Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sadly, if that last sentence is right then you're not out with the fairies. You've moved in with them! You really don't understand anything about history do you?

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 !

[PaulB]

Lets put this whole business of suspects into perspective.

lets go back to a time after the double event when the police were under intense critisism from the press and the public. Questions were asked in high places for them to disclose what attempts they had made to catch the killer.

Cue Swanson who writes out indvidual reports on all the murders. It should be noted that he also included Tabram so it would seem he beleived that her killing was part of the series. As he did with Coles in later years.

Those reports are detailed but despite him highlighting the enquiries and persons interviewed I dont recall him mentioning the names of any specific suspects. Now I would have expected to higlight any suspects that had come to the notice of the police.

Clearly up until the Kelly murder the police did not have any idea who the killer was. Yet all of MM suspects were still around at that time and I have no doubt many jewsih men were deemed mad and sent to lunatic asylums between 1888-1894. So what is so different about Kosminski and what evidence could have led the police to suspect he was the killer as late as perhaps 1891.

Well if there ever was any it could have been nothing more than weak hearsay. With that in mind for them to even consider an ID parade would have been out of the question, they would have known that had any Identification been made having regard to the passage of time and the circumstancxes surrounding the witness seeing what ever it was he saw any from of prosecution would not get off the ground

If the name Kosminski was involved in an incident involving his sister and the knife, that would have no doubt been recorded as was the incident involving cutbush.and good old Druitt who committed suicide at the wrong time. MM couldnt have mentioned any others because it appears none had been recorded, and I mean in the true sense of the defintion of suspect not someone who came to notice because they were mentioned for whatever reason and there were many of those. If there had have been any listed I cant see why Swanson would not have mentioned any of them in his detailed reports on all of those murders.

So where and how did MM get his information from to compile the MM. The answer is obvioulsy from the records relating to the two incidents involing Kosminki and Cutbush, and if his infrmation was that good not only would he have included more detail but would have included what evidence there was to class them as suspects. Again I say clearly there was none because having suggested Kosminsiki and Otsrog were likely suspects he then in another document exonarates them.

Come on people get real on this look at all of this sensibly and objectively we are still arguing about the viabilty of Kosminski when his name should have been removed from the list a long time ago.MM tells us to and even writes it down.

Remove Kosminski and you remove Cohen and Kaminsky also and while you are at it Tumblety also. Littlechilds entry in The SB register doenst do a lot for his credibilty with regards to his later ramblings to Simms about Tumblety.

Oh of course not forgetting all the quotes from the ranks in later years stating the police didnt have a clue.

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

Your ramblings have completely lost me now. Er, let's see, do you appreciate, understand at all, that Kosminski came to police attention c.late 1890/early 1891, and Druitt emerged as a suspect several years after Macnaghten joined the Met. So what possible bearing does a date up to and including the murder of Mary Kelly have on any of this?

And even if it was true that Macnaghten tells us to remove Kosminski from the list, which he does not, we are still faced with a story told by informed and senior police officers in a document which is authentic. That story may be wrong, but we have no idea why it was believed... But, hell, why am I wasting my time arguing with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Didn't read it, did you. This is not a case of telling lies, he's requesting information. Don't you get the weakness of your point? He asked for it, regardless if it makes no sense to someone blinded by misconception.

But not in connection with the murders if they had anything on him for the murders firstly they would have arrested him after all they had been watching him and his movements prior to his arrest.

Furthermore if it became known he was the killer or fell under supsicion whilst he was in custody for the indeceny offences again he would have been arrested.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Tumblety was thought of as a serious suspect at the time of the murders, and certainly nothing afterwards. Littlechilds commnets about Tumblety do not stand up to close scrutiny.

You ought to know that you cannot beleive all that is written in newspapers

The chances are they simply wanted to confirm where the real Tumblety had flown to and they already had his handwrting

[PaulB]

At last you are seeing the light the last sentence is so simple but so right

There was me thinking you were out with fairies all the time

Sadly, if that last sentence is right then you're not out with the fairies. You've moved in with them! You really don't understand anything about history do you?

[Simon Wood]

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

[mklhawley]

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."

Didn't read it, did you. This is not a case of telling lies, he's requesting information. Don't you get the weakness of your point? He asked for it, regardless if it makes no sense to someone blinded by misconception.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Kosminski could not have murdered Coles. Sadler could not have committed the JtR murders, he could have murdered Coles, he was covered in blood and had a motive..

