty,
Wasn't the suspect sent rather than taken? If sent then whoever took him, maybe a member of his family, would they have handcuffed him?
Paul

Hi Paul,

Well yes, there is that inference, as in fathers sending daughters/sons away.

I cannot recall if it was yourself, Martin, or another who suggested the suspect may have travelled by himself or with another non police person to the home. Ive come across such references in order books where suspects were asked to appear at court and even had their expenses and meals paid for.

Theres no reason to assume he was under escort, and the ID parade works equally as a positive ID parade and an elimination so the suspect may have thought it in his best interests to appear.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Erm, why would we assume the suspect would have been handcuffed?

Is there evidence of arrest? Is there evidence suggesting he did not travel to an identity parade on his own suggestion, confident of his own innocence?

Im not stating he wasnt cuffed, Im stating theres a lot of assuming.

Monty

Hello Monty,

ok, let us assume that he isnt cuffed, and that he did, as you suggest, travel of his own free will to The Seaside Home, for the reason you suggest.

1) This could indicate that the "suspect" being "sent by us" wasn't necessarily accompagnied on his trip. I refer to the line...

"sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification"

"with difficulty" has 2 prime connotations. Practical (administrative, logistical) or Physical.
If practical, then the logistical concern would be prioritise actual getting together both witness and suspect to be at the same place at the same time. Unless the witness was known to be at that place pre meeting, then any arrangement cannot be made with the 2nd part (suspect) unless the 2nd part is available on that date. Even then, it raises the question of administrative problems as we do not know if Kosminski would have the finances to pay for the trip and feed ìnself, and how this would be done by the Met Police to supply the funds for him.
The logistical problem would if the arrangennt was made tend to indicate manpower available to travel to The Seasside Home in order to carry out and witness the identification.
Therefore I would believe that the police and the suspect traveled at the same time, together.
So, the police have arranged Kosminski to travel with them to The Seaside Home. They are travelling with a suspect THEY consider to be worthy of positively ID' d as The Whitechapel Murderer- they must be pretty confident to go to such extraordinary lemgths to get the ID in the first place. Therefore, they dont want to risk losing Jack the Ripper having arranged such a meeting, the logical conclusion must therefore be that a dan who whey believe to be a murderer would have traveled accompagnied, not alone, and because of the nature of this potential ID as to whom the man was (jtr), and how dangerous he COULD be, that this is unlikely to be a voluntary and friendly trip to the Seaside Home- he would have been restrained BECAUSE he was suspected of being jtr.
This in turn would be logical with the other meaning of 'with difficulty'- that the man was physically difficult to transport. Therefore, I would suggest the use of cuffs- given the possible consequences of losing the 'suspect', considered so important,
sheer logic and reasonable common sense I'd say.

2)"in order to subject him to" does NOT sound voluntary. Thats good old jargon for making him do it.

3) There is no mention of Kosminski doing this traveling of his own accord. We can easily see that Swanson would have had no difficulty memtioning it if that were the case. There is no reason to assume he wouldnt have either.

4) The man was positively ID'd. In which case, witness refushng to testify or not, the return journey would have been damgerous with Jack the Ripper Next to the men with him. Cuffs? Logical.

The scemario after that is bordering on the ludicrous. After questioning him, he says nothing, witness refuses to say 'its him" in a court because of the man being a fellow Jew, thereby the Met ket Kosminski go and the WITNESS seemingly prefers to sit and watch Jack the Ripper wander off to possibly take more innocent lives and possibly continue the worst series of murders ever in modern history, on the BASIS OF RELIGIOUS BIAS- without fear nor favour for the value of the religious teachings of his own faith. Being a Jew, in the religious sense then, meant nothing to him. That is a reasonable asessment of the situation. No over the top, wild assumptions Monty. Fair interpretation based on common sense, logic and 1888 common all garden police procedure.

So thanks for the reply. I still await new evidence as said in my previous post, to back up the marginalia's contents. Until then, my view is as it is. By weight of all the above and more besides.

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

Well yes, there is that inference, as in fathers sending daughters/sons away.

I cannot recall if it was yourself, Martin, or another who suggested the suspect may have travelled by himself or with another non police person to the home. Ive come across such references in order books where suspects were asked to appear at court and even had their expenses and meals paid for.

Theres no reason to assume he was under escort, and the ID parade works equally as a positive ID parade and an elimination so the suspect may have thought it in his best interests to appear.

Monty

"...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification..."

