Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

The marginila you seek to heavily rely on to prop up you theories has not be proven to be authentic so please refrain from keep trying to convince everyone it is.

What theories do you fondly imagine that I am trying to prop up, Trevor? You keep making direct and indirect references to my theories, so I am fascinated to know what they are. Is it that I believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper? Nope, I've never believed that. Is it that I believe Anderson was right? Nope, I've never believed that. What exactly do you think my theory is, Trevor. Tell me. Let's make sure you actually have the remotest idea what you are talking about.

Trevor, the marginalia is authentic. And it will remain authentic until the findings of your expert(s) are published and examined. That's the way things work. You present your evidence, it is subjected to peer analysis, it is accepted or it is rejected. You can shout about your expert, who hasn't actually come within sniffing distance of the actual document, which doesn't inspire initial confidence, and as as your track record and personal standing in this field is nil, unfortunately nobody is going to allow in evidence just on your say so. So, on the basis of the existing evidence, there is no reason to believe that the marginalia isn't authentic.

You are so blinkered virtually everyone can see that Kosminski is a non starter now even without the marginalia. MM exonerates him. Fido traced an Aaron Kosminski and exonaterd him, or do you want to inlcude anyone else who just happened to have a surname Kosminski, Jesus how many more exonerations do you want before you take the blinkers off.

What exactly am I blinkered about, Trevor? You seem to think that I believe Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. I don't. I never have. So if Macnaghten was right then, well, nothing really. It doesn't matter. So what exactly am I being blinkered about? What theory do I have?

If MM exonerates him why are you and others trying to find someone eles who fits Anderson polish jew fable. Fido tried with Cohen and Kaminsky. You seem to want to readily accpet the word of two senior officers why not accpet the writen word of MM when he says he exonarates Kosminski and Ostrog you cant have it both ways.

Okay, Trevor: (1)Martin Fido didn't try to find someone other than Kosminski, and I'd really try hard to represent Martin correctly if I was you. Presenting other people's theories accurately is important. (2) I am not trying to find someone other than Aaron Kosminski, so do try to get your basic facts right. As for (3), I can have it both ways. We have two credible and authentic sources reaching different conclusions. It is not uncommon for historical sources to disagree, so the historian has to explain why they differ, try to reconcile them, and try to reach the truth of what happened. That isn't achieved by choosing the one you like and which best fits your personal and preconceived theories, as you do, but through a controlled and ordered assessment of the sources in question and their relationship to other sources and accepted history. As things stand, and for the moment considering the two sources in isolation, we don't know (a) how much Macnaghten knew about the "Kosminski" identification and the reasons why Anderson (and possibly Swanson) believed him guilty, (b) we don't know if he knew Anderson and Swanson believed Kosminski guilty, (c) we don't know how much, if at all, his decision to exonerate "Kosminski" was influenced by his belief that the murderer was Druitt, and (d) crucially, we have no idea what the evidence against Kosminski was and therefore cannot assess whether Macnaghten was right to exonerate him. That's just part of it.

[Jonathan H]

Dan Farson is a major figure in all this, for sure, but he never really understood what he had in 'Aberconway' because he and his team just did not have time.

He was ignorant of the complex back-story to the creation of this document and so just accepted that it was a private 'draft' by a senior police figure who had a lousy memory and was not even on the police at the time of the 'autumn of terror'.

Even a cursory look at Macnaghten's memoirs should have alerted him that there was something fishy going on. For if it is a draft, it was not kept private as the information in it (about the prime suspect and his lesser sidekicks) was disseminated to the public from 1898, that Mac was there for the information about Druitt which arrived 'some years after' he killed himself, and all other sources metnion that he had an extraordinary memory.

Farson and his team needed to find the MP source but at that time it was a needle in a haystack. Instead he became fixated on a mis-remembered document which became his Holy Grail -- and about as real. His book from 1973 does not even examine the sections of the Mac Report, filed version, eg. Odell's scoop from 1966, an inexplicable omission except that he must have wrongly thought 'said to be a doctor' would hurt his Druit-centric argument -- when it strengthens it.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I think the reason that Druitt is not the subject of a genuine Home Office Report -- unlike what Mac hustled to his cronies -- is that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

There was no suspect to formally investigate as there was nobody to arrest, but there was a 'good' family's name in the balance.

