Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed Paul.

As you know I rather prefer some of Rob House's theorizing on the Canarvan letter..

But for me I simply cant see that Lawende would have recongnized his suspect, he says this openly, although admittedly he does do the Sadler ID so must have been considered usable by the police.

Another hot sunny day here trust you enjoying

I didnt mean to steal your thunder on the ID, obviously I was borrowing your learned theorizing yours Jeff

PS I think Trevor is trying to stress you out, might be best ignored?

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

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff and PaulB

No, with all due respect that's not what I am arguing.

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.

They can't be the Ripper!

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 were 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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
As the above post was one of the few you make in which you try to argue a point sensibly, and as I did not have the opportunity to respond yesterday, exonerating in the sense of removing from suspicion is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't what you wrote, which was that Macnaghten "retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved" (my italics). As said, Macnaghten never wrote anything approaching that, but in fact acknowledged that there were good grounds for suspicion. Being personally inclined to exonerate is a long, long way from "retracting the suggestion..." and at the risk of being unduly po faced, it is important that people in general and you very much in particular report what the sources actually say rather than what you apparently want them to say.

Turning to you comment that "its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed." You are absolutely correct. Totally. 100%. Except nobody is arguing that. At least I am not. What is being said is something quite different, namely that one cannot reach a conclusion on what isn't in the files because most of the files are missing and what survives doesn't refer to any suspects (apart from Issenschmidt and Pizer and so on) , therefore the absence of mention in the files means zilch, nada, nothing.

As for your opinion that there never was a suspect's file, as you have been told, there was a file concerning suspects and it was seen in the 1970s by Stephen Knight, who transcribed some of them. There was a file on Tumblety because Littlechild refers to it and there is no reason to suppose that files didn't exist on Kosminsky or Ostrog or even Cutbush and Bury. Abberline says that Druitt was investigated, from which some paperwork would inevitably have been generated. And we know that there was much discussion about the three insane medical students, yet there is barely a mention of them in the official files. So the combined weight of common sense, procedure, and inferential evidence points to the existence of suspect files. To conclude that there weren't any isn't sustainable.

We know there was a file on Tumblety but is was in relation to gross indeceny.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[PaulB]

I have firmly got to grips with the facts I would suggest you firmly get to grips with reality and for one in your life give a straight answer

You do talk tripe. Utter tripe. Do you have a grasp on anything related to this subject? Anything at all? Now, what do you think I haven't given a straight answer to?

[Jeff Leahy]

It's one of the main reasons why one might advocate Schwartz as the witness. Of course, other problems arise with the Met using a City witness to a City crime to identify a Met suspect. It isn't that they wouldn't or couldn't have done, but it raises the question of why they didn't let the City get Lawende to do the identification, especially as the City was involved maintaining surveillance - and in the opinion of some theorists suspected him (the suspect) of the murders, hence maintaining surveillance.

Agreed Paul.

As you know I rather prefer some of Rob House's theorizing on the Canarvan letter..

But for me I simply cant see that Lawende would have recongnized his suspect, he says this openly, although admittedly he does do the Sadler ID so must have been considered usable by the police.

Another hot sunny day here trust you enjoying

I didnt mean to steal your thunder on the ID, obviously I was borrowing your learned theorizing yours Jeff

PS I think Trevor is trying to stress you out, might be best ignored?

[PaulB]

I will add my opimion to that of Trevor.Not that my opinions will shake the foundations of Ripperollogy,but to object to those who take for granted,and post to the effect, that Trevor is the only one who disbelieves an identification took place.

Plenty of people disbelieve the identification took place, Harry. The problem is why they think it. The reality is that two sources say that it did, and a third source confirms that there were genuine grounds for suspicion, so you either have to prove that these sources aren't authentic (but the evidence is that they are) or you have to explain why they say what they do but are wrong, which is what Stewart and Don have done. Other researchers look for other explanations or hold off reaching a conclusion until, hopefully, more evidence comes to light or a better understanding of what was going on is obtained. I subscribe to that category.

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff and PaulB

No, with all due respect that's not what I am arguing.

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.

They can't be the Ripper!

The police, eg. at least Anderson and/or Swanson, know that Sadler is not 'Jack' because they know 'Jack' is already 'safely caged' in a madhouse.

Moreover, whle you would be of course investigating Sadler for the murder of Coles, you would bend over backwards to make it clear to the vulture press and the panicked public that he could not be the fiend.

Either by saying that the murder is quite different, or because you know that 'Jack' is dead and/or incarcerated and then dead.