The 'difficulty' makes it sound as if the police didn't encounter full and willing cooperation, although it may not mean that at all, but could simply mean that they had to overcome obstacles placed in their way by petty bureaucracy or something.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,
Swanson makes no reference to family help. There is no reason to assume it based soley on comparison. As we have no written indication of it, we have no reason to assume family help. Just like your 'cuffs' question. The difference being that Jack the Ripper suspect is considered the biggest catch of them all. They wouldnt risk him bolting off. Because to go to such lengths, thex would have had to be more tham pretty confident of a positive ID.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Monty,
Swanson makes no reference to family help. There is no reason to assume it based soley on comparison. As we have no written indication of it, we have no reason to assume family help. Just like your 'cuffs' question. The difference being that Jack the Ripper suspect is considered the biggest catch of them all. They wouldnt risk him bolting off. Because to go to such lengths, thex would have had to be more tham pretty confident of a positive ID.

Phil

Question: Why did Anderson take the trouble to keep a letter of introduction from Lord Canarvan if it wasnt of any interest or significance to him?

You have consistantly avoided the possibility that disagreement may have taken place within the Kosminski family on how to handle their deterioating brother.

Incidently the nature of schizophrenia is that attacks happen in waves. So his condition might vary considerably over periods of time.

He could have been more or less sane whilst at the Seaside home. At least not in savere stages of 'psychosis'.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

quickies

Hello Neil. Two quick questions.

"There's no reason to assume he was under escort, and the ID parade works equally as a positive ID parade and an elimination so the suspect may have thought it in his best interests to appear."

1. I wonder what the "With difficulty" phrase in the "Marginalia"comes to on this scenario?

2. I suppose that he was not detained? For if he were, and he were sent without escort, would escape not possibly be indicated?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

duplication

Hello Phil. Oops, I had not seen your post. You make some of the same points I made.

So sorry.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

I dont think ID Parade would be correct. This was a confrontation between the witness and the suspect. I'm not certain of the legal implications but that is how I understand the ID.

Also if the police were helped by a member of the family (which might have been split) it would explain all the pionts you make
YOurs Jeff

[Monty]

Hello Phil,

Firstly, Im not suggesting. Im merely pointing out the alternative.

What Im about to post is semantics, however….

1) The logistical concern possibly goes beyond the mere task of getting the two persons in a room together at one particular moment in time. There may be legalities, legal representatives, all sorts of matters which could have hinted at a ‘difficulty’.

Yes, we do know how the Met (or City, again we mustn’t assume) would fund Kosminskis (if indeed it was him) expenses. There was a set allowance permitted (the figure illudes me right now as I do not have my research to hand) which the suspect could have claimed back (providing he provided a receipt) or was given to him prior.

There is nothing to confirm if the suspect was escorted or not, therefore I cannot state if your belief is correct or not. The evidence does not draw conclusion.

2) No, ‘in order’ could also mean in preparation.

3) As he (Swanson) would also have no difficulty in stating he was in escorted. This, again, is not evidence to support your belief.

4) This would have been post ID, not prior, however yes. The fact that the witness refused to give testimony is irrelevant if the ID was official. He (or she) would have had no choice but to give evidence should a trial occur. However a trial did NOT occur. For what reason we do not know, suspect was of unsound mind or the evidence not as damming as the prosecutors would like are just two reasons off the top of my head, so therefore no grounds to charge, ergo suspect is free to leave.

Your reasoning, in my opinion, is a tad under informed, it lacks an understanding of procedure and relies a lot on personal belief. You are entitled to it of course, as is anyone, but there are flaws and assumption.


There seems to be an acceptance of Anderson and no thought of his ‘puffing up’ the event. Swansons notes do not resolve this possibility and therefore we assume what we read is correct, but that’s by the by, a situation which will remain.


Regards
Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

Firstly, Im not suggesting. Im merely pointing out the alternative.

What Im about to post is semantics, however….

1) The logistical concern possibly goes beyond the mere task of getting the two persons in a room together at one particular moment in time. There may be legalities, legal representatives, all sorts of matters which could have hinted at a ‘difficulty’.

Yes, we do know how the Met (or City, again we mustn’t assume) would fund Kosminskis (if indeed it was him) expenses. There was a set allowance permitted (the figure illudes me right now as I do not have my research to hand) which the suspect could have claimed back (providing he provided a receipt) or was given to him prior.

There is nothing to confirm if the suspect was escorted or not, therefore I cannot state if your belief is correct or not. The evidence does not draw conclusion.

2) No, ‘in order’ could also mean in preparation.

3) As he (Swanson) would also have no difficulty in stating he was in escorted. This, again, is not evidence to support your belief.