Hello Jonathan,

And sadly for Dan Farson, there was no Home Office file naming Druitt as a prind suspect either. Which means? He did a McCormick and must have made it up.

inventions of 'official comment' in Ripperworld do, sadly happen.


I will say one thing for you Jonathan- you have never claimed that sort of thing.

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello all,

The Seaside Home,

1) Because of no details given, it is not known what place this is. Paul Begg has stated that to policemen in this genre, it would be the rest home well known to police officers of the Met Police.
So to all others, WITHOUT knowing of a specific police home, it means very little if anything at all.
Swanson didnt write TO anybody. So anybody readinp it NOT being a polibeman is unlikely to know what Swanson meant by it. Historians in Met Police and crime might have heard of it though.

Well yes, but so what? There are possibilities. Its not like he claimed the suspect was taken to Mars.

2) No date is given. Which doesnt help ID the home either. I doubt whether most policemen would know how old any rest home anywhere was. A few might. Historians might too.

No date is given. However doesnt that make the marginalia more credible not less so. Again you seem to be hinting at something when what your actually doing is stating the bleeding obvious.

3) Any alleged ID would have been witnessed by policemen- . There are NO details given that refer to anyone by name or without name from the police side.

Well coppers were largely of the belief that they keep their mouth shut. And they were largely good at that. However its not true to say they all did, Cox and Sagar gave interveiws to the press about a suspect they beleived to be Jack the Ripper who they tailed.

4) the witness who allegedly ID'd the suspect is not named. Nobody who wasnt there would know the name of the witness- and it is doubtful the marginalia was written for the posrible eyes of anxone wko WAS potemtially there. Only jTR enthusiasts may guess who this might be. No one else would have a clue.

Yes but we have largely pin pionted who it must have been by a process of elemination..Well done Gary..

5) Dan Farson wrote' I doubt if we have seen the last 'suspect'; but the objection to all thesn theries is the lack of official evidence' the marginalia can hardly be called 'official' evidence with virtuallx no specific details, written in the form it was.

The same Dan Farson who invented the Jack the Ripper conspiracy theory?

Yes there are always new suspects, however there are unlikely to be any new suspects named by the guys in charge of the case. And there opinion is more important than anyone elses because they had access to all the evidence and simply new more than we do...

The rest of the post is just wishy washy meaningless drivel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkZFuKHXa7w

Like Lord Percy discovering purest 'Green'

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Phil,

I think the reason that Druitt is not the subject of a genuine Home Office Report -- unlike what Mac hustled to his cronies -- is that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

There was no suspect to formally investigate as there was nobody to arrest, but there was a 'good' family's name in the balance.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The Seaside Home,

1) Because of no details given, it is not known what place this is. Paul Begg has stated that to policemen in this genre, it would be the rest home well known to police officers of the Met Police.
So to all others, WITHOUT knowing of a specific police home, it means very little if anything at all.
Swanson didnt write TO anybody. So anybody readinp it NOT being a polibeman is unlikely to know what Swanson meant by it. Historians in Met Police and crime might have heard of it though.
2) No date is given. Which doesnt help ID the home either. I doubt whether most policemen would know how old any rest home anywhere was. A few might. Historians might too.
3) Any alleged ID would have been witnessed by policemen- . There are NO details given that refer to anyone by name or without name from the police side.
4) the witness who allegedly ID'd the suspect is not named. Nobody who wasnt there would know the name of the witness- and it is doubtful the marginalia was written for the posrible eyes of anxone wko WAS potemtially there. Only jTR enthusiasts may guess who this might be. No one else would have a clue.
5) Dan Farson wrote' I doubt if we have seen the last 'suspect'; but the objection to all thesn theries is the lack of official evidence' the marginalia can hardly be called 'official' evidence with virtuallx no specific details, written in the form it was.

