Seaside Home?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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

Don't get your hopes up.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.