Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul..Unfortunately I'm stuck here writing treatments, then have some costumes to deliver to London...hopefully sunshine tomorrow

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Ladies and gentlemen. I give you, a reply. This reply is to be noted in conjunction with Admins request that thread posting stick to the topic. (Which I did throughout ny posting). You decide on whether the discussion is relevant or not..


1)

Perhaps no one can be bothered to reply because Denialist Ripperology is fundermentally flawed in its thinking..

This coment has nothing to do with proving the existance of the Seaside Home identification. Deflection away from topic

2)

While the evidence against Aaron Kosminski is indeed limited, compared with any other suspect you might mention it is a giant mountain of information supported by the two leading police officers investigating the case..

Err.. NO POLICEMEN.... AARON Kosminski is NOT mentioned. Fact.

3)

As far as I remember Trevor Marriott has still been unable to prove his suspect (Who would have headed back to teh docks not East) was even in London at the time of any of the murders...so on that simple fact alone Aaron is a million times better suspect..

This has nothing to do with the facts of the alleged Seaside Home Identification. which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic



4)

However as we all know Phil when pushed on your own beliefs you refuse to answer the question and mumble on about conspiracies..then you try to argue that the murders were all committed by different people even when all the statistical evidence points to a lone serial killer.

This has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the identification of the Seaside Home which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic

5) Then you humbly rub your hands together and say its not fair the nasty man shouted at me...

Personal comment and unwarranted. Deflection away from topic.

6)

Denialist Ripperology doesn't stand for anything and when you scratch its surface its followers all have bizarre self interested theories at the bottom

This has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the identification of the Seaside Home which is what the thread is about. Deflection away from topic.



Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your balanced thoughts on the matter. I presented facts, the reply from an "expert" Kosminskiite, is above.

Next?



kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Jeff, it's a nice day, there are better and more fruitful things to do, and there is no logic or reasoned argument that is going to make any impact. I have been saying over and over that it is not being said that there may have been files so it can't be said that there weren't, and what does Phil Carter say the argument is based on? He says the answer to his questions is primarily based on "there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't". That just about says it all!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Trevor,

And as you can see, sadly the only answers (not even to the points made, I note) are of personal commentary and muck throwing instead.

I repeat the following.. which are the crux of the matter:-



The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't
2) we dont know any of the events in the marginalia didn't happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.


--------------------------------
In 25 years NONE of these things have been answered. Why? Because there is no evidence to disprove any of these points. Supposition, possibility, association, reason by default, reason by misplaced jigsaw piece placement and lastly, the two classic counter arguments of "because the files are incomplete you can't PROVE there wasnt a file on Kosminski", complete with "because we can't prove any of the above in the marginalia doesnt mean it didnt happen"!!!!!

Yes, let the public decide upon those FACTS shall we?

And in the meantime, those facts will NOT go away unless they are shown to be false. 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.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Aaron Kosminki's name should have been left to rest in peace a long time ago. 25 years later, people STILL won't let his name rest in peace.

And even THAT statement is deemed as unworthy, in some quarters.

I wonder why anyone on this world wide forum would be worried if their theory was in any way threatened by nay sayers actually speaking up with the facts to counter their theory? I have no idea. However, if you do...

Answers on a postcard please to :-

The Bloomin' Obvious Ltd,
Promotions Department.
123-125 Anniversary Road
London.


kindly Phil

Perhaps no one can be bothered to reply because Denialist Ripperology is fundermentally flawed in its thinking..

While the evidence against Aaron Kosminski is indeed limited, compared with any other suspect you might mention it is a giant mountain of information supported by the two leading police officers investigating the case..

As far as I remember Trevor Marriott has still been unable to prove his suspect (Who would have headed back to teh docks not East) was even in London at the time of any of the murders...so on that simple fact alone Aaron is a million times better suspect..

However as we all know Phil when pushed on your own beliefs you refuse to answer the question and mumble on about conspiracies..then you try to argue that the murders were all committed by different people even when all the statistical evidence points to a lone serial killer.

Then you humbly rub your hands together and say its not fair the nasty man shouted at me...

Denialist Ripperology doesn't stand for anything and when you scratch its surface its followers all have bizarre self interested theories at the bottom to peddle.

You promised us that the Special Branch ledgers would finally put everything to rest and discount Kosminski as a suspect and when that didnt happen you decised to make up this bizarre argument that because they dont mention him it proves something? A bit like 0 + 0 = 1...........When all it proves is that the MET not Special Branch investigated the White Chapel Murders..

