Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you really an idiot, Trevor? Instead of these meaningless platitudes, why don't you actually get to grips with the facts. If you have any, which I doubt.

I have firmly got to grips with the facts I would suggest you firmly get to grips with reality and for one in your life give a straight answer

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff and PaulB

No, with all due respect that's not what I am arguing.

My point -- and others make it, not just me -- is that if the police have already identified the Ripper with a witness (' ... and he knew he was identfied ...') then you don't need to bring that witness, or another witness, to 'confront' Sadler or any other potential Ripper.

They can't be the Ripper!

The police, eg. at least Anderson and/or Swanson, know that Sadler is not 'Jack' because they know 'Jack' is already 'safely caged' in a madhouse.

Moreover, whle you would be of course investigating Sadler for the murder of Coles, you would bend over backwards to make it clear to the vulture press and the panicked public that he could not be the fiend.

Either by saying that the murder is quite different, or because you know that 'Jack' is dead and/or incarcerated and then dead.

This is pretty much what happened in 1895.

Leaving aside whether a witness, probably Lawende, was wheeled in again and -- incredibly -- he affirmed to Grant, the point is a sailor was arrested trying to kill a harlot, he was investigated as a possible Ripper (why ...?) and then, apparently, Swanson said that he believed that the Ripper was now dead, though it is unclear if he means a generic Ripper or a specific suspect (it does match the later Marginalia in this detail which, if about Aaron Kosminski, is wrong.)

Furthermore, Anderson in early 1895 revealed to Major Griffiths that the Ripper was most likely a man he knew to be mad who had been incarcerated in a madhouse. Anderson was not backward, by then, in coming forwards about the basic outline of presumably 'Kosminski'.

What the surviving bits and pieces show is that in 1891, Anderson and Swanson act as if Coles is likely to be a Ripper murder.

Cognition by Anderson and/or Swanson about 'Kosminski' must, logically, come after this event.

In fact, after his 1892 interview where he does not even hint at a prime suspect who is 'safely caged'.

From 1895, Anderson just keeps saying things about his caged lunatic, presumably 'Kosminski' because of the masturbation connection, which strongly suggests that he thinks the suspect was incarcerated soon after the Kelly murder (by soon after I mean not years after) having been a menace and on the prowl, for 'mere weeks', and that he died soon after being sectioned.

All of these details do not match the real Aaron Kosminski, yet Macnaghten (who knew he was alive) is supposed to have gotten wrong -- that lousy memory again -- a key detail about this Ripper 'suspect'. That he was sectioned in March 1889, when it actually happened at a time when Mac had been on the Force for nearly two years.

Yet he backdates to before he joined the police ...?

[PaulB]

I will add my opimion to that of Trevor.Not that my opinions will shake the foundations of Ripperollogy,but to object to those who take for granted,and post to the effect, that Trevor is the only one who disbelieves an identification took place.

Plenty of people disbelieve the identification took place, Harry. The problem is why they think it. The reality is that two sources say that it did, and a third source confirms that there were genuine grounds for suspicion, so you either have to prove that these sources aren't authentic (but the evidence is that they are) or you have to explain why they say what they do but are wrong, which is what Stewart and Don have done. Other researchers look for other explanations or hold off reaching a conclusion until, hopefully, more evidence comes to light or a better understanding of what was going on is obtained. I subscribe to that category.

[Jeff Leahy]

It's one of the main reasons why one might advocate Schwartz as the witness. Of course, other problems arise with the Met using a City witness to a City crime to identify a Met suspect. It isn't that they wouldn't or couldn't have done, but it raises the question of why they didn't let the City get Lawende to do the identification, especially as the City was involved maintaining surveillance - and in the opinion of some theorists suspected him (the suspect) of the murders, hence maintaining surveillance.

Agreed Paul.

As you know I rather prefer some of Rob House's theorizing on the Canarvan letter..

But for me I simply cant see that Lawende would have recongnized his suspect, he says this openly, although admittedly he does do the Sadler ID so must have been considered usable by the police.

Another hot sunny day here trust you enjoying

I didnt mean to steal your thunder on the ID, obviously I was borrowing your learned theorizing yours Jeff

PS I think Trevor is trying to stress you out, might be best ignored?