Swanson had a duty to investigate. And as has been previously mentioned, this could have resolved his opinion on Kosminski not questioned it?

Yours Jeff

[The Good Michael]

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?

Not everyone was in the know.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, in reference to Tumblety...

In April 2000, Roger Palmer began the publication of a three-part article in The Casebook Examiner (Issues One, Two, and Four) titled Inspector Andrews Revisited with part three being published in October 2010. Amongst other issues, Palmer revisited a series of communications between Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner CID Robert Anderson, Head of the Whitechapel murders investigation, and San Francisco’s Chief of Police Patrick Crowley at the end of November 1888. The subject of the communication was none other than Francis Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

The San Francisco newspapers reporting this correspondence seem to diverge from each other on one fact. Palmer points out that The San Francisco Chronicle on November 23, 1888, insinuated (not directly claiming) Chief Crowley initiated contact with Anderson. It stated, “When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city...”, while The San Francisco Examiner in a more detailed article on the very same day stated directly that Scotland Yard contacted Crowley, “The London Detectives ask Chief Crowley about him [Tumblety]…there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...When the Chief of Police learned these facts, and that the bank still had several letters written by Tumblety, he telegraphed to the Superintendent of Police in London that he could, if desired, furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting. The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday [November 22 –three days later] this answer was received: P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. Anderson. Scotland Yard.”

Your view that Tumblety was never considered a suspect or a serious suspect by Scotland Yard must take the position that Chief Crowley contacted with Assistant Commissioner Anderson. Anderson contacting Crowley is an unacceptable possibility, because this would clearly refute the minimalist position. The Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard –Head of the detective division- PERSONALLY contacting the top law enforcement official in a US city about a ripper suspect can only mean he is a suspect and is important (not merely ‘one amongst many’).

If we assume that the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was a US newspaper report and not a correspondence from Scotland Yard, then one of the newspapers certainly got the fact of who initiated the correspondence wrong. Palmer points out a huge temporal problem with the minimalist’s position. The first news of ‘Tumblety’ ever being in San Francisco in order for Crowley to make any connection with his city was The Examiner dated November 19, 1888 (the November 18 article said ‘Kumblety’ not ‘Tumblety’ with no mention of him ever operating out of San Francisco), which is on the SAME day that Crowley sent a telegram to Anderson with the results of a completed nineteenth century style investigation by his second in command Captain Isaiah W. Lees. Here’s the Chronicle’s November 19 article taken from the New York Herald, which would have been the only US newspaper report Crowley could have read prior to his November 19 telegram to Anderson,

An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Tumblety, who has resided in this city off and on for about twenty-five or thirty years, is a Canadian. He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers. He had an office in this city some years ago, and went abroad last summer. He is well off and peculiar, and is the inventor of a preparation for the cure of pimples.

Dr. Tumblety always attracted attention in the street. Some years ago he used to go about wearing jack boots, accompanied by a greyhound and followed by a manservant, who also rode after his master when he took exercise on horseback. The Doctor had offices at various times in Jersey City, Pittsburg and San Francisco.

During the war he was arrested in Washington...

So, your is that Crowley read the paper in the morning, saw the article and remembered Tumblety, contacted his second in command and told him to drop everything and immediately start a nineteenth century investigation by figuring out which bank Tumblety might still have or had money in, waiting for the band to check to see if Tumblety has or had an account there and then see if there are any handwriting samples, going back to Crowley to discuss his findings, and then Crowley drafting the message to Scotland Yard, and finally having it actually be sent on the same day before the telegraph station closes. Why would he direct the second in command to rush it?

…Or the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was earlier correspondence from Scotland Yard, which conforms not only to Scotland Yard initiating contact (prior to November 19) but also to the statement, ‘there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London’. Note what the Evening Post stated, “When Dr. Francis Tumblety, the eccentric physician, was arrested in London, some days ago, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was telegraphed out here that he had lived in this city for years…”

This argument has actually been resolved. Roger Palmer discovered that at nearly the same time Anderson was in correspondence with Crowley (prior to Tumblety’s escape from England) he had initiated contact with another Chief of Police of a major US city that Francis Tumblety was associated with, Brooklyn’s Chief Patrick Campbell. Note what The Brooklyn Citizen stated on November 23, 1888,

Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting. Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday [November 22] from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault.


