Seaside Home?

[robhouse]

To PaulB - I don't know if Trevor really is an idiot, a crank or just a nasty piece of work. I do know that his increasingly tedious contributions have become a serious blot on what is otherwise a very interesting debate. While I admire your patience in trying to engage rationally with him, I think it is high time that we all just ignored him and carried on with trying to have a serious conversation.

It is difficult to attempt to conduct a thoughtful debate when a troll is constantly disrupting it with non-sensical and insulting behavior. In my opinion, Trevor should be banned. He does not contribute anything to the debate here.

Rob H

[PaulB]

To PaulB - I don't know if Trevor really is an idiot, a crank or just a nasty piece of work. I do know that his increasingly tedious contributions have become a serious blot on what is otherwise a very interesting debate. While I admire your patience in trying to engage rationally with him, I think it is high time that we all just ignored him and carried on with trying to have a serious conversation.

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. I have very little respect for people like Trevor, who make transparently stupid arguments and often just seem to be deliberately provoking a fight.

The Casebook Forum is a wonderful resource for those of who will always be fascinated by JTR. Let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Andrew

Thanks Andrew. You are right, of course. Ripper folk are intelligent, often frighteningly so, and well read and knowledgeable, and know that they are more than capable of recognising nonsense when they read it, there are bleak moments when one unthinkingly fears that these Marriotisms will be believed. I guess I just care that sources are treated properly.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

You appear to be suggesting that Kosminski's guilt may have been ascertained at some time after the Sadler investigation.

Is this correct?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
Maybe. How do I know? None of us know. What I'm saying is that the identification took place shortly before the committal and the Ripper-like murder of Coles happened six days after the committal, and I think it would be perfectly reasonable for anyone to have questioned and even doubted the certainty of the identification at that time. Don't you think that Ripper-like murder would have shaken anyone's confidence in the certainty of a prior identification?

[Jeff Leahy]

Personally, Paul, I tend to think that people fall into the trap of assuming that investigators used only one witness per suspect. The greater likelihood, in my view, is that multiple witnesses would have been used in each and every case - Kosminski included.

As for Schwartz, he was the only witness who observed an attack taking place immediately prior to a victim's death. In view of the fact that the Seaside Home identification was said to have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz.

Hi Gary.. I've just been for a run in the glorious kent sunshine and was thinking about this remark...

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.

Great post by the way.

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

Hello GM,

Well there's a novelty. Just WHO wasnt in the know out of Swanson, Anderson and Macnaghten re the Coles case?

If Swanson wasnt 'in the know' then the man investigating the Coles case was being what? Untold of the truth? So when did Anderson tell him all the truth so that Swanson would seemingly be of the same opinion re JTR to write it in the marginalia?
Seems stupid to me to have the Ch. Insp working blind without info from above.

Novelty No.2. If Anderson wasnt 'in the know' then who wasnt telling him, even though he was clearly involved in the case! Pray tell me WHO witheld info from the Ass.Comm?

Novelty No.3. Why would Swanson and Andersen EXCLUDE Macnaughten from any knowledge about a case HE was involved in?

Just WHO of these three wasnt "in the know"?

I await the explanation with great interest.


Kindly

Phil

Who says any of them weren't in the know? Kosminski's family bangs him away and six days later a Ripper-like murder is committed. Would you be that certain it wasn't a Ripper murder? Could you be that certain the witness wasn't mistaken? As said, when Sadler provided an alibi for the Ripper murder dates, maybe then, and as time passed without further murders you might begin to feel increasingly confident that your conclusion was the right one. But six days or so after the ID, I doubt you'd feel that confident.

[AndrewL]

To PaulB - I don't know if Trevor really is an idiot, a crank or just a nasty piece of work. I do know that his increasingly tedious contributions have become a serious blot on what is otherwise a very interesting debate. While I admire your patience in trying to engage rationally with him, I think it is high time that we all just ignored him and carried on with trying to have a serious conversation.

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. I have very little respect for people like Trevor, who make transparently stupid arguments and often just seem to be deliberately provoking a fight.

The Casebook Forum is a wonderful resource for those of who will always be fascinated by JTR. Let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Andrew

[Jeff Leahy]

Don't get your hopes up.

It occured to me the gag would have worked better if I'd used the spelling 'sauces'.. I could have had hours of fun with Bristo puns and pass the ketchup. I think a source just means something else to an ex-copper.

