Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Its not wearing thin..

Its simply a statement of fact..

The records were largely lost or destroyed..

I'm currently working on Hannah Tailfords coroners report...the simple fact is that none of the other Stripper Victims cononers reports survived they were all destroyed...as a matter of standard practice at the time only so many reports wre kept and archived...only luck aloud Hannahs to survive and that was 1964!

The rest were not destroyed through conspiracy, bad police procedure or the royal family stepping in and ordering them destroy even if I have discovered an interesting connection to Prince Philip...its just the way it is...no conspiracy..

Why do you guys have such difficulty understanding something that is so blindingly obvious?

Yours jeff

I dont dispute that some records were lost stolen or destroyed but why is it that whenever important issues are raised and questions asked of you and others we always get the answer like "well it could have been or it might have shown, but it was probably in the file that were lost or destroyed" when clearly there is no answer to the questions or issues raised as i said its an easy way to avoid saying "ok you could be right and we could be wrong" but no you stand firm with your beleifs despite them crumbling around you.

[Jeff Leahy]

I dont dispute that some records were lost stolen or destroyed but why is it that whenever important issues are raised and questions asked of you and others we always get the answer like "well it could have been or it might have shown, but it was probably in the file that were lost or destroyed" when clearly there is no answer to the questions or issues raised as i said its an easy way to avoid saying "ok you could be right and we could be wrong" but no you stand firm with your beleifs despite them crumbling around you.

Because that is what did and has happened, it really is that simple..

Example: We know that Schwartz gave a statement to Swanson about the incident in Berner Street...however that statement is lost or destroyed..we know this because Swanson wrote to teh Home Office and that document has survived...

What your really arguing is that you dont like the fact that these documents no longer exist...

And thats not my fault, Beggs fault, Fido's fault or uncle Tom Cobly for that matter, its simply the world (as ripperologists) that we inhabbit..

Theres nothing crumbling because NO NEW INFO has been added

Yours Jeff

PS and sometimes new information does come to light..Tom Wescott posted new information on another site recent and I have openly stated that I think the balance of evidence now places Pipeman on the opposite side of the street and that SPE and Rob Clack have been proved correct..so I'm hardly dogmatic

[Trevor Marriott]

Because that is what did and has happened, it really is that simple..

Example: We know that Schwartz gave a statement to Swanson about the incident in Berner Street...however that statement is lost or destroyed..we know this because Swanson wrote to teh Home Office and that document has survived...

What your really arguing is that you dont like the fact that these documents no longer exist...

And thats not my fault, Beggs fault, Fido's fault or uncle Tom Cobly for that matter, its simply the world (as ripperologists) that we inhabbit..

Theres nothing crumbling because NO NEW INFO has been added

Yours Jeff

I have said all I have to say now and am now withdrawing from further postings I just coulnst bear this debate to be so one sided as it was turning out to be. There were a few wrongs that needed putting right and a few people who needed to be reigned in. "Jobs a good`un " adios amigos

[Jeff Leahy]

I. "Jobs a good`un " adios amigos

Your clearly wiser to how that has been done than I am? good night all Jx

[robhouse]

I have said all I have to say now and am now withdrawing from further postings I just coulnst bear this debate to be so one sided as it was turning out to be. There were a few wrongs that needed putting right and a few people who needed to be reigned in. "Jobs a good`un " adios amigos

You accomplished neither of your stated objectives. Instead (as usual) you just wasted everybody's time with a bunch of nonsense. Congratulations.

[Trevor Marriott]

You accomplished neither of your stated objectives. Instead (as usual) you just wasted everybody's time with a bunch of nonsense. Congratulations.

Th truth hurts doesnt it ? you are another Kosminski`ite who cant handle the truth

[Roy Corduroy]

Trevor, you and Phil both pointed to where Macnaghten exonerated Kosminski (and Ostrog) in the Aberconway version. Does this mean you are Druittists now?

Otherwise, yes I'm confused. Because this is part of the Aberconway version that you, me, the average Joe knew about already. Before people requested and Adam & crew at the magazine were kind enough to show us the whole thing.

Or else you are de-contextualizing. (credit Natalie Severin with that word )

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you and Phil both pointed to where Macnaghten exonerated Kosminski (and Ostrog) in the Aberconway version. Does this mean you are Druittists now?

Otherwise, yes I'm confused. Because this is part of the Aberconway version that you, me, the average Joe knew about already. Before people requested and Adam & crew at the magazine were kind enough to show us the whole thing.

