Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

No need to be sorry just be happy that you are involved in changing the face of ripperology

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

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.

Now we have PACE to control how ID parades are conducted. because ID issues in this day and age are looked at carefully. The Crown Prosecution Service will now order an ID parade to be conducted just for recognition purposes. For example witness sees crime being carried out, Witness knows the offender by name and has done so for the past 10 years. An ID parade will be conducted in order that the witness can positivley say that the man he picks out in the ID parade is the man he knows as X and has known him for 10 years.

The old style line ups are now almost obsolete under PACE. Its all done as a rule by video where a the prisoner has a 30 second video clip made. He then selects from a database at least 8 other voulnteers who look like him his video clip is then mixed up with the others. The Witnesses then goes to a room and are shown the clip of each person including the suspect and they are asked to make a positive identification. The defence would argue that if a witness stated "I think its number 6" then that might not be construed as a positive ID

Over the past 10 years I have attended police stations all over the country to assist and advise prisoners on ID issues. I have to say that most police forces are generally only to pleased to see fair play being carried out by allowing the prisoner to select his own volunteers from the database.

The Metropolitan Police I would say are the worst as when you attend one of their ID suites with a view to putting togther a parade you are confronted with a selection of volunteers who have been pre selected some of which for varying reasons are not acceptable. despite making represenations they fall on deaf ears. Of course this only makes matters more worse at a later stage if the suspect does get identified and goes to trial then the defence wil argue that it was not a fair parade and try to get it not admitted as evidence quoting my representations.

The other side of the coin is that the CPS will not normally charge anyone on the evidence of Identification when Identification is the only evidence. Corroboration wil be looked for. This sometimes can be in the form of several witnesses who make a positive identification

There is no need to use direct confrontation nowadays if a prisoner refuses to paratke in an ID procedure then the police have the option of still carrying out a street identification if that is feasable or they can put together a covert video parade. This is quiet simple they would simply use a photograph of the prisoner from files and select their own 8 volunteers and put it together that way and show it to the witnesses. Obvioulsy the defence at a later stage would be made aware of this and would be entitled to have a copy but would be entitled to know when it was beinfg shown to the witnesses and be given the opportunity of having a legal advise present when it is shown to the witmesses, although when this happen with regards to consentual parades when a legal adviser is not present then the whole proceedure would be videoed with sound.

[Trevor Marriott]

That seems highly improbable to me.



No, that isn't an answer to my question at all. That nobody ever blabbed about it is one thing, that there is no corroboration in the case papers is another, and you have been shouting loudly and often about people claiming that corroboration could have been in the missing files. You have ridiculed this suggestion and those who make it, and you have done so in no uncertain terms, but I have pointed out that the files have been severely culled, that they don't mention any suspects (even ones where we have every reason to suppose papers existed), and that it is therefore impossible to draw a conclusion based on what they don't contain. You have been asked to answer that very specific question. Please do so.


Fine. That fact has been widely recognised and the response is that Swanson probably wouldn't have come across it either, so he was either part of it and knew it happened, or he was told about it and corroborated it for himself. Or he swallowed without question or qualm something he'd been told,even though it fell utterly outside his experience, and, furthermore, wrote about it without expressing even a momentary doubt, in notes intended for himself. Or he'd never heard of it because the marginalia is a fake, which is what you claim but has, as yet, no substantiation whatsoever.



Fine. Again it's a long recognised point. Do you think these questions haven't been asked a million times - by everyone! Do you think you are awfully clever for asking them? Do you imagine I am unaware of them? Well, apparently you do! Extraordinary. They've been answered else. Try reading. But basically, the marginalia is authentic, at least until you produce you evidence and it's peer reviewed and accepted, and therefore the story it tells is what Swanson believed. Your job is to explain that.



I don't find this comprehensible. You'll have to write it more clearly.



No they are not. There are some papers referring to Pizer and Issenschmidt, and a passing reference to the three medical students, but that's about it. There's nothing about anyone else, not even Tumblety, who was a suspect at the time and according to Littlechild a very likely one. He barely got his name in the British newspapers (which is an example of how there could be a major suspect without anyone blabbing about it; not all secrets get broken, it would seem). Furthermore, we know there was a suspects file of sorts because Stephen Knight saw it and transcribed some of it.