Do you think Trevor was aiming the fairy remarks at me? Surely not

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

You appear to be suggesting that Kosminski's guilt may have been ascertained at some time after the Sadler investigation.

Is this correct?

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

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 !

More twaddle. You're good at twaddle. I don't claim to be a criminal investigator, Trevor. But I do know a thing or two about investigating crimes, and I definitely know a great deal about recognising and evaluating evidence.
And this is not a criminal investigation, Trevor. There are no witnesses to interrogate, no suspects to question, no bodies to examine, no crime scenes to search for clues. This is history and all we have are sources, incomplete, disparate and of varying quality. Just sources. Historical sources. And most people here have more understanding of historical sources in their little finger than you and a million clones of you put together do. Mike Hawley takes the trouble to cite you chapter and verse that Anderson asked for handwriting examples of Tumblety, and what's your response? Why didn't they get his handwriting when they had him in custody. Well, goodness knows why they didn't, or maybe they did and lost it, or Swanson wrapped his sandwiches in it. It doesn't matter, the fact is that they did ask for the sample - unless you have evidence that they didn't, that the report was wrong. And you don't. You didn't even know about Chief Crowley.

[Phil Carter]

Hi GM,

We can place our three sources—Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten—at the Coles crime scene and/or at Leman Street police station when Sadler was charged with her murder.

Which one wasn't in the know?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Apologies Simon, I didnt see your post when posing the same question to GM.
It is a good question though worth repeating.

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Trev,

Shall I write to Stephen Ryder or does someone else want to effecting the removals

Oh, do write him to that effect -- he enjoys a good joke.

Don.

[PaulB]

Hi All,

On 7th February 1891 Aaron Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch.

Therefore the marginalia events — sent with difficulty to the Seaside Home, identified, returned home to his brother's house in Whitechapel, watched day and night by City CID, sent with his hands tied behind his back etc. etc. — had to have taken place prior to 7th February 1891.

On 13th February 1891 Francis Coles was murdered.

The "Swanson" marginalia therefore tells us [1] that Kosminski could not have murdered Coles, and [2] that if Kosminki was the Ripper, Coles could not have been a Ripper victim.

Why did the police attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

Why do you suppose that Kosminski's guilt was accepted without question in or before 7th February 1891?

[Phil Carter]

Not everyone was in the know.

Mike

Hello GM,

Well there's a novelty. Just WHO wasnt in the know out of Swanson, Anderson and Macnaghten re the Coles case?

If Swanson wasnt 'in the know' then the man investigating the Coles case was being what? Untold of the truth? So when did Anderson tell him all the truth so that Swanson would seemingly be of the same opinion re JTR to write it in the marginalia?
Seems stupid to me to have the Ch. Insp working blind without info from above.

Novelty No.2. If Anderson wasnt 'in the know' then who wasnt telling him, even though he was clearly involved in the case! Pray tell me WHO witheld info from the Ass.Comm?

Novelty No.3. Why would Swanson and Andersen EXCLUDE Macnaughten from any knowledge about a case HE was involved in?

Just WHO of these three wasnt "in the know"?

I await the explanation with great interest.


Kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Oh not not Hans Christian again do you mean the man that was not capable of telling lies or for that matter even bending the truth.

If they wanted handwriting sample why not get them from him when he was in custody. Why not refer to any handwriting he may have made on official police documents for example on a charge sgee or on his bail sheet etc etc.

Or is it a case of Druit all over again by the police saying "Oh dear he has done the offski so he must be the killer."

Oh dear. Do you never listen. Well, stupid question because you patently don't. Nobody has said Anderson was incapable of telling lies or bending the truth. Got that. I'll repeat it - nobody has ever said it.

You tell us why they didn't get a handwriting sample from Tumblety while he was in custody. Go on, tell us. Mike hasn't just made all that up, he hasn't invented it, it's what newspaper sources say, even quoting Anderson's response. Or are you going to discount another source just because you don't like it? Honestly, Tumblety was a suspect, his papers weren't just about the indecency charges. Do you know anything about Tumblety? Do you know anything about his trips to the UK? DO you know the slightest thing about the accusation that he caused the death of a patient? We know the answer, Trevor. No, you don't.

[PaulB]

Now your beginning to sound like Begg, you'll be quoting sources next

Don't get your hopes up.