Seaside Home?

[Bridewell]

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,

Tenanted by women, children & three police officers, surely?

However hard to imagine it may be, isn't that what DSS seems to be suggesting in the marginalia? Perhaps that's the significance of the "with difficulty" comment, that the presence of women & children posed a logistical problem?

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

People are continually saying this and using it as an excuse to prop up the belief that this nonesenesical ID parade ever took place anyhwhere else other than perhaps in the case of sadler.

You can dress your answers up in any way choose but the end result is still the same. If the reports existed as you say what happened to them, oh excuse me I think I have already answered that

So what explantaion have you got for the fact that if it ever did take place someone from those involved would have talked or given a press interview in the ensuing years. The silence speaks volumes.

I am not dressing up my answers, Trevor. Let me spell this out for you with alphabet bricks: I am not saying the reports existed, I am saying that you can't say they didn't exist because they are not in the surviving and severely culled files which don't mention any suspects. You are the one claiming something, Trevor, not me.

Now, if you want to defend your position and if you can do so without being silly and falling back on inane platitudes, please do so. Please explain to me how and why it is possible to conclude that documentation never existed in a collection of documents of which a mere fraction survive? Tell me that.

Any while you are about it, what theory is it that I am so afraid of you proving wrong?

Why do you say Martin Fido has back-peddled loads of times when hie theory is fundamentally unchanged from the time he advanced it in 1987?

And what facts isn't Phil Hutchinson giving to his walkers and which makes him a hypocrite. I mean, if you are going to make comments potentially damaging to someone's livelihood, shouldn't you at least back them up factually when called upon to do so?

Or are these just meaningless foot-stampings?

[Bridewell]

Hard Not To Speculate

First Annual Report. Since its opening until March 1891 the Home had received 102 visitors, 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants,74 constables, 5 ex-police officers, "and 2 other visitors admitted by special request". This detail should be noted, but no special significance attached to it.
Paul

"2 other visitors" could be a suspect and a witness, but equally well could be completely unrelated!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The Content Of Reports

Thank you for beliveing in a common sense approach but now stand back and wait for the barrage of usual comments i.e well all of these reports could have been "lost stolen or destroyed"

Hi Trevor,

I don't know that anyone is speculating that reports "could have been lost, stolen or destroyed". We know that there is material missing from the files. Where the speculation starts is in the content of the missing documents. Is it this which you find unacceptable?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

"2 other visitors" could be a suspect and a witness, but equally well could be completely unrelated!


Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell,

In order for the marginalia scenario to have happened, there are way too many caveats, possibilities and presumtions needed. Without a jot of proof to back it up.

Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun.
To quote the classic rebuff. We cant know the writer didnt. We cant prove the writer didnt.

Shakespeares toupee glue.

Kindly

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not dressing up my answers, Trevor. Let me spell this out for you with alphabet bricks: I am not saying the reports existed, I am saying that you can't say they didn't exist because they are not in the surviving and severely culled files which don't mention any suspects. You are the one claiming something, Trevor, not me.

Now, if you want to defend your position and if you can do so without being silly and falling back on inane platitudes, please do so. Please explain to me how and why it is possible to conclude that documentation never existed in a collection of documents of which a mere fraction survive? Tell me that.

Any while you are about it, what theory is it that I am so afraid of you proving wrong?

Why do you say Martin Fido has back-peddled loads of times when hie theory is fundamentally unchanged from the time he advanced it in 1987?

And what facts isn't Phil Hutchinson giving to his walkers and which makes him a hypocrite. I mean, if you are going to make comments potentially damaging to someone's livelihood, shouldn't you at least back them up factually when called upon to do so?

Or are these just meaningless foot-stampings?

Nothing I ever say is meaningless I can assure you and especially on the topic of the ID parade, the marginlia, and Kosminski I think others dont agree with you.

As to your question in realtion to proving my view I have already stated what i belive to be some proof that nothing was ever in writing anywhere on this ID parade by reason of the silence from all quarters over the ensuing years that speaks volumes. As has been said something of this magnitude would not just have dissappeared into thin air

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless even if they had a witness who saw a suspect leaning over the body with a knife in his hand, and we know now as they did then that no witness ever came into that category. So I have to ask what would be the point in them going to all that time and trouble to go 50 miles with suspect. The police at no time ever disclosed that they had a prime witness.

