Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

The Seaside Home scenario has more holes in it than a fishing net. Supposition supporting an UNAMED place- holding a UNRECORDED meeting between unsubstansiated persons without any recorded date, in a fashion totally opposite to normal identification procedure (suspect taken to witness) with no full name of suspect, no name of policemen involved and all this done, apparently so clandestine that not ONE official record- either locally or nationally, via newspapers , locally or nationally or internationally ever recorded this major breakthrough, ever.
The Home Office would have been informed and there would have been letters galore between the police and the Home Office for goodness sake! Why? They had a positive ID on Jack the Ripper!

The only conclusion must be that it is not reliable. Who wrote it doesnt matter.

Kindly

Phil

Um. If we had all the files that pertained to the Ripper case you might have a point. The reality is that almost everything was destroyed at one time or another so that this statement is simply twaddle.

We don't know what was written or communicated, as most of the files were destroyed. We dont know..

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Where does it leave us?

Until official record of some sort appears, it is unreliable.
There isn't a jot of official proof that it happened at any Seaside Home. It doesnt matter if the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote it. Far too vague with far too many holes in it.

It wont stop people being attracted to the tune of the organ grinder playing the worn out tune. It wont stop some milking the scenario for all it is worth either.

Kindly

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Phil...for what little it's probably worth I don't have you down as a crackpot !

All the best
Dave

[Phil Carter]

Um. If we had all the files that pertained to the Ripper case you might have a point. The reality is that almost everything was destroyed at one time or another so that this statement is simply twaddle.

We don't know what was written or communicated, as most of the files were destroyed. We dont know..

Yours Jeff

ahh! The ultimate excuse. The files were destroyed, missing stolen or lost.
Well on that basis, ANYONE could have been the Ripper.
Absolve or accuse by choice thereafter.

The same old worn out tune. If applicable, use to excuse frailties of argument.

Cue Mr McHenry, Mr Rusty, Doogal, Florence, Brian, Ermitrude, Dylan and Zeberdee.
Laa la la la la, la-la la-la laaa la...

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

There is just no reason why this obscure man who, if as stated, was POSITIVELY identified as being a murderer involved in the autumn of terror, would not be known as THE killer to two very central officers, Abberline and Reid. There would be no reason for either to not be told. There is no reason to withold the information 15-20-25 or even 50 years later either. This is a poor, insane nobody.

There is a lot of comment as to whether Anderson lied. Some say he didnt. Ok, if the scribble in the marginalia is the truth- then do we assume Abberline lied? And Reid?

I have said it before and I will say it again. There is not a jot of official evidence to back up these annotations. People milk it for all it is worth. And they are fully aware of doing it. It keeps the Magic Roundabout turning. Cue the organ grinder and the monkey.

The Seaside Home scenario has more holes in it than a fishing net. Supposition supporting an UNAMED place- holding a UNRECORDED meeting between unsubstansiated persons without any recorded date, in a fashion totally opposite to normal identification procedure (suspect taken to witness) with no full name of suspect, no name of policemen involved and all this done, apparently so clandestine that not ONE official record- either locally or nationally, via newspapers , locally or nationally or internationally ever recorded this major breakthrough, ever.
The Home Office would have been informed and there would have been letters galore between the police and the Home Office for goodness sake! Why? They had a positive ID on Jack the Ripper!

The only conclusion must be that it is not reliable. Who wrote it doesnt matter.

Kindly

Phil

Phil,

I dont disagree that there are many holes in the account.

As for Abberline his repudiation of the Polish Jew theory may be something as simple as a power struggle with Anderson. He may have refused to believe the story. Police are as guilty as any bureaucracy for in fighting and personality clashes.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I dont disagree that there are many holes in the account.

As for Abberline his repudiation of the Polish Jew theory may be something as simple as a power struggle with Anderson. He may have refused to believe the story. Police are as guilty as any bureaucracy for in fighting and personality clashes.

hello Jason,

Fair point. Reid then as well?
Do I get the impression Anderson was not popular?

Kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I dont disagree that there are many holes in the account.

As for Abberline his repudiation of the Polish Jew theory may be something as simple as a power struggle with Anderson. He may have refused to believe the story. Police are as guilty as any bureaucracy for in fighting and personality clashes.

hello Jason,

Fair point. Reid then as well?
Do I get the impression Anderson was not popular?

Kindly

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

I don't think he was...at least initially...

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

ahh! The ultimate excuse. The files were destroyed, missing stolen or lost.
Well on that basis, ANYONE could have been the Ripper.
Absolve or accuse by choice thereafter.

Its not an excuse. Its simply a matter of fact that most of the files pertaining to the case have disappeared over the years.

There is no conspiracy. Just stuff either miss placed, destroyed or lost over the course of 120 years.

It really is that simple. Its probable that at one time files existed on all the major suspects...there gone..