4) This would have been post ID, not prior, however yes. The fact that the witness refused to give testimony is irrelevant if the ID was official. He (or she) would have had no choice but to give evidence should a trial occur. However a trial did NOT occur. For what reason we do not know, suspect was of unsound mind or the evidence not as damming as the prosecutors would like are just two reasons off the top of my head, so therefore no grounds to charge, ergo suspect is free to leave.

Your reasoning, in my opinion, is a tad under informed, it lacks an understanding of procedure and relies a lot on personal belief. You are entitled to it of course, as is anyone, but there are flaws and assumption.


There seems to be an acceptance of Anderson and no thought of his ‘puffing up’ the event. Swansons notes do not resolve this possibility and therefore we assume what we read is correct, but that’s by the by, a situation which will remain.


Regards
Monty

Hello Monty,

Well, a fair response, if indeed a 'tad' semantic.
Only one point. Or re-reading my post, the wording surrouding the 'after' situation was poor- and led to your comment. What I meant to write was this-

the scenario back would have set alarm bells ringing. WITHOUT a trial, Jack the Ripper is at large, in the eyes of the authorities(police). My personal take on the action of the witness is not included- it is based on normal relgious belief of a religious man. If his faith guided him NOT to give up one of his own belief- his duty to his belief in another fellow Jew has outweighed his faith in his religious teaching.
Had he recognised the man as a friend- more psychological weight would influence him. Had the man been recognised as a family member- even more so. But as a stranger? Then the weight of being responsible for letting such a world famous murderer roam free once again to POSSIBLY hack to pieces ANOTHER human being, especially if the witness was a God Fearing family man (we do not know but he puts Jewishness high on his list of priorities), would indicate a moral AND a religious dilema. Not just a moral one. This reaction is logical. It is not a personal interpretation- but one based on known human ethics.

So having considered the matter and its entireties, for me, the Swanson marginalia asks more questions than clarity shown.
Too little info, failure of correct detail, and too many leaps of faith to be relied upon with anything like certainty, and at best expecting belief in the uncorroberated.
I gave 13 reasons. I stick by those and one or two more besides, including the previous commentrs 1890-1910 of other senior policemen( Swanson and Anderson included) which far and away outweigh this one, unofficial statement,

kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

4) This would have been post ID, not prior, however yes. The fact that the witness refused to give testimony is irrelevant if the ID was official. He (or she) would have had no choice but to give evidence should a trial occur. However a trial did NOT occur. For what reason we do not know, suspect was of unsound mind or the evidence not as damming as the prosecutors would like are just two reasons off the top of my head, so therefore no grounds to charge, ergo suspect is free to leave.

Your reasoning, in my opinion, is a tad under informed, it lacks an understanding of procedure and relies a lot on personal belief. You are entitled to it of course, as is anyone, but there are flaws and assumption.

Monty
You write that the witness "refused to give testimony", and whilst that is certainly an interpretation which could be reached, what Anderson actually said was "declined to swear to him", in the volume edition "he refused to give evidence against him", and in The Globe wrote, "refused to proceed with his identification." Whilst one can infer from these statements that the witness "refused to give testimony", it could also mean that he refused to give evidence against the suspect rather than refusing to testify.

The importance of the distinction, is that whilst the witness could be forced to testify, he could not be forced to express certainty that the suspect was the man he saw. The police could therefore have charged the suspect and subpoened the witness, but to get his to confirm that the suspect was the man he'd seen may have required persuasion, causing them to hold off pressing charges.

And, of course, the witness may have felt he had legitimate reasons for his uncertainty. "Mentor" of the Jewish Chronicle, whilst castigating Anderson, acknowledged that he would have himself have doubted himself had he been the witness, and, indeed, that he considered it right and natural to do so: "What more natural than the man's hesitancy to identify another as Jack the Ripper so soon as he knew he was a Jew? What more natural than for that fact at once to cause doubts in his mind? The crimes identified with "Jack the Ripper" were of a nature that it would be difficult for any Jew - "low-class" or any class - to imagine the work of a Jew. Their callous brutality was foreign to Jewish nature, which, when it turns criminal, goes into quite a different channel. I confess that however sure I might have been of the identity of a person, when I was told he had been committing "Jack the Ripper" crimes, and was a Jew, I should hesitate about the certainty of my identification...". "Mentor" thus provides a legitimate and easily understandable reason why a Jew might doubt even their own certainty in the identification on discovereing that the suspect was a Jew, and it highlights the flaws you speak of.