I have another question to ask. what was the witness being asked to make an identification on thats something if it happened you would have expected Anderson to comment on, and not just a general statement that the ripper was identified because up until then there had been a number of murders which even the police had doubts about them being committed by the same hand.

If there was ever a specific suspect file how come all the remaining details of suspects that remain and came to notice were not in that file would you not think it logical for them all to be listed and kept together because from a practical viewpoing i ceratinly would yet they are not as I said yesterday the remainder are scattered about in various files relating to all and sundry.

Take a look at the SB regsiters where the new names are recorded they are separatley indexed now would you not have thought they would have all been under one suspect file.

I think you should go and sit quietly in a dark room and really give all of this some proper thought because you obviously cannot see the wood from the trees.

I have to leave this post now as my grandson need his alphabet box back. I have to go deal with Mr Leahy again who is obviously suffering mentallly from not being nominated for an oscar for his last film which should have been titled "Amateur Night at Dixie" to which you are obviously upset about not being nominated for best supporting actor where you played the part of Catherine Eddowes bras.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from Cox and Sagar you mean

Hey perhaps that missing paper work is sitting next to your supposed re-examination of the Marginalia. Created by your mysterious doctor of hand writing

Jeff

Hey Speilberg.

Wouldnt you just love to know you keep thinking I am bluffing thats all you need to concern yourslef about at this time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing I ever say is meaningless I can assure you and especially on the topic of the ID parade, the marginlia, and Kosminski I think others dont agree with you.

As to your question in realtion to proving my view I have already stated what i belive to be some proof that nothing was ever in writing anywhere on this ID parade by reason of the silence from all quarters over the ensuing years that speaks volumes. As has been said something of this magnitude would not just have dissappeared into thin air

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless even if they had a witness who saw a suspect leaning over the body with a knife in his hand, and we know now as they did then that no witness ever came into that category. So I have to ask what would be the point in them going to all that time and trouble to go 50 miles with suspect. The police at no time ever disclosed that they had a prime witness.

I have another question to ask. what was the witness being asked to make an identification on thats something if it happened you would have expected Anderson to comment on, and not just a general statement that the ripper was identified because up until then there had been a number of murders which even the police had doubts about them being committed by the same hand.

If there was ever a specific suspect file how come all the remaining details of suspects that remain and came to notice were not in that file would you not think it logical for them all to be listed and kept together because from a practical viewpoing i ceratinly would yet they are not as I said yesterday the remainder are scattered about in various files relating to all and sundry.

Take a look at the SB regsiters where the new names are recorded they are separatley indexed now would you not have thought they would have all been under one suspect file.

I think you should go and sit quietly in a dark room and really give all of this some proper thought because you obviously cannot see the wood from the trees.

I have to leave this post now as my grandson need his alphabet box back. I have to go deal with Mr Leahy again who is obviously suffering mentallly from not being nominated for an oscar for his last film which should have been titled "Amateur Night at Dixie" to which you are obviously upset about not being nominated for best supporting actor where you played the part of Catherine Eddowes bras.

One thing I forgot to add was the fact that MM, Swanson or Anderson ever gave any indication what the grounds for suspicion were against Kosminski, they mentioned his character and demeanour now isnt that strange especially as MM appears to have had access to your missing suspect files.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Speilberg.

Wouldnt you just love to know you keep thinking I am bluffing thats all you need to concern yourslef about at this time.

While your down their looking for your evidence and the missing police files if you come across the missing Stipper coroners reports, there should be seven, then drop me a line

Marriott the magician conjuring new fake tests and imagined scientific analysis..

Hey perhaps you could make a magic carpet out of Cathrine Eddows supposed sanitary towl

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell,

In order for the marginalia scenario to have happened, there are way too many caveats, possibilities and presumtions needed. Without a jot of proof to back it up.

Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun.

Kindly

Phil

Hi Phil,

"Here's a possible. The writer made it up just for fun."

Okay, but why? If it was DSS, why make marginal notes of this kind when the probability is that no-one will ever see them? If not DSS, it would be necessary to find someone, with access to his copy of Anderson's memory (so probably a relative) who was prepared to damage his distinguished reputation "just for jolly".