Jeff

[PaulB]

ahh! The ultimate excuse. The files were destroyed, missing stolen or lost.
Well on that basis, ANYONE could have been the Ripper.
Absolve or accuse by choice thereafter.

The same old worn out tune. If applicable, use to excuse frailties of argument.

Cue Mr McHenry, Mr Rusty, Doogal, Florence, Brian, Ermitrude, Dylan and Zeberdee.
Laa la la la la, la-la la-la laaa la...

Phil

Phil,
You are misunderstanding the argument. Nobody is saying that the Swanson story could have been corroborated in the now missing official files, a claim which, as you say, could be applied to almost anything, they are saying that because a huge percentage of the files are missing it is impossible to say what they did or didn't contain.

You argue that the marginalia is worthless because the story it tells lacks corroboration in the official files. That is effectively what you have written many times, and it sounds like a reasonable argument and it would be a reasonable argument if all the files existed, but they don't. Only a small fraction of the files have survived, so no meangingful conclusion can be based on what is not in the surviving files.

Let me put it another way, imagine the surviving files as 10 pages of what was originally a 1,000 page manuscript, and imagine arguing that a specific word never appeared in the manuscript because it isn't in the 10 surviving pages. That's pretty much what you are arguing.

So, no, this isn't the "ultimate excuse". It isn't even an excuse. It's simply a fact. That the marginalia isn't corroborated in the surviving official files means zilch, nada, nothing. The marginalia has to be assessed and its' worth estimated using other established, scholarly criteria.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul

Trust you feeling well, I still feel like I've been punched by Mohammad Alli this end.

Just to pur a perspective on what your saying I beleive that we have an interview somewhere where Don Rumblow describes finding the Ripper photographs we have in an police attic. Sometime in the 60's he was simply asked to clear it out and bung everything by a superior.

Theres nothing in his story which suggests deliberate intend on anybodies part. Just throwing out a loud of old junk. Luckily Don already had an interest in the case and crucial evidence was saved.

Then there was a matter of two world wars

And I dont think from a modern prespective we understand how unimportant the whole thing must have seemed at various times.

I always enjoy your conversations about perspectives on the Ripper case at different times and how so many forget how the internet has changed stuff. The thinking of 'Ripperologists' (if they existed?) before the centeenary foreinstance is always facinating. Would love to hear you and Martin discuss that if you ever had an opportunity together?

But I digress. Yes unfortunately the Marginalia is all we have. And its a mirracle that that survived also. It does clearly pose some problems in what it claims, but I see no reason for beleiving it NOT gennuine and actually its bizarreness almost makes it more credible Not less.

Anyway the sun is shining in Kent, church bells ringing and its time to get out and do..

All the best J

[jason_c]

hello Jason,

Fair point. Reid then as well?
Do I get the impression Anderson was not popular?

Kindly

Phil

Phil,

Reid may have had the same motives as Abberline. He may even have baulked at blaming a Jew. Or Reid may be entirely heartfelt and simply believed the murderer had gotten away with it. Its impossible to say.

What does strike me is that Reid is adamant in his beliefs. Perhaps too adamant. He then goes on to give his own (less than believable) theory. All in a magazine article he was financially recompensed for.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

You are entitled to your views. I am entitled to mine. You are correct. Files ARE missing. But we cannot assume Kosminky had a file on the basis of the Marginalia. Nor on the memoranda either. Nor upon Andersons unamed Polish jew.

Yes. Much is missing. We do not know exactly what.
The Seaside Home account, which is what this thread is about, has no support from any official viewpoint and has holes all through it, that is fact too, not an excuse from this side either. On that non-scholarly point I will stay. Unsubstantiated, uncorroberrated and as such in my personal opinion, little more than an interesting story lacking in detailed facts.

Thank you for your views and your response.

Kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Reid may have had the same motives as Abberline. He may even have baulked at blaming a Jew. Or Reid may be entirely heartfelt and simply believed the murderer had gotten away with it. Its impossible to say.

What does strike me is that Reid is adamant in his beliefs. Perhaps too adamant. He then goes on to give his own (less than believable) theory. All in a magazine article he was financially recompensed for.

Hello Jason,

Fair points again, though as I am constantly reminded, the simple truth re Reid may just be that he told the truth. Just who did then?

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Paul,


Yes. Much is missing. We do not know exactly what.

Phil

Well thats not quite true. We know that some documents are missing as we have other references to them.

Swanson's Home Office Report fore instance relating to the Berner Street witness Schwartz.

We know Swanson took a statement from Schwartz but it has not survived. So there are all sorts of stuff we know existed. Sargent thick talked of hundreds of statements taken ? Where are they?

In short almost nothing has survived. And you appear to be making the case that because so much is missing we can draw a conclussion from that?

It doesnt make sense.

Sometimes in life our 'lot' is simply what we have..

Yours Jeff