And after briefly heaving yourself from the gutter to ask some old and obvious but not altogether unreasonable questions, but not to answer any of the questions put to you, you quickly sink back into the mire and resort to insults and rudeness. Pillock. And, noticeably, you have still failed to give examples of Martin back-peddling, or explained what theories I have or Monty has, or how and why Phil Hutchinson is a hypocrite. And a critical opinion of The Definitive Story from somebody whose own stage show was pretty unprofessional and inaccurate, hardly counts, though, as said, you are a confident and personable performer. Pity it's a performance. As ever, I await without expectation of receiving answers to those questions.

I dont have to do anything you tell me to I have answered twice already on here on the Fido issue I am not going to keep repeating myself if you are so blinkererd and obsessed with you crazy notions that you are not reading the posts thoroughly.

I have made valid posts but for the life of me I fail t see why you cannot comprehend.

You keep doing excatly what I stated yesterday quoting "Probabaly,maybe, coud have" etc etc keep to the what is known dont make the answers up as you go along with those words.

What was said to Phillip Hutchinson is between me and him and no concern of you.

I think you are now like Leahy resorting to desparate measures to prop up your theories you cant win by fair means so let discredit the man by highlighting things he has said about people hmmmmmmmmmmmmm cheap shot.

You are also mistaken there are many others suspect names in the files besides them. with evidence atcahed to them to show why they were looked upon as a suspect which is more than can be said for Kosminski. Not a titter anywhere in anyhting if that doesnt say something to you then you are even more blinkered than I thought.

Without the margainalia you are Leahy are dead in the water hence the desparate attempt you are making to pour water on the results of my examination.

One thing I wil say in relation to my examination is that I used as a significant control handwriting sample of swanson from 1894. Handwriting that was six years older than the sample Dr Davies had to work with originally. If I am correct Dr Davies raised an issue with his control sample and the marginalia stating that between 1888-whenever it was swanson wrote the annotations his handwriting had detoriated. Well a sample 8 years older than the original is a much better sample for comparison purpose would you not agree. Ties it down even more

[Jeff Leahy]

Further to my last post on the whole Kosminski thing:

There's also (1891 census again):

Phillip Koshminski, aged 33, Boot & Shoe Maker, born in Poland & residing on Gun Street* with his wife and four children. Has he ever been looked at? If not, I'll do a bit of digging. Who knows, he may even have had a leather apron! (Cue maniacal laughter at the futility of it all!).

Regards, Bridewell.

*Gun Street bisects Brushfield Street & runs almost exactly North - South.

Hi Bridewell

If you go to Suspects-kosminski there are quite a few threads that might be useful on Kosminski's. Remember the family used Abraham and moved shortly after Aaron went into the asylum.

Chris Scots book Ripper in Ramsgate picks up the family history

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

I compiled a complete list of Kosminski's and variants from the registers back in 1988/9 - it took a long time without the likes of Ancestry! Martin, for example, was a furrier who went bankrupt. But we are given other information which points to the identification: he was committed to an asylum, for example, and not only did Martin's search of the asylum records fail to throw up any other "K-something-ski", the search of the death registers didn't throw up anyone except Aaron who had died in an asylum. That doesn't mean there isn't another Kosminski "out there", and, indeed, it would be great if there was and he resolved a number of the problems presented by Aaron, but there doesn't appear to be.

[Bridewell]

Further to my last post on the whole Kosminski thing:

There's also (1891 census again):

Phillip Koshminski, aged 33, Boot & Shoe Maker, born in Poland & residing on Gun Street* with his wife and four children. Has he ever been looked at? If not, I'll do a bit of digging. Who knows, he may even have had a leather apron! (Cue maniacal laughter at the futility of it all!).

Regards, Bridewell.

*Gun Street bisects Brushfield Street & runs almost exactly North - South.

[PaulB]

Nothing I ever say is meaningless I can assure you and especially on the topic of the ID parade, the marginlia, and Kosminski I think others dont agree with you.

That seems highly improbable to me.

As to your question in realtion to proving my view I have already stated what i belive to be some proof that nothing was ever in writing anywhere on this ID parade by reason of the silence from all quarters over the ensuing years that speaks volumes. As has been said something of this magnitude would not just have dissappeared into thin air

No, that isn't an answer to my question at all. That nobody ever blabbed about it is one thing, that there is no corroboration in the case papers is another, and you have been shouting loudly and often about people claiming that corroboration could have been in the missing files. You have ridiculed this suggestion and those who make it, and you have done so in no uncertain terms, but I have pointed out that the files have been severely culled, that they don't mention any suspects (even ones where we have every reason to suppose papers existed), and that it is therefore impossible to draw a conclusion based on what they don't contain. You have been asked to answer that very specific question. Please do so.