Isn't the need for "caveats, possibilities and presumptions", something which makes the marginalia more, not less, likely to be genuine? If you were going to invent a story, surely you'd come up with something more plausible than an ID at "the Seaside Home", City CID watching the brother's home in Whitechapel etc?

The marginalia are of little value in identifying JtR because they allude to a confrontation, the weakest of all identification (see earlier posts). At best it suggests a suspect who may have been considered at the time, but what of it? It's quite possible to be suspected and yet completely innocent.

Like you, I'm not sure that the marginalia makes a great deal of sense. Where I differ is in believing that the marginalia themselves, however jumbled the thinking behind them, are the work of DSS.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey perhaps it was a conspiracy..Queen Victoria sent round her royal surgeon to knick a copy to Swansons book and fake his enicials

[Bridewell]

Now then.

I have also mentioned that as far as police prodeures are concerned it goes against anything I have ever come across. The practical logistics dont even bear thinking about.

Are you saying that, in all your years as a detective, you never "accidentally on purpose" brought about a witness confrontation with a suspect, or heard of someone else doing it? It's not something I ever did, but I've known it happen - in a police station!

That all being said the police would have known in advance that the evidential value of any identification made three years after the event would be not just unreliable but almost worthless

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

I agree that it would be worthless in terms of evidential value, especially three years after the event. However, the marginalia don't allude to a date, so where does the "three years" aspect come into play? It's valid if an assumption is made that the Kosminski referred to by DSS is the same one as referred to by MacNaghten, but how can we be sure of that? All he gives us is a surname and it's not as though Kosminski was a particularly unusual surname at that time.

Regards, Bridewell.

I dont know if I can agree with that. Kosminski was a fairly different surname and only one Kosminski was ever found in the asylum records...its a very specific spelling a Swanson gets it correct suggesting he still had most of his marbles when he wrote it..although I except their were other Kosminski's living where the apron was found..Rob's been to Klodova perhaps he can give a better idea how common but I'd say uncommon.

The only Kosminski in the asylum records was Aaron Kosminski. And dispite what little is known he does appear to match the person Swanson is talking about..

Of course his family ran a Tayloring business in Green Feild Street, Cox mentions a Certain premises..

The only thing that doesnt seem to fit is the March 1889 reference and even that could be explained if Aaron was placed into a private asylum in Surrey..

So the Marginalia has difficulties yes but thats what should be expected, Swanson wasnt writing a report he was jogging his memory. Perhaps he had considered writing something and then decided against it. We will never know..Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

While your down their looking for your evidence and the missing police files if you come across the missing Stipper coroners reports, there should be seven, then drop me a line

Marriott the magician conjuring new fake tests and imagined scientific analysis..

Hey perhaps you could make a magic carpet out of Cathrine Eddows supposed sanitary towl

If it had been big enough i might have

[Bridewell]

So Not Common Then.

I dont know if I can agree with that. Kosminski was a fairly different surname and only one Kosminski was ever found in the asylum records...its a very specific spelling a Swanson gets it correct suggesting he still had most of his marbles when he wrote it..although I except their were other Kosminski's living where the apron was found..Rob's been to Klodova perhaps he can give a better idea how common but I'd say uncommon.

The only Kosminski in the asylum records was Aaron Kosminski. And dispite what little is known he does appear to match the person Swanson is talking about..

Of course his family ran a Tayloring business in Green Feild Street, Cox mentions a Certain premises..

The only thing that doesnt seem to fit is the March 1889 reference and even that could be explained if Aaron was placed into a private asylum in Surrey..

So the Marginalia has difficulties yes but thats what should be expected, Swanson wasnt writing a report he was jogging his memory. Perhaps he had considered writing something and then decided against it. We will never know..Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I obviously have to back-track somewhat. I've just done a quick check on Ancestry of the 1891 census and found four male London-based Kosminski's:


NAME:
Martin Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Augusta Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1844 - Carlish, Poland
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

NAME:
Charles Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1873 - Marylebone, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - London, St Marylebone, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Maurice Kosminski
SPOUSE:
Rebecca Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1863 - Poland, Russia
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England
1891 England Census

View Image
NAME:
Israel Kosminski
BIRTH:
abt 1884 - St George in the East, London, England
RESIDENCE:
1891 - St Matthew, St George in the East, London, England

Only two of the four were old enough, so I concede the point. (Just shows you should never rely on memory).

Mea culpa. Sorry Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.