All of the above, reminds me again of Dan Farson- who used many unsubstantiated stories to back up his claim. It is in this reference that I again quote him. His last words in the paperback version are as follows-
'More important is their (the BBC) achievement hn revealing the Home Office Files before they were due to be opened in 1992. As I suspected, the prime suspect is confirmed: - "A Mr M j DRUITT..." and there the story ends.' (Jack Vhe Ripper, Dan Farson page 151)

No flle name, no date, no reference, no details.
Do we believe Farsons words based on this?
Well, some did.
Except one tiny detail. Druitt isnt named as a prime suspect in ANY Home Office file. By anyone except an author. Strange eh?
We are expected to believe Kosminski was JTR on the basis of a document without details that isnt official and who has been elevated to Scotland Yard's
prime suspect bv an author.
You never know.The Home Office 'file' Farson saw 'may have existed'....
Yeah. Right. you KNOW WHATS COMING dont you...

If true- The Home Office's Prime Suspect in 1888 Was... NOT KOSMINSKI.
Oh dear. The police didnt let on to Matthews either, eh?

Anyone have the feeling of a pantomime going on?
'oh no he isn't says the one side, oh yes he is says the other
and BOTH sides have an author claiming a prime suspect!
Did I mention Littlechilds No1 suspect? Proposed as possible JTR by Stewart Evans, author?
No disrespect Rob and Stewart (seriously). But Dan did it first!

Kosminski old chap, join the ckub.
As Scotland Yard and the Home Office and Special Branch have all had 'prine' suspects- all the official bases are well covered. Or?

Forgive my incredulity, irony and belittling of so called officials comments.
Because it seems NOBODY knew what the other lot knew.

Quote Terry-Thomas. 'what an absolute shower!'

kindly

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Its always puzzled me why people ever believed that Swanson would just pull in a witness at random to make an ID? ... Surely Swanson would have been in possession of all the facts including what Aaron Kosminski looked like as well as where he lived ... THus I'd like to add to your wise observation that not only does schwartz make the most probable suspect but that Swanson would have realized a conection between Kosminski and Schwartz Berner streeet sighting. Hence using Schwartz not Lawende was a deliberate action on Swansons part...not just a lets bring in a witness willy nilly decision.

Again, Jeff, Schwartz was the only witness who observed violence being inflicted upon a victim shortly before the discovery of her body. Thus his was the only testimony that stood an earthly of securing a conviction purely on its own merit. Trusting the Swanson marginalia to be both truthful and accurate, Schwartz must have been the Seaside Home witness. It could have been no-one else.

This would make it likely that Schwartz was used on other attempted identifications. That the press evidently failed to get wind of a Schwartz-Sadler encounter doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means that it went unreported. But you can bet your bottom dollar that investigators used any and all means at their disposal as the various suspects emerged. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Mrs Long was called in to view Sadler and Kosminski, for example.

Those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer were not incompetent dullards, and neither were they in the business of attempting to fit-up any convenient scapegoat by the manipulation of identity parades. The professionalism with which the Violenia episode was handled should serve as an object lesson to anyone who thinks otherwise. Hence I agree entirely with your opinion that witnesses were not brought in 'willy nilly', just as I agree that Anderson's witness was Schwartz. I tend to think, however, that I may be part of a very small minority on this point.

[Jeff Leahy]

I repeat the results were not conclusive and now we have another expert who says the opposite. I am sure you will keep referring to it but dont keep saying its authentic theres a good chap tend to mislead people and we have enough on here already who seem to want to do that.

You mean you've paid someone to tell you what you want to hear. You fool noone.

And a word of Advice I wouldnt approach Nevill in the same way that you have treated other people in the past. I think that would be most unwise knowing him as I do..

Good luck with your proper ganda campaign.

I used the word Genuine because that is what it is..FACT

Yours Jeff

PS if you'd like to send me a copy of the copy you sent to your supposed expert I'll have Derek look at it for you..

[Trevor Marriott]

I know exactly what Stewart said. And it has been examined by two home office experts and those results discussed endlessly.