Or else you are de-contextualizing. (credit Natalie Severin with that word )

Roy

Hi Roy

In my opinion Druitt was no more the Ripper than you and I. The MM is an unreliable document as has been proved to be so. After he wrote it is it quite clear that by what was written in his notes (AV) he retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved.

As has also been stated many times the police were still hunting the ripper in later years long after Druitt was dead and buried.

To fully appreciated the mindset of the police at the time of the murders and after i would strongly advise reading the sourcebook that shows the mindset of the police in various letters and correspondence etc.

I have spent many months viewing other police documents and correspondence which to me as a former police officer has been invaluable in trying to assess and evaluate excatly how much they were lacking in this overall investigation. What i have seen and read paints a picture of the police clutching at straws to the point of desparation in trying to catch this killer.

[Jonathan H]

'Sailor's Home'?

The 2006 theory of Stewart and Evans and Don Rumbelow in their excellent 'Scotland Yard Investigates' was a new theory of the Seaside Home conundrum.

It was brilliant because it did not rely on sources we can never assess but on what is in front of us, and has been the whiole time.

The Lawende-Sadler confrontation is not the double of the other, alleged but toally unknown to anybody else confrotation but the original one mis-remembered by either Anderson and/or Swanson.

But this does not mean that'Kosdminski' or Aaron Kosminski is not a major suspect according an interpretation of the limited sources.

It can be argued that he was the best soltion according to two key police sources of the time.

You can accept the 'Sailor's Home' as a sincere myth, and still argue that the Polish Jew is the likeliest solution.

[lynn cates]

procedure

Hello Jonathan.

"It was brilliant because it did not rely on sources we can never assess but on what is in front of us, and has been the whole time."

And this MUST be our chief means of proceeding. It is singing my song.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't!

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

The 'Sailor's Home' theory explained how the police could use Lawende for [allegedly] for Kosminski, and then Sadler when surely refusing to testify against the fiend would have rendered him redundant -- and even another 'confrontation' too.

As in, there was just this one 'confrontation' as Kosminski was sectioned a few days before.

I find the arguments that the witness was actually Schwartz plausible but unconvincing.

To Trevor

Macnaghten adapted 'Aberconway' for his memoirs, Chapter IV, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' and made the decision to totally exclude any mention of the Polish Jew suspect (and Anderson) even to debunk him. That's arguably implicit exoneration.

I think the argument that Macnaghten is a hopelessly unreliable source to be perfectly sensible.

[PaulB]

Lets make it three or shall we say perm any one from three. Aaron Kosminski, jacob Cohen, Nathan Kaminski.

Perhaps four if you add to that the ridiculous suggestion that the police made a mistake or got confused over the names, if that be correct then what other mistakes or names mixed up did they make throughout this enquiry.

You want answers I can give you answers but can you handle the truth !

Trevor,
You don't actually understand Martin Fido's theory at all, do you? You can't even get the names right. Nor do you apparently understand that they all fit into a single, cohesive theory, and one which hasn't changed much since he advanced it in 1987. So, give me an example of Martin Fido back-peddling.

[PaulB]

Rob
Prime suspect you are talking utter rubbish someone needs to take you aside and explain to you the differences between a prime suspect, a likely suspect and someone who comes under suspiscion by reason of their actions.

Aaron Kosminski may well have come under suspicion by reason of the incident with his sister the same applies to Cutbush. Thats a long way from sugesting they were prime suspects.

You only have to read all the connecting papers and police correspondence to see how naieve the police were at times. Many of these documents clearly show they didnt have a clue about the killer let alone have a prime suspect, not then nor in 1891 nor in 1895 and certainly not in 1910 when Hans Christian wrote his book,

We've been down this road before. In the argot of the police "prime suspect" may have a specific meaning, but outside the police it means no more and no less than the main theory for research and investigation, he suspect who researchers think, for whatever reason, is on the top of the heap. And it isn't necessarily because they think that suspect was Jack the Ripper. This is history, not a cold case police investigation.

[PaulB]

The MM is an unreliable document as has been proved to be so. After he wrote it is it quite clear that by what was written in his notes (AV) he retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved.

Oh dear. No, Trevor, he does not do that. He does not even come near to saying it. Not even within a whisker. What he said was that there were good grounds for suspecting them, but he concluded that they weren't guilty of the murders. There is a big difference.