Seaside Home?

[Garry Wroe]

Well, yes, that's my take on it too, but isn't the only evidence that the eye-witness's evidence would secure a conviction Swanson's statement to that effect? He doesn't actually say it would have done, although that can be inferred.

More than inferred, I would suggest, Paul. Swanson stated that the witness's 'evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.' (My emphasis.)

Assuming that Swanson was not a man given to exaggeration, such a statement could not be true of Lawende. It is applicable to Schwartz, and Schwartz alone.

[Monty]

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

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

I'm not following you here. Surely Swanson had a responsibility to investigate the Coles murder even consider it a possible ripper attack...bearing in mind that there had been a series of murders after the now accepted Cannon (or McNaughten's Cannon)

However as far as I remember Lawende didnt ID the Suspect (which is why I've never bought the confusion argument) but more imprtantly Swanson discovered Sadler couldnt have committed the other JtR murders, while he must have suspected he killed Coles?

So nothing your saying really seems to add up

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

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?



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.



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.



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).



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?

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

[PaulB]

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 Garry,
Well, yes, that's my take on it too, but isn't the only evidence that the eye-witness's evidence would secure a conviction Swanson's statement to that effect? He doesn't actually say it would have done, although that can be inferred.

[PaulB]

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'.

Hang on a minute. Firstly, the police didn't bring the "tar-baby" into the Coles inquiry, the public and the press did, and let's not forget that the use of Lawende to identify Sadler was reported in passing in one newspaper and wasn't refered to be the police at all. Secondly, given that we have no evidence that anyone knew about let alone shared the conclusion that the Polish Jew was Jack the Ripper, or even that Anderson and Swanson were satisfied in February 1891 that he was, you are making a bold assumption when you claim that they privately knew Sadler wasn't the Ripper.

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.

Yep. But, as said, who, exactly, knew the killed was banged up? Patently they didn't, otherwise they wouldn't have dragged in Lawende. But when he didn't identify Sadler, when Sadler was shown not to have been in the country at the time of some of the murders, did they - or should we be precise and say did Anderson - then decide it had to be Kosminski?

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.

Well, yes, but we don't know Anderson had a "massive ego", we don't kow he found any events at any time "traumatic", we don't know that Anderson really gave more than a passing toss about Jack the Ripper, and we don't know that he recast anything as anything, or even f he did why Swanson would have believed it.

[Garry Wroe]

The question is whether a witness who has positively identified a suspect as the man he saw can or would be used to identify someone else as the person he had seen. In other words, if Lawende had positively identified Kosminski, would he have been re-used to identify Sadler? Maybe there are reasons why he would have been, but it seems more likely that being called upon in the Coles case points to Schwartz being the witness who identified Kosminski.

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.

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

No, actually, I would argue that that is exactly what Macnaghten does do in 'Aberconway' which was, furthermore, an opinion disseminated to the public via his pals -- who very much wrote it just like you did, especially Sims.

As I point out in my recent article on 'Aberconway' William Le Queux, among others, was not fooled by this propaganda about the 'drowned doctor', in 1898, and said so.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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.