Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One thing I forgot to add was the fact that MM, Swanson or Anderson ever gave any indication what the grounds for suspicion were against Kosminski, they mentioned his character and demeanour now isnt that strange especially as MM appears to have had access to your missing suspect files.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from Cox and Sagar you mean

Hey perhaps that missing paper work is sitting next to your supposed re-examination of the Marginalia. Created by your mysterious doctor of hand writing

Jeff

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not dressing up my answers, Trevor. Let me spell this out for you with alphabet bricks: I am not saying the reports existed, I am saying that you can't say they didn't exist because they are not in the surviving and severely culled files which don't mention any suspects. You are the one claiming something, Trevor, not me.

Now, if you want to defend your position and if you can do so without being silly and falling back on inane platitudes, please do so. Please explain to me how and why it is possible to conclude that documentation never existed in a collection of documents of which a mere fraction survive? Tell me that.

Any while you are about it, what theory is it that I am so afraid of you proving wrong?

Why do you say Martin Fido has back-peddled loads of times when hie theory is fundamentally unchanged from the time he advanced it in 1987?

And what facts isn't Phil Hutchinson giving to his walkers and which makes him a hypocrite. I mean, if you are going to make comments potentially damaging to someone's livelihood, shouldn't you at least back them up factually when called upon to do so?

Or are these just meaningless foot-stampings?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Phil Carter]

"2 other visitors" could be a suspect and a witness, but equally well could be completely unrelated!


Regards, 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.
To quote the classic rebuff. We cant know the writer didnt. We cant prove the writer didnt.

Shakespeares toupee glue.

Kindly

Phil

[Bridewell]

The Content Of Reports

Thank you for beliveing in a common sense approach but now stand back and wait for the barrage of usual comments i.e well all of these reports could have been "lost stolen or destroyed"

Hi Trevor,

I don't know that anyone is speculating that reports "could have been lost, stolen or destroyed". We know that there is material missing from the files. Where the speculation starts is in the content of the missing documents. Is it this which you find unacceptable?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hard Not To Speculate

First Annual Report. Since its opening until March 1891 the Home had received 102 visitors, 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants,74 constables, 5 ex-police officers, "and 2 other visitors admitted by special request". This detail should be noted, but no special significance attached to it.
Paul

"2 other visitors" could be a suspect and a witness, but equally well could be completely unrelated!

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

People are continually saying this and using it as an excuse to prop up the belief that this nonesenesical ID parade ever took place anyhwhere else other than perhaps in the case of sadler.

You can dress your answers up in any way choose but the end result is still the same. If the reports existed as you say what happened to them, oh excuse me I think I have already answered that

So what explantaion have you got for the fact that if it ever did take place someone from those involved would have talked or given a press interview in the ensuing years. The silence speaks volumes.

I am not dressing up my answers, Trevor. Let me spell this out for you with alphabet bricks: I am not saying the reports existed, I am saying that you can't say they didn't exist because they are not in the surviving and severely culled files which don't mention any suspects. You are the one claiming something, Trevor, not me.

Now, if you want to defend your position and if you can do so without being silly and falling back on inane platitudes, please do so. Please explain to me how and why it is possible to conclude that documentation never existed in a collection of documents of which a mere fraction survive? Tell me that.

Any while you are about it, what theory is it that I am so afraid of you proving wrong?

Why do you say Martin Fido has back-peddled loads of times when hie theory is fundamentally unchanged from the time he advanced it in 1987?

And what facts isn't Phil Hutchinson giving to his walkers and which makes him a hypocrite. I mean, if you are going to make comments potentially damaging to someone's livelihood, shouldn't you at least back them up factually when called upon to do so?

Or are these just meaningless foot-stampings?

[Bridewell]

District: Brighton

Mary M.P. Griffen, Head, Lives by Own Means, 33, Born Portsea, Hampshire
Fanny March, Widow, 57, Born Ssx [Sussex] Biddlecombe
James H. Archer, Visitor, Scholar, 10, Born Brighton
James H. Cousens, Visitor, Scholar, 6, Born Leic[ester]
Letitice Roper, Servant, 41, Weeks, Ryde, Isle of Wight
Eliza Inman, Servant, 14, London, Bow

James M. Hay, Boarder, 42, Police Inspector, Kent
Henry R. Hatch, Boarder, 47, Police Constable, Mdx [Middlesex] Southall
Frederic Child, Boarder, Police Constable, 20 (?), Bucks, Beaconsfield.

It's hard to imagine the Metropolitan [or City] Police bringing history's most infamous murderer to a small house in Hove tenanted by women and children.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Tenanted by women, children & three police officers, surely?

However hard to imagine it may be, isn't that what DSS seems to be suggesting in the marginalia? Perhaps that's the significance of the "with difficulty" comment, that the presence of women & children posed a logistical problem?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

People are continually saying this and using it as an excuse to prop up the belief that this nonesenesical ID parade ever took place anyhwhere else other than perhaps in the case of sadler.

