Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seaside Home?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
      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

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
            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
            Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 03-27-2012, 08:46 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • Hi Paul,

                    I completely agree that a "Ripper-like murder would have shaken anyone's confidence in the certainty of a prior identification."

                    But we have to factor in the police investigation of William Grant [Grainger] as the Ripper.

                    This suggests that Kosminki's guilt was not finally ascertained [if it ever was] until after March 1895, a year after Macnaghten wrote his memorandum.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                      Who says any of them weren't in the know?
                      Hello Paul,

                      Answer: The Good Michael.

                      Which is why first Simon, then I, asked him to explain.

                      Kindly

                      Phil
                      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                      Justice for the 96 = achieved
                      Accountability? ....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Paul,

                        I completely agree that a "Ripper-like murder would have shaken anyone's confidence in the certainty of a prior identification."

                        But we have to factor in the police investigation of William Grant [Grainger] as the Ripper.

                        This suggests that Kosminki's guilt was not finally ascertained [if it ever was] until after March 1895, a year after Macnaghten wrote his memorandum.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        We must also factor in that Abberline, Reid, et al appear to have known nothing about the identification and that Macnaghten possibly didn't have the whole story, which begs the question of how widely it was known, at what level Grainger was questioned and thought a suspect, and whether anyone who was convinced of Kosminski's guilt would have intervened. But I don't have any problem at all with Anderson being wildly wrong about the Polish Jew. Indeed, I've never accepted that he was right. It's perfectly possible that Anderson (and possibly Swanson) were the only ones who believed he was guilty. But, as always, as we don't know the evidence on which their belief was based, and we know nothing about the identification, there is nothing on which we can base an assessment. All we can do is acknowledge that we have a strange story.

                        Comment


                        • But look at the efforts done by police in February-March 1891 to ascertain Sadler's whereabouts during the murders. Work done to rightly acquit him. Did that reinforce belief in Kosminski's guilt?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                            Hello Paul,

                            Answer: The Good Michael.

                            Which is why first Simon, then I, asked him to explain.

                            Kindly

                            Phil
                            Yes, I was basically pointing out in reply to GM and Simon, who asked which of them wasn't in the know, and you, who asked the same question, that none of them need not to be in the know, but that all could be in the know but doubting their certainty in the light of a Ripper-like murder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

                              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. ...The Casebook Forum is a wonderful resource for those of who will always be fascinated by JTR.

                              The only problem for me with these kind of threads Andrew is that my wife threatens divorce, since I'm not paying attention to her. I think she just said, "You spend all that time on the computer, and (blah, blah, blah,...)"

                              Isn't this stuff obsessive!

                              Mike
                              The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                              http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                              Comment


                              • Hi Mike,

                                Yes, I know exactly what you mean - I remember buying Donald Rumbelow's book back in 1988, thinking, "Well, this will answer all my questions and that will be the end of it." It hasn't quite worked out that way...

                                Andrew

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X