You know perfectly well that people who study hand writing largely belong in a fortune telling side shows.



Well I simply took him for a drink and asked him nicely. And let me assure you that no nicer and more reliable gentleman exists than Nevill.



I was quoting the last home office examination by christopher Davies P502 of the A to Z

I repeat the results were not conclusive and now we have another expert who says the opposite. I am sure you will keep referring to it but dont keep saying its authentic theres a good chap it tends to mislead people and we have enough on here already who seem to want to do that.

[Jeff Leahy]

I never suggested Stewart said it was a fake. Without going back to it I think he stated he had some doubts and stated it should have been properly examined.

I know exactly what Stewart said. And it has been examined by two home office experts and those results discussed endlessly.

Now now, dont try to water down the strength of my handwriting expert with those type of comments naughty naughty.

You know perfectly well that people who study hand writing largely belong in a fortune telling side shows.

Derek Acorah would probaly do a better job than the document examiners. If you think its genuine get Nevill Swanson to hand it over for further examination then we will all know wont we

Well I simply took him for a drink and asked him nicely. And let me assure you that no nicer and more reliable gentleman exists than Nevill.

If not then as I mentioned previous dont keep saying its authentic in fact in one of your earlier posts you yourself stated and these are your words "that in all probabality the marginalia was wriiten by Swanson" not a very convincing statement to make if you are so sure as you would have us beleive.

I was quoting the last home office examination by christopher Davies P502 of the A to Z

PS Its Genuine

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I dont need to be told Stewart's position on the marginalia I know it like the back of my hand ( I spent years debating it with him) and it is NOT the same as yours. Stewart has NEVER stated he beleives it FAKE!

Clearly I'd be interested in any examination you have had done on the marginalia, I photographed it myself in high Def and UV..

But your going to have to come up with something better than Derek Acorah hand writing experts to convince me..

Yours Jeff

I never suggested Stewart said it was a fake. Without going back to it I think he stated he had some doubts and stated it should have been properly examined.

Now now, dont try to water down the strength of my handwriting expert with those type of comments naughty naughty.

Derek Acorah would probaly do a better job than the document examiners. If you think its genuine get Nevill Swanson to hand it over for further examination then we will all know wont we

If not then as I mentioned previous dont keep saying its authentic in fact in one of your earlier posts you yourself stated and these are your words "that in all probabality the marginalia was wriiten by Swanson" not a very convincing statement to make if you are so sure as you would have us beleive.

[Jonathan H]

I'm not perplexed about the whole Polish Jew/'Seaside Home puzzle as, for me, it is not one since I read and agreed with Evans and Rumbelow.

What I have been trying and failing to get across is that the press were salivating over Coles as a Ripper murder.

All Anderson and/or Swanson had to do was what the latter pair did do in 1895 after Grant -- quash this notion either by saying that she was obviously murdered by a different hand (eg. no mutilations) or go even further and say that the real 'Jack' was safely caged and/or dead.

In 1891, presumably after all the machinations over 'Kosminski' when he, according to the Marginalia, had practically confessed at the 'confrontation' they did neither?

To try and break this logjam I will quote from 'Scotland Yard Investigates', Chapter Sixteen, 'Did Anderson Know':

From p. 250:

Om Sat 14th of Feb. 1891, the day of Sadler's arrest, the 'Daily Chronicle' reported" 'At three o'clock the authorities circulated an announcement that the crime was supposed to be the work of "Jack the Ripper", and ordered all docks, wharves, and stairs to be searched. 'The Evening News and Post' of the same enlarged the story: 'In the minds of the police officials who have been summoned to investigate the murder there is pratically no doubt that it is the handiwork of the terrible miscreant who has earned the name of "Jack the Ripper" ... which was thought to have been closed with the discovery in Sept. 1889, of the trunk of a woman in Oinchin St. ...'

[Note that Kelly as the final victim -- let along that 'Jack' as soon off the scene -- is not a notion that had yet become the rigid paradigm, and won't until 1898 when Macnaghten locked this in because, from his point of view and his alone, it was due to the inconvenient timing of Druitt's suicide two years before the Coles murder.]

