Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

I told you I never bluff there is a time and a place for everything I will try to make sure you are there.

I should say to you the same about the authenticty of the marginalia put it up for re examamination or stop telling people its authentic.

I have nothing to apologise for I will shut up now becaue this is becoming tiresome any annoying to me trying to offer reason and logic to those who do not have the apptitude or capabilty to understand it.

Ah! so you admit that you have had new examinations done and you are holding back the results of those examinations for your personal profit?

You are doing exactly what you attack others for doing! Hypocrit!

Can you at least tell us the nature of these examinations what was looked at and by what sort of an expert?

Please confirm

Yours Jeff

[Bridewell]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

One other point which should perhaps be mentioned: The marginalia allude to "identification". My reading of the text suggests that the witness (whoever it may have been) was shown just the one suspect and asked whether or not this was the offender. If this is what transpired, strictly speaking, it's a "confrontation". A confrontation ID is very weak from an evidential point of view, for obvious reasons - the witness is shown only one person and must either accept or reject that person as the offender. Such a procedure would have been permissible only if the suspect had been asked to stand on an ID Parade and had refused to do so. If such an offer was not made, any identification resulting from the confrontation would be invalid and not admissible. That was certainly the case in my time, but even my police service doesn't go back as far as the 19th century.

It could have been (I'm not saying it was!) that the whole "refused to give evidence" thing was a red herring to conceal a blunder in ID procedure.

If you haven't actually quite gone away, Trevor, perhaps you can confirm (or otherwise) that my understanding is correct. So much changed with PACE 1984, that it's sometimes difficult to recall, with certainty, how things used to be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

One other point which should perhaps be mentioned: The marginalia allude to "identification". My reading of the text suggests that the witness (whoever it may have been) was shown just the one suspect and asked whether or not this was the offender. If this is what transpired, strictly speaking, it's a "confrontation". A confrontation ID is very weak from an evidential point of view, for obvious reasons - the witness is shown only one person and must either accept or reject that person as the offender. Such a procedure would have been permissible only if the suspect had been asked to stand on an ID Parade and had refused to do so. If such an offer was not made, any identification resulting from the confrontation would be invalid and not admissible. That was certainly the case in my time, but even my police service doesn't go back as far as the 19th century.

It could have been (I'm not saying it was!) that the whole "refused to give evidence" thing was a red herring to conceal a blunder in ID procedure.

If you haven't actually quite gone away, Trevor, perhaps you can confirm (or otherwise) that my understanding is correct. So much changed with PACE 1984, that it's sometimes difficult to recall, with certainty, how things used to be. Regards, Bridewell.

My understanding is that this sort of confrontational ID was standard practice at the time and not un-heard of.. might be one for Monty? So I think the blunder idea doesnt work.

If the witness was Schwartz its always struck me as interesting that Schwartz was described as Theatrical? Could Schwartz have been a Tailor and worked for the Kosminski family? Could he have recognised Kosminski other than Berner Street? Could they have been known to each other, other than the killing?

Just a Thought

Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Is not the key phrase in the marginalia:

"where he had been sent by us with difficulty"?

What was the difficulty, I wonder? Presumably not just the distance involved, so was it perhaps that the suspect concerned in this alleged identification, was not in police custody, but somebody else's?

Yes Bridewell, that was the phrase that caught my eye in the first place and made me query Hove as the Seaside Home, leading to this thread in the first place...and I guess it is still that phrase which bugs me re the Seamans Home...but hey there are far better minds than mine baffled by it!

Dave

[Monty]

Bridewell,

Good old Police and Criminal Evidence act (PACE). The nights I've spent with a highlighter reading that.

Yes, I suspect it would have been a confrontational ID however maybe not in the true sense whereas the two actually come face to face.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty you are biggest culprit on here you continually reject what people say on here in favour of you old outdated theories to which you can provide no corroboration for anyway.

And now you have taken to me and want to be my agent how does 10 % sound

And what are my old outdated theories? I'm interested in hearing them as I'm not sure I have any.

20% I believe is the norm.

Simon,

Yes...fair comment.

Monty

[Admin]

General Announcement to all:

Discuss the case, not the failings of individual posters. Thank you.

[Jeff Leahy]

The case may well have been a Gladstone bag? carried by Goldstein..

Fanny Mortimer exclaimed "I was at my door for no-more than ten minutes"

And the ripper community cry'd bibble...