This is pretty much what happened in 1895.

Leaving aside whether a witness, probably Lawende, was wheeled in again and -- incredibly -- he affirmed to Grant, the point is a sailor was arrested trying to kill a harlot, he was investigated as a possible Ripper (why ...?) and then, apparently, Swanson said that he believed that the Ripper was now dead, though it is unclear if he means a generic Ripper or a specific suspect (it does match the later Marginalia in this detail which, if about Aaron Kosminski, is wrong.)

Furthermore, Anderson in early 1895 revealed to Major Griffiths that the Ripper was most likely a man he knew to be mad who had been incarcerated in a madhouse. Anderson was not backward, by then, in coming forwards about the basic outline of presumably 'Kosminski'.

What the surviving bits and pieces show is that in 1891, Anderson and Swanson act as if Coles is likely to be a Ripper murder.

Cognition by Anderson and/or Swanson about 'Kosminski' must, logically, come after this event.

In fact, after his 1892 interview where he does not even hint at a prime suspect who is 'safely caged'.

From 1895, Anderson just keeps saying things about his caged lunatic, presumably 'Kosminski' because of the masturbation connection, which strongly suggests that he thinks the suspect was incarcerated soon after the Kelly murder (by soon after I mean not years after) having been a menace and on the prowl, for 'mere weeks', and that he died soon after being sectioned.

All of these details do not match the real Aaron Kosminski, yet Macnaghten (who knew he was alive) is supposed to have gotten wrong -- that lousy memory again -- a key detail about this Ripper 'suspect'. That he was sectioned in March 1889, when it actually happened at a time when Mac had been on the Force for nearly two years.

Yet he backdates to before he joined the police ...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you really an idiot, Trevor? Instead of these meaningless platitudes, why don't you actually get to grips with the facts. If you have any, which I doubt.

I have firmly got to grips with the facts I would suggest you firmly get to grips with reality and for one in your life give a straight answer

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathon

Many thanks for the biggest laugh of the month I did enjoy that...

Of course it is this precise argument that proves that what I say is logical..

If Lawende was the witness then why? Would it even cross Swansons mind to use Lawende in the Sadler ID?

You can imagin that conversation "Hello Mr Lawende, you know that you went all the way to Brighton last week and POSITIVELY identified that scoundral Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper. Well would you mind coming over to another identity parade and looking at a differnet man?"

Strike me the only possible reply to that is 'Stop wasting my time'

So ironically you've given the best reason yet why Schwartz must have been the witness.

Yours Jeff

PS Do you know what Kosminski looked like? Do you know what Lipski means?

PS PS Sorry Paul I hadnt noticed that you had already made this point..sorry

It's one of the main reasons why one might advocate Schwartz as the witness. Of course, other problems arise with the Met using a City witness to a City crime to identify a Met suspect. It isn't that they wouldn't or couldn't have done, but it raises the question of why they didn't let the City get Lawende to do the identification, especially as the City was involved maintaining surveillance - and in the opinion of some theorists suspected him (the suspect) of the murders, hence maintaining surveillance.

[PaulB]

I guess the defination and interpretation of "Exonerated" depends on which side of the fence you are on.

In my book it means "removed" from all suspicion,

He clearly came to his senses about Ostrog having perhaps realised he had been provided inaccurate information when setting out to compile the memo and the same in relation to Kosminski, hence "exonarates"

If you are removed from all supsicion then clearly you cant be guilty of the murders, and you certainly cant be a prime suspect without any suspicion.

From what i have seen and read in police documents and records I do not beleive their was ever a specific suspect file persee. Exitsing police records and documents are littered with the names of persons who were put forward in various way by various sources as suspects. If there had have been a file why were all of these not added to that file. Again i say that its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed.

Trevor,
As the above post was one of the few you make in which you try to argue a point sensibly, and as I did not have the opportunity to respond yesterday, exonerating in the sense of removing from suspicion is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't what you wrote, which was that Macnaghten "retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved" (my italics). As said, Macnaghten never wrote anything approaching that, but in fact acknowledged that there were good grounds for suspicion. Being personally inclined to exonerate is a long, long way from "retracting the suggestion..." and at the risk of being unduly po faced, it is important that people in general and you very much in particular report what the sources actually say rather than what you apparently want them to say.

Turning to you comment that "its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed." You are absolutely correct. Totally. 100%. Except nobody is arguing that. At least I am not. What is being said is something quite different, namely that one cannot reach a conclusion on what isn't in the files because most of the files are missing and what survives doesn't refer to any suspects (apart from Issenschmidt and Pizer and so on) , therefore the absence of mention in the files means zilch, nada, nothing.