[PaulB]

I have firmly got to grips with the facts I would suggest you firmly get to grips with reality and for one in your life give a straight answer

You do talk tripe. Utter tripe. Do you have a grasp on anything related to this subject? Anything at all? Now, what do you think I haven't given a straight answer to?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
As the above post was one of the few you make in which you try to argue a point sensibly, and as I did not have the opportunity to respond yesterday, exonerating in the sense of removing from suspicion is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't what you wrote, which was that Macnaghten "retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved" (my italics). As said, Macnaghten never wrote anything approaching that, but in fact acknowledged that there were good grounds for suspicion. Being personally inclined to exonerate is a long, long way from "retracting the suggestion..." and at the risk of being unduly po faced, it is important that people in general and you very much in particular report what the sources actually say rather than what you apparently want them to say.

Turning to you comment that "its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed." You are absolutely correct. Totally. 100%. Except nobody is arguing that. At least I am not. What is being said is something quite different, namely that one cannot reach a conclusion on what isn't in the files because most of the files are missing and what survives doesn't refer to any suspects (apart from Issenschmidt and Pizer and so on) , therefore the absence of mention in the files means zilch, nada, nothing.

As for your opinion that there never was a suspect's file, as you have been told, there was a file concerning suspects and it was seen in the 1970s by Stephen Knight, who transcribed some of them. There was a file on Tumblety because Littlechild refers to it and there is no reason to suppose that files didn't exist on Kosminsky or Ostrog or even Cutbush and Bury. Abberline says that Druitt was investigated, from which some paperwork would inevitably have been generated. And we know that there was much discussion about the three insane medical students, yet there is barely a mention of them in the official files. So the combined weight of common sense, procedure, and inferential evidence points to the existence of suspect files. To conclude that there weren't any isn't sustainable.

We know there was a file on Tumblety but is was in relation to gross indeceny.

Inferences since when did they have any evidential value, its convenient for you and your misguied theories to use this To suggest that all the main suspect files have gone awol and all the non runners left behind.

Take a look at what is left behind with the non runners mainly nothing more than a few letters and correspondence realting to each one.To me as a former police offficer who has more of an insight into police procedures and the way officers think and the way they investigate than you. I would state that if they were or ever had a specific suspects file in the true sense and I dont mean a list of names.Then all the suspect details etc would be kept together even the non runners.

If there had have been a suspect file which included MM suspects then he would have had access to it and been able to include much more detail about each than he did in his memo, especially if the memo was destined for reading by the higher echelons.

To me in the absence on that I conclude that there was not much more on those he named than he originally wrote.

The non runners are all spread about in different files etc.

I say again stop trying to cover over the cracks by keep using this same old chestnut about the missing files.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff and PaulB

No, with all due respect that's not what I am arguing.

My point -- and others make it, not just me -- is that if the police have already identified the Ripper with a witness (' ... and he knew he was identfied ...') then you don't need to bring that witness, or another witness, to 'confront' Sadler or any other potential Ripper.

They can't be the Ripper!

I'm no expert here Jonathon but I do think Swanson would have had an obligation to explore every lead until he had a conviction. The files were not closed after the Seaside Home incident..

Also Swanson had a series of murders to consider (off the top of head 14?)

He clearly would have been aware that more than one killer might have been at work..they were..and Swanson was a top Dog..

So even if he was convinced Kosminski killed Stride through a Schwartz ID. He'd still be considering the Pinchin street torse which may well have been done by different hands. Beside He'd also be aware that Strides MO was different to the others she was attacked from behind..

So not considering all the leads would have been very foolish

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed Paul.

As you know I rather prefer some of Rob House's theorizing on the Canarvan letter..

But for me I simply cant see that Lawende would have recongnized his suspect, he says this openly, although admittedly he does do the Sadler ID so must have been considered usable by the police.

Another hot sunny day here trust you enjoying

I didnt mean to steal your thunder on the ID, obviously I was borrowing your learned theorizing yours Jeff

PS I think Trevor is trying to stress you out, might be best ignored?

Trevor is trying to put some of Ripperology back on an even keel by separating the wheat from the chafe.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm no expert here Jonathon but I do think Swanson would have had an obligation to explore every lead until he had a conviction. The files wre not closed after the Seaside Home incident..

