Seaside Home?

[Bridewell]

As said, the murder of the princes in the tower or the alleged murder of Edward II are crimes, but I don't think they could under any circumstances be classified as a police investigation. I don't see how Jack the Ripper is any different, although obviously an understanding of the Victorian police is a distinct advantage, though being or having been a policeman isn't necessarily an advantage in that respect. Needless to say, I agree with the rest of what you say, with the single caveat that whilst I agree wholeheartedly that the weight of probability favours the existence of documentation, the point I have been trying to make, as you are evidently aware, is not that documentation existed but that one can't say it didn't exist.

Hi Paul,

I pretty much agree with that.

Didn't Edward II die from having a red-hot poker shoved up his bottom though - which would be pretty difficult to write off as suicide or accidental death? (Or was that just the Christopher Marlowe version?).

Why do I get the feeling I've just walked into a trap in saying that?!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

The issue is one of context, though, Trev. Whereas in the Seventies investigators had recourse to fingerprinting and bloodtyping, the Victorian police had no such luxury. As a consequence witness testimonies and identifications assumed far greater importance in police investigations and subsequent criminal trials. So whilst the Seaside Home affair might appear odd by latter-day standards, it clearly wasn't an extraordinary occurrence for those engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt.

As for the rarity of the 'direct confrontation', I seem to recall that the Pizer-Violenia encounter was just such an event. Perhaps, then, it was more common than is generally recognized.

I agree there can be no direct comparisons between then and now but in alot of instances some of their actions they took then were by the book.

So lets look at this so called ID,

If you were JTR aka Kosminski and police turned up at your door and said would you mind coming with us to Brighton we think you are JTR and we have a witness who we think might be able to interview you would you say ok I will get my hat and coat or tell them to go and take a walk. Likewise if you lived with your brother would you not think your brother would not make some protestations about this.

As a volunteer they would not have been able to use force to take him and detain him long enough to take him to Brighton or anywhere else for that matter. If they had arrested him then we get back to files records etc and plenty of subsequent talk, after all as has been said there are many others who were arrested or put forward whose names and details are still in the files.

We still get back to evidence of suspicion I would say that if the police had enough suspicion to put him on an ID parade they had enough to formally arrest that would have solved all their problems. Alterantively if he did go voluntarily then after the positive ID why was he not then arrested and interviewed at length. After all they would not have had a conversation with the witness in front of him so he would not know that the witness wasnt going to give evidence. But he would have been aware that he had been identified.

Surely the easiest option to the police would to have brought the witness to the London they then could have kept the whole issue low key as some on here suggest they wanted to. That way only a select few would have known about it.
.
And then after all this in the knowlege they had this fearsome killer in their grasp they take him back home as if nothing had happened and leave him in a situation where he could easily be in a position to kill again.

It reallly didnt happen !

[Phil Carter]

The issue is one of context, though, Trev. Whereas in the Seventies investigators had recourse to fingerprinting and bloodtyping, the Victorian police had no such luxury. As a consequence witness testimonies and identifications assumed far greater importance in police investigations and subsequent criminal trials. So whilst the Seaside Home affair might appear odd by latter-day standards, it clearly wasn't an extraordinary occurrence for those engaged on the Whitechapel manhunt.

As for the rarity of the 'direct confrontation', I seem to recall that the Pizer-Violenia encounter was just such an event. Perhaps, then, it was more common than is generally recognized.

Hello Gary,all,

It has occured to me that there was nothìng covert in the Pizer/Violena witness confrontation. I believe I am correct on the following-

The Pizer/Violena ID took place at a police station in the heart of East London.(Leman St)
That newspaperreports on the occurrance are extant
That Violema positively ID'd Pizer.
That some policemen were present in the incident.
That date and place and outcome were made public.
The address of Violena is memtioned.

Which means even at the height of the killings the Police had no problems conducting ID situations in the area, with named suspect, named witness, namf policemen, named location and revealed the outcome and all of the above, to the public.

Compared to the time when the alleged Seaside Home ID story took place, then the obvious is clear.

The Police would have no reason to keep the ID of ANY Jew or any witness secret or clandestine.
Infact, thìs prime example showr how the Police IN REALITY acted in ID situations.


What eloquent reasoning against this will be pulled out of the excuse box to make the alleged ID so special now? For THIS is proof of how it was done.

Next?

Kindly

Phil

[caz]

Hi All,

Those who believe the whole Seaside Home story was a figment of someone's fertile imagination - presumably someone who wanted Macnaghten's Kosminski to be promoted above his Druitt - ought perhaps to be asking themselves what story they would have come up with instead, that would have sounded perfectly plausible to ripper, police and crime historians, modern day policemen and ripper researchers alike. As it is, they are arguing that it never happened because none of it makes any sense, the details just don't add up and it cannot be reconciled with the existing records. We all know that, but most of us realise there must be more to it than that.

For a start, what kind of clueless idiot is meant to have invented a scenario like this one, thinking it would satisfy anyone, let alone be accepted without question? Even Trevor or Phil could surely have come up with something a tad more believable if they had really tried?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Gary,all,

It has occured to me that there was nothìng covert in the Pizer/Violena witness confrontation. I believe I am correct on the following-

There didn't need to be anything covert or conspiracy based

The point that was made is that this kind of confrontation ID was common in 1888. Or at least not improbable..

Where as by the time Gene Hunt was doing them they were not..

Yes the Brighton ID was odd. But you have been given various senarios that might have explained this and chosen to ignore them.