Yours Jeff

PS anyone want to make a bet when Trevor the 'abskonder' will reappear

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jonathan.

"Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered."

Makes sense to me. But other explanations are available.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Hi Paul & Trevor,

As these are unsolved murders from 120+ years ago, I think they can be legitimately described as both police investigations and history.

We can argue forever about what was, or wasn't, in the original police files. The conclusions we can't draw are:
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there but it must have been at one time"
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there, therefore it never was".

We can, I think, only argue that evidence to prove a particular issue may once have existed. The level of probability can be debated, but I think the possibility is beyond dispute.

The police are very poor at preserving their own history and have, in my experience, been astonishingly cavalier in their approach to the retention of old documents.

Regards, 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.

[lynn cates]

subjunctive

Hello David. Why the subjunctive?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Phil
You are right I am right others are right but Pinky and Perky cant seem to grasp it i think the time is right to just leave them alone to their own devices or vices !

Hello Trevor,

And as you can see, sadly the only answers (not even to the points made, I note) are of personal commentary and muck throwing instead.

I repeat the following.. which are the crux of the matter:-

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

A) NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
B) NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
C) NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
D) NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
E) NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
F) NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
G) NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

H) Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
I) A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
J) A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
K) NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there weren't
2) we dont know any of the events in the marginalia didn't happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.


--------------------------------


In 25 years NONE of these things have been answered. Why? Because there is no evidence to disprove any of these points. Supposition, possibility, association, reason by default, reason by misplaced jigsaw piece placement and lastly, the two classic counter arguments of "because the files are incomplete you can't PROVE there wasnt a file on Kosminski", complete with "because we can't prove any of the above in the marginalia doesnt mean it didnt happen"!!!!!

Yes, let the public decide upon those FACTS shall we?

And in the meantime, those facts will NOT go away unless they are shown to be false. 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.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Aaron Kosminki's name should have been left to rest in peace a long time ago. 25 years later, people STILL won't let his name rest in peace.

And even THAT statement is deemed as unworthy, in some quarters.

I wonder why anyone on this world wide forum would be worried if their theory was in any way threatened by nay sayers actually speaking up with the facts to counter their theory? I have no idea. However, if you do...

Answers on a postcard please to :-

The Bloomin' Obvious Ltd,
Promotions Department.
123-125 Anniversary Road
London.


kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

informal

Hello Trevor, Harry, Neil. Although I do not fully comprehend police business, is there a possibility of an informal identification? Something like a "feeler"?

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

From Anderson's memoirs, which Swanson had added his annotations:

'However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.* The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date ...

... Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper " scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.

Swanson Marginalia, 1910--:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"[5]


Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson
by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947:

' ... The only person who ever 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. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.


What makes me feel that the limitation of these sources outweigh their values is that none of them acknowledge that the Polish Jew suspect -- if Aaron Kosminski -- was not sectioned until years after the Kelly murder.

Worse, none of them seem to remember that the investigation went on for years and that the agaitation over Sadler and Coles was profound, and covered in the scathing media (see: Sims).

If we had no other primary sources -- let alone the real data about Aaron Kosminski -- we would never be hunting for the events of a suspect 'safely caged' after 'mere weeks' on the loose, and 'confronted' with a witness as late as 1891?!

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period.

I can see why.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

Yes, Jonathan, thanks for all that, but you appear to be confusing whether Kosminski was ever suspected with him being Jack the Ripper, and whether Anderson and Swanson are a better source than Macnaghten. As far as the latter is concerned, I think they are, for the reasons already given, but I don't see them as being in competition with Macnaghten. You obviously do, thus a debate about whether or not the marginalia is genuine and, if it is, what we can deduce from it, has to contend with you arguing the supremacy of Macnaghten and your theories based thereon. The only direct relevance Macnaghten has is that he tells us that many circs made "Kosminski" a good suspect. "Kosminski" was therefore a suspect. Whether or not Druitt was a better is neither here nor there, except in the final analysis.

[Jeff Leahy]

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period. I can see why..