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

Fine. That fact has been widely recognised and the response is that Swanson probably wouldn't have come across it either, so he was either part of it and knew it happened, or he was told about it and corroborated it for himself. Or he swallowed without question or qualm something he'd been told,even though it fell utterly outside his experience, and, furthermore, wrote about it without expressing even a momentary doubt, in notes intended for himself. Or he'd never heard of it because the marginalia is a fake, which is what you claim but has, as yet, no substantiation whatsoever.

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless even if they had a witness who saw a suspect leaning over the body with a knife in his hand, and we know now as they did then that no witness ever came into that category. So I have to ask what would be the point in them going to all that time and trouble to go 50 miles with suspect. The police at no time ever disclosed that they had a prime witness.

Fine. Again it's a long recognised point. Do you think these questions haven't been asked a million times - by everyone! Do you think you are awfully clever for asking them? Do you imagine I am unaware of them? Well, apparently you do! Extraordinary. They've been answered else. Try reading. But basically, the marginalia is authentic, at least until you produce you evidence and it's peer reviewed and accepted, and therefore the story it tells is what Swanson believed. Your job is to explain that.

I have another question to ask. what was the witness being asked to make an identification on thats something if it happened you would have expected Anderson to comment on, and not just a general statement that the ripper was identified because up until then there had been a number of murders which even the police had doubts about them being committed by the same hand.

I don't find this comprehensible. You'll have to write it more clearly.

If there was ever a specific suspect file how come all the remaining details of suspects that remain and came to notice were not in that file would you not think it logical for them all to be listed and kept together because from a practical viewpoing i ceratinly would yet they are not as I said yesterday the remainder are scattered about in various files relating to all and sundry.

No they are not. There are some papers referring to Pizer and Issenschmidt, and a passing reference to the three medical students, but that's about it. There's nothing about anyone else, not even Tumblety, who was a suspect at the time and according to Littlechild a very likely one. He barely got his name in the British newspapers (which is an example of how there could be a major suspect without anyone blabbing about it; not all secrets get broken, it would seem). Furthermore, we know there was a suspects file of sorts because Stephen Knight saw it and transcribed some of it.

Take a look at the SB regsiters where the new names are recorded they are separatley indexed now would you not have thought they would have all been under one suspect file.

I think you should go and sit quietly in a dark room and really give all of this some proper thought because you obviously cannot see the wood from the trees.

I have to leave this post now as my grandson need his alphabet box back. I have to go deal with Mr Leahy again who is obviously suffering mentallly from not being nominated for an oscar for his last film which should have been titled "Amateur Night at Dixie" to which you are obviously upset about not being nominated for best supporting actor where you played the part of Catherine Eddowes bras.

And after briefly heaving yourself from the gutter to ask some old and obvious but not altogether unreasonable questions, but not to answer any of the questions put to you, you quickly sink back into the mire and resort to insults and rudeness. Pillock. And, noticeably, you have still failed to give examples of Martin back-peddling, or explained what theories I have or Monty has, or how and why Phil Hutchinson is a hypocrite. And a critical opinion of The Definitive Story from somebody whose own stage show was pretty unprofessional and inaccurate, hardly counts, though, as said, you are a confident and personable performer. Pity it's a performance. As ever, I await without expectation of receiving answers to those questions.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

"Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun."

Okay, but why? If it was DSS, why make marginal notes of this kind when the probability is that no-one will ever see them? If not DSS, it would be necessary to find someone, with access to his copy of Anderson's memory (so probably a relative) who was prepared to damage his distinguished reputation "just for jolly".

Isn't the need for "caveats, possibilities and presumptions", something which makes the marginalia more, not less, likely to be genuine? If you were going to invent a story, surely you'd come up with something more plausible than an ID at "the Seaside Home", City CID watching the brother's home in Whitechapel etc?

The marginalia are of little value in identifying JtR because they allude to a confrontation, the weakest of all identification (see earlier posts). At best it suggests a suspect who may have been considered at the time, but what of it? It's quite possible to be suspected and yet completely innocent.