Not only does this New York newspaper state that Anderson initiated contact with Campbell, but there were also no other New York newspaper accounts that conflict with this fact. Keep in mind; this took place at around the same time Anderson was in contact with Crowley. Rejecting the reality of Anderson initiating contact with US Chiefs of Police in two cities known to be connected to Francis Tumblety after reviewing Palmers discoveries must now be considered tenuous.

In short, Tumblety certainly was considered a serious suspect by even Anderson.

Sincerely,

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."

[Jeff Leahy]

Cases are not solved on theories

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Well done Trevor looks like your beginning to play catch up..

And of course they must have had more evidence on Kosminski. We just dont know what that is/was?

If you'd taken the trouble to explore some of the theorizing put forward by Rob House however then you would understand that there are all sorts of possible expainations for this, his ideas are seminal. However I would imagine even he would except that its there that we enter the 'ripperology' world of speculation..

Something you and I might enjoy, but I think you'll find people like Paul Begg and even SPE to a point do not, Prefering to stick to the known sources and what can be said about the case with a direct source..

At least your at last beginning to ask the right questions, I'll have you converted yet

Jeff

Cases are not solved on theories

[mklhawley]

Trevor, in reference to Tumblety...

In April 2000, Roger Palmer began the publication of a three-part article in The Casebook Examiner (Issues One, Two, and Four) titled Inspector Andrews Revisited with part three being published in October 2010. Amongst other issues, Palmer revisited a series of communications between Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner CID Robert Anderson, Head of the Whitechapel murders investigation, and San Francisco’s Chief of Police Patrick Crowley at the end of November 1888. The subject of the communication was none other than Francis Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

The San Francisco newspapers reporting this correspondence seem to diverge from each other on one fact. Palmer points out that The San Francisco Chronicle on November 23, 1888, insinuated (not directly claiming) Chief Crowley initiated contact with Anderson. It stated, “When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city...”, while The San Francisco Examiner in a more detailed article on the very same day stated directly that Scotland Yard contacted Crowley, “The London Detectives ask Chief Crowley about him [Tumblety]…there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...When the Chief of Police learned these facts, and that the bank still had several letters written by Tumblety, he telegraphed to the Superintendent of Police in London that he could, if desired, furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting. The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday [November 22 –three days later] this answer was received: P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. Anderson. Scotland Yard.”

Your view that Tumblety was never considered a suspect or a serious suspect by Scotland Yard must take the position that Chief Crowley contacted with Assistant Commissioner Anderson. Anderson contacting Crowley is an unacceptable possibility, because this would clearly refute the minimalist position. The Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard –Head of the detective division- PERSONALLY contacting the top law enforcement official in a US city about a ripper suspect can only mean he is a suspect and is important (not merely ‘one amongst many’).

If we assume that the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was a US newspaper report and not a correspondence from Scotland Yard, then one of the newspapers certainly got the fact of who initiated the correspondence wrong. Palmer points out a huge temporal problem with the minimalist’s position. The first news of ‘Tumblety’ ever being in San Francisco in order for Crowley to make any connection with his city was The Examiner dated November 19, 1888 (the November 18 article said ‘Kumblety’ not ‘Tumblety’ with no mention of him ever operating out of San Francisco), which is on the SAME day that Crowley sent a telegram to Anderson with the results of a completed nineteenth century style investigation by his second in command Captain Isaiah W. Lees. Here’s the Chronicle’s November 19 article taken from the New York Herald, which would have been the only US newspaper report Crowley could have read prior to his November 19 telegram to Anderson,

An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Tumblety, who has resided in this city off and on for about twenty-five or thirty years, is a Canadian. He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers. He had an office in this city some years ago, and went abroad last summer. He is well off and peculiar, and is the inventor of a preparation for the cure of pimples.

Dr. Tumblety always attracted attention in the street. Some years ago he used to go about wearing jack boots, accompanied by a greyhound and followed by a manservant, who also rode after his master when he took exercise on horseback. The Doctor had offices at various times in Jersey City, Pittsburg and San Francisco.

During the war he was arrested in Washington...

So, your is that Crowley read the paper in the morning, saw the article and remembered Tumblety, contacted his second in command and told him to drop everything and immediately start a nineteenth century investigation by figuring out which bank Tumblety might still have or had money in, waiting for the band to check to see if Tumblety has or had an account there and then see if there are any handwriting samples, going back to Crowley to discuss his findings, and then Crowley drafting the message to Scotland Yard, and finally having it actually be sent on the same day before the telegraph station closes. Why would he direct the second in command to rush it?