Continuing from SYI:

Still p. 250:

It is unlikely that the police would have risked causing another panic in London if they did not seriously think that the Ripper might have been at work again ...

P. 251:

The events of 7 to 17 Feb. throw up a remarkable series of coincidences. Anderson's suspect was almost certainly Aaron Kosminski and a Kosminski had been detained very shortly before Sadler's arrest and investigation as a possible Ripper suspect. Aaron Kosminski was permanently 'caged in an asylum' and shortly after his detention there was a failed attempt to identify a suspect (Sadler) as Jack the Ripper by a Jewish witness, Jospeh Lawende ... It may benefit the reader to pause and cosndier the implications of this coincidence. Over two years after the generally accepted Ripper killing (Kelly) we have a Polish Jew lunatic locked up and within a week a Ripper suspect is subjected to a failed identification as the Ripper by a Jewish witness ...

P. 252:

Some who adhere to the theory that the identification took place exactly as Anderson described it say that there must have been another witness and that he (probably Schwartz) had been used to identify Kosminski, but was not used again because of his refusal to testify against the Polish Jew. This idea is not tenable. First, as Lawende was used in the attempt to identify Sadler he would, naturally, also have been used in any other attempted identification of a Ripper suspect. Secondly a witness cannot simply 'refuse to give evidence' if it is required ...

... Swanson's poor grammar [in the Marginalia] adds another complication. If he was referring to Aaron Kosminski, then the identification in question appears to have taken place in July 1890 whereas Anderson's reference relates to Feb. 1891, the time of Kosminski's final incarceration. So here we have a discrepancy between the two men's stories ...

... Swanson's reference to the man being watched by the 'City CID' is also interesting because the suspect described by Inspector Cox of the City Police (see Chapter 15) although apparently a Jew, was clearly not Aaron Kosminski, who had not worked for years, did not occupy a shop, and, so far as we know, did not enter a Surrey asylum ...

[I would add that both Anderson and Swanson give the strong impression that all these events happened soon after Kelly murders -- when Macnaghten has 'Kosminski' wrongly permanently incarcerated. This error is so profound that it misled Cullen-Farson-Rumbelow into thinking that Anderson must mean Pizer, because surely he did not have the timing so far out. Similarly it was one of the factors which led Fido to reject Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect; that it must be a Jewish madman who was 'safely caged' around late 1888, or early 1889.]

From p. 253:

... allowing for faulty memoiies, confusion or deliberate invention, the idea of a 'home' is also to be found in the story of Sadler and his identification. Two of the witnesses who attended identification paardes for Sadler were from the Sailor's Home (or Seamen's Home) and here is another telling coincidence. A bedraggled Sadler had finally gravitated to the Sailor's Home in Wells St. while seeking shelter on the morning of the murder of Coles. There he sold a foreign clasp knife to a witness, Duncan Campbell. Campbell attended the police station and identified Sadler as the man who sold him the knife from a line-up of fifteeen or sixteen men dressed as seamen ... So even a Sailor's (or Seamen's) Home figures in the Sadler identification scenario (albeit not the failed identification by Lawende) -- and Seamen's Home could easily translate to Seaside Home.

[I would add that an element of Lawende's sighting was a man dressed rather like a seaman. A fading memory would have to eliminate that Gentile suspect or else correctly recall that the Jewish witness was looking at a Gentile sailor, Sadler -- because he had reported seeing a Gentile sailor in 1888. The bridging source for this bit of transpostion is Sims' 1907 opus in which he writes, mistakenly, about a beat cop seeing a man who resembled the Polish suspect and saw him later but could not confirm. This puts 'Kosminski' into the investigation of 1888. Out of this cocktail, in a failing memory but one seeking the best gloss on it all, comes three elements: 'police' and 'sea-' and 'Home' which equals, I believe, the 'Seaside Home'.]