[Bridewell]

If there was an identification, and if it was at the Seaside Home, and if Kosminski was the suspect (i.e. if Swanson got his facts right) then the problem of location has to be overcome.

For some reason (if he did get his facts right) an identification, involving Kosminski, was held about 50 miles from London in a (Police?) Convalescent Home. We are told that the suspect was taken there "with difficulty" for whatever reason. Taking this statement at face value (always dangerous I know) I would have to ask, if it was so difficult, why the witness wasn't taken to the suspect? Logical inference: taking the suspect to the witness, difficult though it was, was easier than taking the witness to the suspect.

My surmise - (if Swanson meant exactly what is recorded in the marginalia): there was a witness in the Seaside Home who was so ill or incapacitated that he couldn't be moved.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Seeing Light?

Ah now that WOULD make sense...I believe "Curious" surmised something along these lines early in the thread...we are talking presumably a recuperating copper...don't suppose they had an Injuries Book in those days...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

But thereagain....

But why would a copper express recognition but then fail to come up for the start? So it's the Jewish Convalescent Seaside Home? Is that what you're suggesting Bridewell?

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In 1891 the Police Convalescent Home at 51 Clarendon Villas, Hove, was also the Southern Counties Police Orphanage [see Kelly Directory 1890/1891].

It had accommodation for sixteen people.

1891 Census [5th April], seven weeks after Aaron Kosminski's incarceration at Colney Hatch.

Police Convalescent Home
51 Clarendon Villas
County: Sussex
Civil District: Hove
Ecc[lesiastical] District: Brighton

Mary M.P. Griffen, Head, Lives by Own Means, 33, Born Portsea, Hampshire

Fanny March, Widow, 57, Born Ssx [Sussex] Biddlecombe

James H. Archer, Visitor, Scholar, 10, Born Brighton

James H. Cousens, Visitor, Scholar, 6, Born Leic[ester]

Letitice Roper, Servant, 41, Weeks, Ryde, Isle of Wight

Eliza Inman, Servant, 14, London, Bow

James M. Hay, Boarder, 42, Police Inspector, Kent

Henry R. Hatch, Boarder, 47, Police Constable, Mdx [Middlesex] Southall

Frederic Child, Boarder, Police Constable, 20 (?), Bucks, Beaconsfield.

It's hard to imagine the Metropolitan [or City] Police bringing history's most infamous murderer to a small house in Hove tenanted by women and children.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Apropos of nothing Simon, wonder where Biddlecombe in Sussex is? I've not heard of one...either way...next stop Jewish Home?

Dave

PS Edit - wonder if Biddlecombe is actually the name she was born under...it's a peculiarly Sussex name from the Heathfield/Waldron/Frant area DW

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

There was a Jewish Convalescent Home in Brighton, unconnected to the police. Unfortunately for our purposes it was the Jewish Children's Convalescent Home at 35 Montgomery Street, Hove, which opened post-1891.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

In 1891 the Police Convalescent Home at 51 Clarendon Villas, Hove, was also the Southern Counties Police Orphanage [see Kelly Directory 1890/1891].

It had accommodation for sixteen people.

1891 Census [5th April], seven weeks after Aaron Kosminski's incarceration at Colney Hatch.

Police Convalescent Home
51 Clarendon Villas
County: Sussex
Civil District: Hove
Ecc[lesiastical] District: Brighton

Mary M.P. Griffen, Head, Lives by Own Means, 33, Born Portsea, Hampshire

Fanny March, Widow, 57, Born Ssx [Sussex] Biddlecombe

James H. Archer, Visitor, Scholar, 10, Born Brighton

James H. Cousens, Visitor, Scholar, 6, Born Leic[ester]

Letitice Roper, Servant, 41, Weeks, Ryde, Isle of Wight

Eliza Inman, Servant, 14, London, Bow

James M. Hay, Boarder, 42, Police Inspector, Kent

Henry R. Hatch, Boarder, 47, Police Constable, Mdx [Middlesex] Southall

Frederic Child, Boarder, Police Constable, 20 (?), Bucks, Beaconsfield.

It's hard to imagine the Metropolitan [or City] Police bringing history's most infamous murderer to a small house in Hove tenanted by women and children.

Regards, Simon

Hi Simon..am I not right in remembering that the seaside home records record an unknown guest (around 1891?) I'm sure I've come across that somewhere?

Jeff