Seaside Home?

[Monty]

I dont profess to be an historian and you shouldnt try to be a criminal investigator.

You time and time again show you know nothing about investigating crimes and assesing and evaluating evidence and being able to distinguish what actually is evidence.

I will now finally withdraw I am sure you wil stay and continue to keep going over the same old same in realtion to this topic.

The only sensible thing you have said on here is the fact that we should let the public decide, I am in total agreement they have no hidden agendas and will either accept or reject much of what has been written over the past and present years and perhaps even in future years. I know there will be new evidence coming into the public domain so time will tell watch this space.

I see that Neil Storey is releasing some new photographs at York. I will have to dig deep into my evidence bag to see what I can unleash !

The conclusions Trevor has drawn regarding organ removal and the apron piece indicates that his evaluation of evidence is somewhat questionable.

His continous, and tedious, rant that missing documentation is a poor reason. Another example of a lack of understanding and flexability. The fact remains that parts of the case file is missing and what we do not know.

As frustrating as it is.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

The only problem for me with these kind of threads Andrew is that my wife threatens divorce, since I'm not paying attention to her. I think she just said, "You spend all that time on the computer, and (blah, blah, blah,...)"

Isn't this stuff obsessive!

Mike

I'm Happy to lend you the costumes and you can have hours of fun trying to figure out how the murders were commited...did wonders of my relationship

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm puzzled now, or perhaps I have my chronology wrong...or perhaps I'm just too thick to get it...but after the abortive ID incident wasn't the suspect released back into the care of his brother?

I thought, as far as Kominski was concerned, this happened after his commital to the Work House 0n 12th July 1890 and release on 15th July 1890.

I thought the whole point was ,that when he was readmitted to the Work House on 4th February 1891, he wasn't released back into the care of his brother, but admitted direct to Colney Hatch on 7th February 1891...

So aren't we talking a potential ID in July 1890 rather than 1891, or have I got my facts muddled somewhere? And before someone jumps to conclusions, I haven't got a point to make...just genuinely puzzled....

Yes, it's all very puzzling. What on earth has Kosminski got to do with Lawende and Sadler and Grainger and even Anderson?

In Athletics it's called 'jumping the gun'.

[lynn cates]

divorce

Hello Mike.

"The only problem for me with these kind of threads Andrew is that my wife threatens divorce."

Hmm, my problem is that my wife WON'T threaten me with divorce.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

You're confused?

Join the club.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Headscratching

I'm puzzled now, or perhaps I have my chronology wrong...or perhaps I'm just too thick to get it...but after the abortive ID incident wasn't the suspect released back into the care of his brother?

I thought, as far as Kominski was concerned, this happened after his commital to the Work House 0n 12th July 1890 and release on 15th July 1890.

I thought the whole point was ,that when he was readmitted to the Work House on 4th February 1891, he wasn't released back into the care of his brother, but admitted direct to Colney Hatch on 7th February 1891...

So aren't we talking a potential ID in July 1890 rather than 1891, or have I got my facts muddled somewhere? And before someone jumps to conclusions, I haven't got a point to make...just genuinely puzzled....

Help please someone

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

I am inclined to question Anderson's version of events. In my opinion based on further documentary proof, I would go further and say that his version left to prosperity was politically motivated.

A big statement that requires a decent explanation.

Was Anderson trying to start UK pogroms?

And, by the way, the word is 'posterity'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

"[Police] work done to rightly acquit him [Sadler]" is a bit loaded.

Surely that should be "work done rightly in order to either charge or acquit him."

Regards,

Simon

[AndrewL]

Hi Mike,

Yes, I know exactly what you mean - I remember buying Donald Rumbelow's book back in 1988, thinking, "Well, this will answer all my questions and that will be the end of it." It hasn't quite worked out that way...

Andrew

[mklhawley]

I am just a bystander who is not really qualified to engage in the ongoing speculation over Anderson/Swanson/the Seaside Home etc, but I have studied virtually all the major JTR books and I thoroughly enjoy reading the back and forth between serious historians of the subject. I have the height of respect for Paul, Jonathan and many others, who clearly disagree about many aspects of the case but always try to keep the tone of their contributions civil and constructive. ...The Casebook Forum is a wonderful resource for those of who will always be fascinated by JTR.

The only problem for me with these kind of threads Andrew is that my wife threatens divorce, since I'm not paying attention to her. I think she just said, "You spend all that time on the computer, and (blah, blah, blah,...)"

Isn't this stuff obsessive!

Mike

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Answer: The Good Michael.

Which is why first Simon, then I, asked him to explain.

Kindly

Phil

Yes, I was basically pointing out in reply to GM and Simon, who asked which of them wasn't in the know, and you, who asked the same question, that none of them need not to be in the know, but that all could be in the know but doubting their certainty in the light of a Ripper-like murder.

[Scott Nelson]

But look at the efforts done by police in February-March 1891 to ascertain Sadler's whereabouts during the murders. Work done to rightly acquit him. Did that reinforce belief in Kosminski's guilt?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I completely agree that a "Ripper-like murder would have shaken anyone's confidence in the certainty of a prior identification."

But we have to factor in the police investigation of William Grant [Grainger] as the Ripper.

This suggests that Kosminki's guilt was not finally ascertained [if it ever was] until after March 1895, a year after Macnaghten wrote his memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

We must also factor in that Abberline, Reid, et al appear to have known nothing about the identification and that Macnaghten possibly didn't have the whole story, which begs the question of how widely it was known, at what level Grainger was questioned and thought a suspect, and whether anyone who was convinced of Kosminski's guilt would have intervened. But I don't have any problem at all with Anderson being wildly wrong about the Polish Jew. Indeed, I've never accepted that he was right. It's perfectly possible that Anderson (and possibly Swanson) were the only ones who believed he was guilty. But, as always, as we don't know the evidence on which their belief was based, and we know nothing about the identification, there is nothing on which we can base an assessment. All we can do is acknowledge that we have a strange story.

[Phil Carter]

Who says any of them weren't in the know?

Hello Paul,

Answer: The Good Michael.

Which is why first Simon, then I, asked him to explain.

Kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

I completely agree that a "Ripper-like murder would have shaken anyone's confidence in the certainty of a prior identification."

But we have to factor in the police investigation of William Grant [Grainger] as the Ripper.

This suggests that Kosminki's guilt was not finally ascertained [if it ever was] until after March 1895, a year after Macnaghten wrote his memorandum.

Regards,

Simon