Martin didnt find Aaron until his book was completed. It was pretty much a last minute search and discovered by luck. Martin out lines some of his thinking in the latest Podcast, it would be great to get that reasoning in more detail. But my understanding is that he rejected Aaron because he appears to harmless. And while I agree he was harmless my argument has always been the opposite....thats exactly what a Psychotic Serial killer would look like.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

True. But the fact is that we just dont know. And probably never will. However that is a better place to be than heading towards Denialist Ripperology. We dont know how the Universe was created we dont deny it exists. Not that I would put you in that catigory Jonathon, but I have problems with this whole miss remembered argument..

If I desribe events ten years ago I make mistakes on detail dates times etc However the broad thrust of my memory is pretty good as I beleive Swanson and Anderson's were.

Beside there are theories and arguments that would allow for everything Swanson says including the March 1889 event. I'm not suggesting that Kosminski is lazerous but its possible that Anderson was miss informed by the asylum.

So my advice is keep it simple and stick to what is known or corroborated.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

Again yes its a possibility. But its also possible he thought about writing a book and made notes 'thats why I write in margins anyway..

Yours Jeff

[Bridewell]

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do you say happened to them ?

Hi Paul & Trevor,

As these are unsolved murders from 120+ years ago, I think they can be legitimately described as both police investigations and history.

We can argue forever about what was, or wasn't, in the original police files. The conclusions we can't draw are:
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there but it must have been at one time"
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there, therefore it never was".

We can, I think, only argue that evidence to prove a particular issue may once have existed. The level of probability can be debated, but I think the possibility is beyond dispute.

The police are very poor at preserving their own history and have, in my experience, been astonishingly cavalier in their approach to the retention of old documents.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

Sadly, Trevor, you either can't or won't understand what is being said to you. I don't mind if you disagree with it, if you can state why, but you can't, and I really can't be bothered to argue with somebody who willfully refuses to understand plain English.

(1) I am not wrong because I haven't asked you to prove anything and I haven't said a file on Kosminski did exist. I have told you that there is inadequate source material on which to base any conclusion about what was or wasn't in the files.

(2) As even you acknowledge, an investigation generates paperwork and if Kosminski was the subject of a police investigation (which even Macnaghten indicates he was) then there would have been paperwork, so there would have been documentation. That's a reasonable inference on the basis of known and provable evidence.

(3) I don't have a theory.

(4) I am not using a file I don't know existed to bolster anything. You, however, are using your belief that there wasn't a file to bolster your argument.

(5) Your conclusion that there never was a suspect file - which is a lose term for file or files or otherwise paperwork relating to suspects - is based on nothing. There is evidence, however, that such documentation existed and we even posses transcripts of some of it.

(6) Occurrence files, CID crime registers, the lavatory walls, whatever, don't mention other known suspects either.

(7) The incident involving a knife is not known to have been reported to the police at any time. It was one of the things told to a doctor by Kosminski's family and on which certification appears in small part to have been based.

(8) No he didn't win a raffle.

(9) You can mock my Shakespeare example, but it's noticeable that you don't even attempt to answer the point it makes.

(10) By shouting the same thing over and over and louder and louder, and paying no heed to the very real objections to what you are saying, doesn't do a damn thing, but that's patently obvious to everybody and you are just wasting our time. The fact is that truth is truth. To the end of reckoning.

[Jonathan H]

From Anderson's memoirs, which Swanson had added his annotations:

'However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.* The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date ...

... Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper " scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.

Swanson Marginalia, 1910--:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"[5]


Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson
by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947:

' ... The only person who ever 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. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.


What makes me feel that the limitation of these sources outweigh their values is that none of them acknowledge that the Polish Jew suspect -- if Aaron Kosminski -- was not sectioned until years after the Kelly murder.

Worse, none of them seem to remember that the investigation went on for years and that the agaitation over Sadler and Coles was profound, and covered in the scathing media (see: Sims).

If we had no other primary sources -- let alone the real data about Aaron Kosminski -- we would never be hunting for the events of a suspect 'safely caged' after 'mere weeks' on the loose, and 'confronted' with a witness as late as 1891?!

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period.

I can see why.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

[Jeff Leahy]

Phil
You are right I am right others are right but Pinky and Perky cant seem to grasp it i think the time is right to just leave them alone to their own devices or vices !

'Fleaing' without answering any of the questions?

Oh no Trevor please come back we cant carry on without you

Perhaps we should run a competition. How many times has Trevor Marriott claimed he was leaving the argument never to return?

So what is it Trevor revisionist or denial History? Or perhaps an old fashioned 'Life on Mars' stitch-up?

Yours Jeff