Like you, I'm not sure that the marginalia makes a great deal of sense. Where I differ is in believing that the marginalia themselves, however jumbled the thinking behind them, are the work of DSS.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell,

Shakespeare's Sister's plugsocket again-

We cannot say the writer's intent. The writer may have been confused/age affected/ having a laugh for unknown reasons/ ad nauseum ad infinitum.
We just dont know.
What I would like to know is how many other items were given to Donald by retired policemen? And why wovld Fred give Donald Roberts biogaphy? If Swanson was a friend of Anderson, then it is normal to think the author wovld sign a copy and give it away. They were close mates werent they?

And why sell the story in the first place to the newspapers?

Perhaps others know? Why sell it? Not when- why?

Kindly

Phil

[Bridewell]

So Not Common Then.

I dont know if I can agree with that. Kosminski was a fairly different surname and only one Kosminski was ever found in the asylum records...its a very specific spelling a Swanson gets it correct suggesting he still had most of his marbles when he wrote it..although I except their were other Kosminski's living where the apron was found..Rob's been to Klodova perhaps he can give a better idea how common but I'd say uncommon.

The only Kosminski in the asylum records was Aaron Kosminski. And dispite what little is known he does appear to match the person Swanson is talking about..

Of course his family ran a Tayloring business in Green Feild Street, Cox mentions a Certain premises..

The only thing that doesnt seem to fit is the March 1889 reference and even that could be explained if Aaron was placed into a private asylum in Surrey..

So the Marginalia has difficulties yes but thats what should be expected, Swanson wasnt writing a report he was jogging his memory. Perhaps he had considered writing something and then decided against it. We will never know..Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

While your down their looking for your evidence and the missing police files if you come across the missing Stipper coroners reports, there should be seven, then drop me a line

Marriott the magician conjuring new fake tests and imagined scientific analysis..

Hey perhaps you could make a magic carpet out of Cathrine Eddows supposed sanitary towl

If it had been big enough i might have

[Jeff Leahy]

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

I dont know if I can agree with that. Kosminski was a fairly different surname and only one Kosminski was ever found in the asylum records...its a very specific spelling a Swanson gets it correct suggesting he still had most of his marbles when he wrote it..although I except their were other Kosminski's living where the apron was found..Rob's been to Klodova perhaps he can give a better idea how common but I'd say uncommon.

The only Kosminski in the asylum records was Aaron Kosminski. And dispite what little is known he does appear to match the person Swanson is talking about..

Of course his family ran a Tayloring business in Green Feild Street, Cox mentions a Certain premises..

The only thing that doesnt seem to fit is the March 1889 reference and even that could be explained if Aaron was placed into a private asylum in Surrey..

So the Marginalia has difficulties yes but thats what should be expected, Swanson wasnt writing a report he was jogging his memory. Perhaps he had considered writing something and then decided against it. We will never know..Jeff

[Bridewell]

Now then.

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

Are you saying that, in all your years as a detective, you never "accidentally on purpose" brought about a witness confrontation with a suspect, or heard of someone else doing it? It's not something I ever did, but I've known it happen - in a police station!

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey perhaps it was a conspiracy..Queen Victoria sent round her royal surgeon to knick a copy to Swansons book and fake his enicials

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell,

In order for the marginalia scenario to have happened, there are way too many caveats, possibilities and presumtions needed. Without a jot of proof to back it up.

Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun.

Kindly

Phil

Hi Phil,

"Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun."

Okay, but why? If it was DSS, why make marginal notes of this kind when the probability is that no-one will ever see them? If not DSS, it would be necessary to find someone, with access to his copy of Anderson's memory (so probably a relative) who was prepared to damage his distinguished reputation "just for jolly".

Isn't the need for "caveats, possibilities and presumptions", something which makes the marginalia more, not less, likely to be genuine? If you were going to invent a story, surely you'd come up with something more plausible than an ID at "the Seaside Home", City CID watching the brother's home in Whitechapel etc?

The marginalia are of little value in identifying JtR because they allude to a confrontation, the weakest of all identification (see earlier posts). At best it suggests a suspect who may have been considered at the time, but what of it? It's quite possible to be suspected and yet completely innocent.

Like you, I'm not sure that the marginalia makes a great deal of sense. Where I differ is in believing that the marginalia themselves, however jumbled the thinking behind them, are the work of DSS.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Speilberg.

Wouldnt you just love to know you keep thinking I am bluffing thats all you need to concern yourslef about at this time.

While your down their looking for your evidence and the missing police files if you come across the missing Stipper coroners reports, there should be seven, then drop me a line

Marriott the magician conjuring new fake tests and imagined scientific analysis..

Hey perhaps you could make a magic carpet out of Cathrine Eddows supposed sanitary towl