Also Swanson had a series of murders to consider (off the top of head 14?)

He clearly would have been aware that more than one killer might have been at work..they were..and Swanson was a top Dog..

So even if he was convinced Kosminski killed Stride through a Schwartz ID. He'd still be considering the Pinchin street torse which may well have been done by different hands. Beside He'd also be aware that Strides MO was different to the others she was attacked from behind..

So not considering all the leads would have been very foolish

Yours Jeff

Well it is not an ascertained fact that some of the others were also attacked from behind to name Eddowes for one.

[PaulB]

My point -- and others make it, not just me -- is that if the police have already identified the Ripper with a witness (' ... and he knew he was identfied ...') then you don't need to bring that witness, or another witness, to 'confront' Sadler or any other potential Ripper.

That is a different question. And one which in the current state of our knowledge we cannot answer. However, there was, we suppose, circumstantial evidence against the suspect (which is why he was suspected) and the eye-witness placed him at the scene. But then another Ripper-like murder is committed, so the police would have been stupid not to have investigated, wouldn't they?

[Jeff Leahy]

Well it is not an ascertained fact that some of the others were also attacked from behind to name Eddowes for one.

Its an interesting point and one also made effectively by Patricia Cornwall.

I'm fairly certain how Stride was Killed. Bizarrely I was re-inacting this very MO this morning (Don't tell Wickerman the dress didn't fit ,I'm on a diet)

But I'd go out on a limb and state Chapman was atacked from the front, probably so was Nichols. Tabram most pobably from front though I except the idea her tongue was protruding is probably incorrect.

Kelly most probably had a sheet thrown over her.

I'm not so positive on Eddows, if pushed I'd argue front. Bill Beadle was pretty good on Eddows, if you ever fancy a pint and figure in out I'm game, but I'm not wearing the frock

Its an interesting arguement, however I do think they were all killed by the same man. Just that much like Jack teh Stripper most serial killers contrary to popular beleif do vary their kill tactic's to suite their environment and opportunity.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff and PaulB

This is where we disagree, fundamentally.

The 'stupid' act is, in my opinion, to drag the entire 'Jack the Ripper' tar-baby needlessly into the Coles murder inquiry, when you [supposedly] privately know that Sadler is not 'Jack'. The real killer was a Polish Jew protected by a Jewish witness, which fortunately did not matter in the long run because 'Kosminski' was permanently sectioned and then 'died soon after'.

To give the vile tabloids, over Sadler-Coles, that kind of ammunition against a police department already unfairly tarnished, and unfairly pressured, and unfairly ridiculed by this series of publicly unsolved murders -- when you know the real killer is banged up in a madhouse -- is stupid to the point of . well, you might as well order your next meal from the gutter.

Otherwise the words of the Marginalia make no sense. They are not referring to some Jack murders but all of the five, based on their being an annotation of Anderson's chapter.

You don't paint a target on your back for nothing. The police hoped Sadler was the Ripper and they could not even make the Coles murder-charge stick!

My personal theory -- here I resume my lonely perch again -- is that the events of 1891 were so disappointing and so traumatic for Anderson that they collided with his massive ego and, by 1910, his memory had wiped them from existence; by recasting them as the 'Seaside Home' scenario which is really the story of a near-triumph, or certainly a self-servingly satisfying tale.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff and PaulB

This is where we disagree, fundamentally.

The 'stupid' act is, in my opinion, to drag the entire 'Jack the Ripper' tar-baby needlessly into the Coles murder inquiry, when you [supposedly] privately know that Sadler is not 'Jack'. The real killer was a Polish Jew protected by a Jewish witness, which fortunately did not matter in the long run because 'Kosminski' was permanently sectioned and then 'died soon after'.

To give the vile tabloids, over Sadler-Coles, that kind of ammunition against a police department already unfairly tarnished, and unfairly pressured, and unfairly ridiculed by this series of publicly unsolved murders -- when you know the real killer is banged up in a madhouse -- is stupid to the point of . well, you might as well order your next meal from the gutter.

Otherwise the words of the Marginalia make no sense. They are not referring to some Jack murders but all of the five, based on their being an annotation of Anderson's chapter.