…Or the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was earlier correspondence from Scotland Yard, which conforms not only to Scotland Yard initiating contact (prior to November 19) but also to the statement, ‘there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London’. Note what the Evening Post stated, “When Dr. Francis Tumblety, the eccentric physician, was arrested in London, some days ago, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was telegraphed out here that he had lived in this city for years…”

This argument has actually been resolved. Roger Palmer discovered that at nearly the same time Anderson was in correspondence with Crowley (prior to Tumblety’s escape from England) he had initiated contact with another Chief of Police of a major US city that Francis Tumblety was associated with, Brooklyn’s Chief Patrick Campbell. Note what The Brooklyn Citizen stated on November 23, 1888,

Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting. Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday [November 22] from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault.


Not only does this New York newspaper state that Anderson initiated contact with Campbell, but there were also no other New York newspaper accounts that conflict with this fact. Keep in mind; this took place at around the same time Anderson was in contact with Crowley. Rejecting the reality of Anderson initiating contact with US Chiefs of Police in two cities known to be connected to Francis Tumblety after reviewing Palmers discoveries must now be considered tenuous.

In short, Tumblety certainly was considered a serious suspect by even Anderson.

Sincerely,

[Jeff Leahy]

Well if there ever was any it could have been nothing more than weak hearsay. With that in mind for them to even consider an ID parade would have been out of the question, they would have known that had any Identification been made having regard to the passage of time and the circumstancxes surrounding the witness seeing what ever it was he saw any from of prosecution would not get off the ground

Well done Trevor looks like your beginning to play catch up..

And of course they must have had more evidence on Kosminski. We just dont know what that is/was?

If you'd taken the trouble to explore some of the theorizing put forward by Rob House however then you would understand that there are all sorts of possible expainations for this, his ideas are seminal. However I would imagine even he would except that its there that we enter the 'ripperology' world of speculation..

Something you and I might enjoy, but I think you'll find people like Paul Begg and even SPE to a point do not, Prefering to stick to the known sources and what can be said about the case with a direct source..

At least your at last beginning to ask the right questions, I'll have you converted yet

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

suspects

Lets put this whole business of suspects into perspective.

lets go back to a time after the double event when the police were under intense critisism from the press and the public. Questions were asked in high places for them to disclose what attempts they had made to catch the killer.

Cue Swanson who writes out indvidual reports on all the murders. It should be noted that he also included Tabram so it would seem he beleived that her killing was part of the series. As he did with Coles in later years.

Those reports are detailed but despite him highlighting the enquiries and persons interviewed I dont recall him mentioning the names of any specific suspects. Now I would have expected to higlight any suspects that had come to the notice of the police.

Clearly up until the Kelly murder the police did not have any idea who the killer was. Yet all of MM suspects were still around at that time and I have no doubt many jewsih men were deemed mad and sent to lunatic asylums between 1888-1894. So what is so different about Kosminski and what evidence could have led the police to suspect he was the killer as late as perhaps 1891.

Well if there ever was any it could have been nothing more than weak hearsay. With that in mind for them to even consider an ID parade would have been out of the question, they would have known that had any Identification been made having regard to the passage of time and the circumstancxes surrounding the witness seeing what ever it was he saw any from of prosecution would not get off the ground

If the name Kosminski was involved in an incident involving his sister and the knife, that would have no doubt been recorded as was the incident involving cutbush.and good old Druitt who committed suicide at the wrong time. MM couldnt have mentioned any others because it appears none had been recorded, and I mean in the true sense of the defintion of suspect not someone who came to notice because they were mentioned for whatever reason and there were many of those. If there had have been any listed I cant see why Swanson would not have mentioned any of them in his detailed reports on all of those murders.

So where and how did MM get his information from to compile the MM. The answer is obvioulsy from the records relating to the two incidents involing Kosminki and Cutbush, and if his infrmation was that good not only would he have included more detail but would have included what evidence there was to class them as suspects. Again I say clearly there was none because having suggested Kosminsiki and Otsrog were likely suspects he then in another document exonarates them.

Come on people get real on this look at all of this sensibly and objectively we are still arguing about the viabilty of Kosminski when his name should have been removed from the list a long time ago.MM tells us to and even writes it down.

Remove Kosminski and you remove Cohen and Kaminsky also and while you are at it Tumblety also. Littlechilds entry in The SB register doenst do a lot for his credibilty with regards to his later ramblings to Simms about Tumblety.

Oh of course not forgetting all the quotes from the ranks in later years stating the police didnt have a clue.

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