As for your opinion that there never was a suspect's file, as you have been told, there was a file concerning suspects and it was seen in the 1970s by Stephen Knight, who transcribed some of them. There was a file on Tumblety because Littlechild refers to it and there is no reason to suppose that files didn't exist on Kosminsky or Ostrog or even Cutbush and Bury. Abberline says that Druitt was investigated, from which some paperwork would inevitably have been generated. And we know that there was much discussion about the three insane medical students, yet there is barely a mention of them in the official files. So the combined weight of common sense, procedure, and inferential evidence points to the existence of suspect files. To conclude that there weren't any isn't sustainable.

[PaulB]

Are you by any chance taking part in pool events being held at the summer olympics you are doing enough ducking and diving to win a gold medal !

Are you really an idiot, Trevor? Instead of these meaningless platitudes, why don't you actually get to grips with the facts. If you have any, which I doubt.

[Jeff Leahy]

That's right, Jeff, a theory -- and a very unconvincing one.

If Schwartz is the witness, and from his evidence Anderson and/or Swanson know that 'Kosminski' is the fiend, why on eath are they getting in Lawende to look at Sadler but for the whitechapel murders, which they believed Coles was probably the latest?!

It makes no sense. Not me anyhow. Whereas the Evans-Rumbelow theory that Lawende's 'no' to Sadler is being honestly mis-remembered does.

I tried to put a summary of it a few posts back. I also tried to also put some of the counter-arguments to it.

Plus, Schwartz did not describe a figure who was Semitic, or lithe for that matter. In his tale to the cops he was singled out for anti-Semitic abuse, not 'Broad-Shouldered Man'.

Hi Jonathon

Many thanks for the biggest laugh of the month I did enjoy that...

Of course it is this precise argument that proves that what I say is logical..

If Lawende was the witness then why? Would it even cross Swansons mind to use Lawende in the Sadler ID?

You can imagin that conversation "Hello Mr Lawende, you know that you went all the way to Brighton last week and POSITIVELY identified that scoundral Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper. Well would you mind coming over to another identity parade and looking at a differnet man?"

Strike me the only possible reply to that is 'Stop wasting my time'

So ironically you've given the best reason yet why Schwartz must have been the witness.

Yours Jeff

PS Do you know what Kosminski looked like? Do you know what Lipski means?

PS PS Sorry Paul I hadnt noticed that you had already made this point..sorry

[PaulB]

If Schwartz is the witness, and from his evidence Anderson and/or Swanson know that 'Kosminski' is the fiend, why on eath are they getting in Lawende to look at Sadler but for the whitechapel murders, which they believed Coles was probably the latest?!

Jonathan,
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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to clarify, as I understand it, Stewart's opinion is not quite so simple. Whilst he understandably does not accept that the identification took place as described by Anderson and Swanson, he nevertheless accepts that something nevertheless happened which gave rise to the story they tell, and a possible solution is the suggested confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home. This is an utterly fair and sensible suggestion given that the marginalia tells a story which runs against expected procedure and that Anderson's conclusion goes against the general received opinion that the Ripper wasn't caught. Stewart and Don have therefore advanced a theory which fits within the known facts and allows that the sources are authentic and genuine, albeit confused.

Are you by any chance taking part in pool events being held at the summer olympics you are doing enough ducking and diving to win a gold medal !

[PaulB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
"As far as the seaside home is concerned I am in total agreement with Stewart Evans in that it never happened."

But Trevor, I'm sure Stewart can speak for himself but as far as I'm aware and as most informed people would agree, that has never been his position here or in any of his published works.

As you say, Stewart is more than capable of speaking for himself, but he's not been on the boards recently. I was fortunate enough to spend a very pleasant and enlightening day in his company earlier this year, when he spoke on this very subject. My recollection is that his view was exactly as described by Trevor, namely that the Seaside Home incident did not take place.

Regards, Bridewell

Just to clarify, as I understand it, Stewart's opinion is not quite so simple. Whilst he understandably does not accept that the identification took place as described by Anderson and Swanson, he nevertheless accepts that something nevertheless happened which gave rise to the story they tell, and a possible solution is the suggested confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home. This is an utterly fair and sensible suggestion given that the marginalia tells a story which runs against expected procedure and that Anderson's conclusion goes against the general received opinion that the Ripper wasn't caught. Stewart and Don have therefore advanced a theory which fits within the known facts and allows that the sources are authentic and genuine, albeit confused.