You don't paint a target on your back for nothing. The police hoped Sadler was the Ripper and they could not even make the Coles murder-charge stick!

My personal theory -- here I resume my lonely perch again -- is that the events of 1891 were so disappointing and so traumatic for Anderson that they collided with his massive ego and, by 1910, his memory had wiped them from existence; by recasting them as the 'Seaside Home' scenario which is really the story of a near-triumph, or certainly a self-servingly satisfying tale.

`So your arguing all the Whitechapel murder file were committed by the same man?...You think Druitt did all of them including the torso's? Even though he was dead when most of them happened?

Surely you must accept that Swanson must have considered this?

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

We know there was a file on Tumblety but is was in relation to gross indeceny.

Ah, right, so despite the fact that Tumblety was suspected of having committed the murders to the extent that the Met telegraphed for samples of his handwriting to San Franciso, the police didn't include any of that in any file?

Inferences since when did they have any evidential value, its convenient for you and your misguied theories to use this To suggest that all the main suspect files have gone awol and all the non runners left behind.

Really. Well, I'd like to know which of my theories is "misguided". Indeed, I'd like to know what theories you imagine I have, because you haven't demonstrated that you have the remotest idea what my thinking on this case is, anymore that you have demonstrated here or in your show what Martin Fido's thinking is. Anyway, you seem to be getting confused over who is drawing inferences here; you are inferring, just in case you haven't noticed, that because the files don't contain material about the suspects that they never contained material about the suspects. I, on the other hand, noting that the files are seriously depleted (I possess copies of the files, by the way, and have done since 1988) and having gone through more files at Scotland Yard and elsewhere than I care to recall, and by applying a judicious common sense, argue that any investigation generated a huge amount of documentation relating to almost every avenue of inquiry, right down to the letters received from the public. To suppose that there was no paperwork relating to suspects is a nonsense. What's more, as a former policeman you know it.

Take a look at what is left behind with the non runners mainly nothing more than a few letters and correspondence realting to each one.To me as a former police offficer who has more of an insight into police procedures and the way officers think and the way they investigate than you. I would state that if they were or ever had a specific suspects file in the true sense and I dont mean a list of names.Then all the suspect details etc would be kept together even the non runners.

As said, I have been though enough case files at Scotland Yard and elsewhere to know you're talking through your bottom. Reports, memos, theories, letters, interviews, blah, blah, blah. All goes into the files. Much of the dross gets culled even before the files leave the Yard for the NA. And nobody is questioning that the paperwork would have been kept together. That's wholly irrelevant. What is meant is that there would have been paperwork relating to suspects and that none of it now exists.

If there had have been a suspect file which included MM suspects then he would have had access to it and been able to include much more detail about each than he did in his memo, especially if the memo was destined for reading by the higher echelons.

Okay, let's think about that shall we? The memorandum was about accusations made against Thomas Cutbush, so all reference to other suspects would in fact have been irrelevant and it wouldn't have been necessary for Macnaghten to give any more detail that he did. Secondly, he apparently received information about Druitt, so he wouldn't have had to consult any files about him as the information would have been at his fingertips. He didn't include it. Why? Because it was irrelevant. Thirdly, the whole memorandum would have been irrelevant had he been able to say, "I respectfully point out that the allegations against Thomas Cutbush are rubbish because Jack the Ripper was Montague Druitt, and then gone on to outline the evidence in detail (cue Jonathan to tell us why he wouldn't have done that).

To me in the absence on that I conclude that there was not much more on those he named than he originally wrote.

The non runners are all spread about in different files etc.

I say again stop trying to cover over the cracks by keep using this same old chestnut about the missing files.

So, when we actually look for evidence or even reasoned thinking in your argument that there weren't a suspects file(s), and when we strip away all the excess verbiage about you being a policeman and knowing procedure, what it boils down to is that you personally don't believe that files relating to the suspects existed because Macnaghten would have made more use of them if they had done. That's it is it?

[Jonathan H]

Just Coles

Eh, no ... Jeff, I'm saying that if Anderson and/or Swanson knew that the Ripper was banged up in an asylum he would not have let the vulture think that Sadler might be the fiend.

He would have quashed that aspect either by saying that this murder was quite different or because he believed 'Jack' to be deceased -- just as he did in 1895.