Still from p. 353:

... Anderson's claim is rendered even more unlikely by the fact that his second-in-command, confidential assistant and, ultimately successor as assistant commissioner, Sir Melville Macnaghten, makes no mention of an identification. In fact, he reached an entirely different conclusion to Anderson and felt that Montague John Druitt was the most likely of the unlikely suspects in his list. This hardly enhances the view that the Polish Jew's guilt, was a definitely ascertained fact. And it cannot be claimed that Macnaghten did not know of the Polish Jew Kosminski theory as it is his report in which it is first outlined in the surviving records ...

[I would add that Macnaghten, via 'Aberconway', knows that 'Kosminski' is alive, unlike Anderson and/or Swanson, and why shouldn't he since this madman was sectioned after Mac had been on the Force for nearly two years! Via Sims in 1907, Macnaghten made it clear to the public that this was a weak suspect partly because he had been too long out in the community without killing anybody before being locked up. Both of these details about the real Aaron Kosminski are correct]

[Jeff Leahy]

But you missed the point I get slated when i stick to the facts and then told my facts are not correct etc when I posted that long post on the ID parade and the marginalia.

It was after that that I found the previous thread where lo and behold Stewart had said virtually the same as me and no one questioned his facts. But of course as far as the marginalia was concerned I took it one step further and had my own experts examine it with blinding results.

So both of us cant be wrong if you are putting Stewart on a pedestal. Look at it another way you and Begg keep saying you take the word of two officers from 1888. Now we have two officers from the 21st Century with a wealth of investigative experience behind them who have become involved and made our views know on all of this having carefull reviewed, assessed and evaluated everything connected to these issues.

Which two are you going to side with ?

Trevor I dont need to be told Stewart's position on the marginalia I know it like the back of my hand ( I spent years debating it with him) and it is NOT the same as yours. Stewart has NEVER stated he beleives it FAKE!

Clearly I'd be interested in any examination you have had done on the marginalia, I photographed it myself in high Def and UV..

But your going to have to come up with something better than Derek Acorah hand writing experts and fortune tellers to convince me..

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I think its fairly well known and you can check our past confrontations on casebook that SPE and I haven't always seen eye to eye..

However Stewart Evans is a giant, one of the greats of Ripperology, a man who everyone, including myself , has the utmost respect for...

When those of us youngsters sit and debate 'ripper' stuff over a pint it is he along with, Fido, Begg , skinner and Rumblow that we quote because these are the greats....Like Pele, Best, Moore, Hurst and Allan Clark

But Stewart despite all his faults was always a Gentleman and always always stuck to the sources and the Facts..

You'd do well to learn from such a great exponent of Ripperology

I look forward to seeing you York (hopefully)

Yours Jeff

But you missed the point I get slated when i stick to the facts and then told my facts are not correct etc when I posted that long post on the ID parade and the marginalia.

It was after that that I found the previous thread where lo and behold Stewart had said virtually the same as me and no one questioned his facts. But of course as far as the marginalia was concerned I took it one step further and had my own experts examine it with blinding results.

So both of us cant be wrong if you are putting Stewart on a pedestal. Look at it another way you and Begg keep saying you take the word of two officers from 1888. Now we have two officers from the 21st Century with a wealth of investigative experience behind them who have become involved and made our views know on all of this having carefull reviewed, assessed and evaluated everything connected to these issues.

Which two are you going to side with ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Dave,

It is all how you interpret that "in a very short time..." Paul Begg has interpreted that to mean that the identification happened shortly before February 4, 1891... say within a week or so. I personally do not agree with this and prefer a date of July 1890 for the identification, or even earlier. The fact is, no one knows for sure when (or where) the identification took place.

Rob H

Yes I agree. The exact date of the ID is unknown and could be theorized as earlier.

The illness of Schizophrenia is cyclicur/wave like, with the suffer having periods known as Psychosis and recovery. So Aaron being sane and then insane could be logical..

Also I have speculated that Schizophenia is likely to have had external effects drugs, Alcohol , Chemicals,, Once removed from that environment the suffer might well recover for periods of time...

The fact is we dont know for sure and contrary to what Trevor might say not necessarily knowing does not weaken a case. You just need to keep searching..

Trust you are well Rob

Yours Jeff