You can dress your answers up in any way choose but the end result is still the same. If the reports existed as you say what happened to them, oh excuse me I think I have already answered that

So what explantaion have you got for the fact that if it ever did take place someone from those involved would have talked or given a press interview in the ensuing years. The silence speaks volumes.

Apart from Cox and Sagar you mean

Hey perhaps that missing paper work is sitting next to your supposed re-examination of the Marginalia. Created by your mysterious doctor of hand writing

Jeff

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Cogidubnus;213615]
But why would a copper express recognition but then fail to come up for the start?

Now that's a very good question.

So it's the Jewish Convalescent Seaside Home? Is that what you're suggesting Bridewell?

I was going with the notion that what was meant was a Police Convalescent Home, but i wouldn't rule out other possibilities.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

As ever we agree to disagree, without being disagreeable.

Thanks for going to all that trouble, Paul, and for treating me as if I am on the same level as yourself -- as a published writer/researcher on this subject -- when I am not. You do this with everybody, and with a complete lack of airs and graces.

I would just round it off by writing that the mythical version of Druitt is not my invention; it is Sims' profile, which I believe came from Mac because each exaggerated, deflective element is inspired by the real Druitt.

The tormented element comes from both Macnaghten and Sims too.

Sims, is, by the way, a primary source about Mac's opinion.

It is Macnaghten who dumped 'Kosminski' (and the hapless Ostrog), and I am trying to theorise as to why (everybody now agrees with him about Ostrog).

And that I think that Macnaghten's information on Druitt was only once removed. He never met the killer himself, obviously, but I believe he met with the priest, quite possibly Montie's cousin, to whom 'Jack' had confessed. From that cleric he learnt of the bizarre time-bomb which has going to go off in the media in seven or so years: that Montie wanted the ghastly truth to all come out in a decade?!

The family (or the priest) were going to meet their deceased's wish, but they would veil the truth to protect their own reps by openly disseminating 'substantial truth in fictitious form'.

Three years later Mac wrote about Druitt in exactly the same way in a Report (though hedged in the official version) then, years later, on the eve of the Vicar's tale he artfully disseminated his own veiled version -- but that it is also a mixture of fact and fiction ('family' morphed into 'friends') is concealed from the public.

Mac even had the entire Yard take credit for nearly arresting the 'drowned doctor'.

I think that this was deceit, and that such an M.O. on this case extended to what he told and did not tell his despised superior.

Otherwise we have a rolling set of coincidences which strain credulity.

Consider finally that Mac believes that his Ripper is deceased. He is. Anderson believes that his Ripper is also deceased. He isn't. And the former knew that too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you read? If you can, why can't you get it into your head that nobody is saying the reports may have been lost, stolen or destroyed. They are saying that you can't say they never existed when most of the documentation on the case has been destroyed and none of what survives refers to suspects.

People are continually saying this and using it as an excuse to prop up the belief that this nonesenesical ID parade ever took place anyhwhere else other than perhaps in the case of sadler.

You can dress your answers up in any way choose but the end result is still the same. If the reports existed as you say what happened to them, oh excuse me I think I have already answered that

So what explantaion have you got for the fact that if it ever did take place someone from those involved would have talked or given a press interview in the ensuing years. The silence speaks volumes.

[Stephen Thomas]

We have one source(s), Mac, which evaluates two suspects -- pushing for one and dumping the other -- and we have another source(s), Anderson, which pushes for only one, the one who was dumped. That arguably makes the former stronger than the latter, as an historical source.

Hi JH

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that Anderson was actually referring to Kosminski.

He names no names. Whoops, a double negative

[PaulB]

Well big men tell big lies.Only ever met one person who I believed would never lie.His comment was that he would if the occasion demanded it.As to the identification,comments suggest other police than Anderson and Swanson attended,and as Trevor has pointed out,police procedures were such that written reports would undoubtably have been submitted.I would also,a ccepting Trevor's police experience over those without.was that a police silence on what was the biggesr story in years, was very unlikely to have remained the years it has.

So, if I understand your position correctly you are saying that if the identification had taken place then documentation would have been generated and as no documentation exists then the identification ever took place. And you believe this despite the fact that the existing documentation is a fraction of what once existed and despite the fact that it doesn't mention any suspects at all, even known suspects like Tumblety about whom we're told a file existed. Is that what you think?

[PaulB]

Thank you for beliveing in a common sense approach but now stand back and wait for the barrage of usual comments i.e well all of these reports could have been "lost stolen or destroyed"

and I say again why didnt anyone directly involved talk about it or discuss it over the ensuing years ?

Can you read? If you can, why can't you get it into your head that nobody is saying the reports may have been lost, stolen or destroyed. They are saying that you can't say they never existed when most of the documentation on the case has been destroyed and none of what survives refers to suspects.