Yours Jeff

[Bridewell]

Just So

Hi All,

Those who believe the whole Seaside Home story was a figment of someone's fertile imagination - presumably someone who wanted Macnaghten's Kosminski to be promoted above his Druitt - ought perhaps to be asking themselves what story they would have come up with instead, that would have sounded perfectly plausible to ripper, police and crime historians, modern day policemen and ripper researchers alike. As it is, they are arguing that it never happened because none of it makes any sense, the details just don't add up and it cannot be reconciled with the existing records. We all know that, but most of us realise there must be more to it than that.

For a start, what kind of clueless idiot is meant to have invented a scenario like this one, thinking it would satisfy anyone, let alone be accepted without question? Even Trevor or Phil could surely have come up with something a tad more believable if they had really tried?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I'm sure there's a kernel of truth in this somewhere. Finding it is the problem. I share your opinion on credibility. Why would anyone make up such a bizarre incident? The lack of documentation of arrest is not, in my view, necessarily indicative of no arrest having taken place. Since the introduction of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (effective 1st January 1986) it has been a legal requirement that a record be made of all arrests. That was not previously the case.

As for Trevor's question about why the police would release a suspect after such an identification: if there was no evidence to support a charge against this man, they would eventually have had to release him.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I pretty much agree with that.

Didn't Edward II die from having a red-hot poker shoved up his bottom though - which would be pretty difficult to write off as suicide or accidental death? (Or was that just the Christopher Marlowe version?).

Why do I get the feeling I've just walked into a trap in saying that?!

Regards, Bridewell.

No trap. Sources differ. Some say that he was killed that way, others that he died from natural causes, others that he was deposed and lived out his life elsewhere.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caroline,

I refer to my previous post.

We, those who do not believe that the marginalia has any base of reality, have been told that the onus of proof is upon us to disprove it could/would happen in the way Swanson described.

This has been done, with a sure-fire example of how an ID was, at the time, done. It relates to the JTR murders, with named suspect, witness, date, location, police prescence, and all details given to a newspaper. The witness positively ID'd the suspect, who was a Jew.

People can argue until the sun goes down on why anybody would write what is in the marginalia, but the fact is that the onus of proof must now be on provenance of it actually happening in that manner when faced with this concrete example of how an JTR ID situation ACTUALLY happened.

This thread was started asking about the alleged ID at the alleged Seaside Home and whetheq it could be a true story or not.

100% iron-clad proof of an example of a REAL , not alleged, ID has been provided, it also ticks ALL the boxes the SM does not, and to help it along, its ID'ing a Jew- in the heart of the East End Full of Jewish people, all occuring WITHOUT any follow-on 'riot', please note.

All of which tells this poster the details- or complete lack of them- in the marginalia, need corroberrating evidence. There is not one iota of proof that it happened how it did, why it did, where it did, in the manner it did, without a named witness, without a fully named suspec , without a named policeman, in an unnamed location, in a very unlikely situation of transportation, without any indication of how alleged suspect came to be at alleged identification location and ALL of this without record in Police files, Home Office files or Newspaper reports. (which HAVEN't been culled, lost or destroyed).
In 25 years none of the above has been shown in any way to have been even done in any other case at this time in ID methodology, as opposed to the Pizer/Violina ID situation which is proven to have actually occured.

Therefore until proof of the above can be shown, in my humble opinion the Seaside Home ID didnt happen.
I cant answer WHY it was written. All I know with certainty is that everything points to a story without corroberation or proof, and that AARON Kosminski's link with this marginalia is non existant.

No Caroline. I didnt make up the REAL method of identification used on a Jewish JTR suspect.

Kindly

Phil

[Bridewell]

Phew!

No trap. Sources differ. Some say that he was killed that way, others that he died from natural causes, others that he was deposed and lived out his life elsewhere.

I quite like the Marlowe version. I'm always reminded of Edward II whenever I go to Nottingham Castle, because of the secret passage (no double entendre intended*) allegedly used there and still known locally as Mortimer's Hole (likewise*!).

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was a straightforward invective.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a few familiar ingredients, courtesy of "a Scotland Yard detective"—.

"The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased . . .

" . . . They knew who the man was perfectly well, shadowed him persistently in the East End, knew his address, and several of his friends and accomplices. Yet they could not complete their chain of evidence. The man was never nailed, and he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police. But he has never to this day been arrested."

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was such a straightforward invective.

Hello David,

Maybe Swanson and Anderson thought the onus of proof was on Reid and even Abberline!
Hehe

Kindly

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

Those who believe the whole Seaside Home story was a figment of someone's fertile imagination - presumably someone who wanted Macnaghten's Kosminski to be promoted above his Druitt - ought perhaps to be asking themselves what story they would have come up with instead, that would have sounded perfectly plausible to ripper, police and crime historians, modern day policemen and ripper researchers alike. As it is, they are arguing that it never happened because none of it makes any sense, the details just don't add up and it cannot be reconciled with the existing records. We all know that, but most of us realise there must be more to it than that.

For a start, what kind of clueless idiot is meant to have invented a scenario like this one, thinking it would satisfy anyone, let alone be accepted without question? Even Trevor or Phil could surely have come up with something a tad more believable if they had really tried?

Love,

Caz
X

well put.

Also-Swanson did not put question marks next to Andersons comments or correct the statements-he added and expanded on it.

The ID probably happened, just not the way Anderson "remembered" it.

It probably went something like this:
Lawende: it looks like him, but I cant be sure
Anderson years later: he positively IDed him, but since they were both Jews would not swear to it. i had the case solved all along.

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Here's a few familiar ingredients, courtesy of "a Scotland Yard detective"—.

"The suspected criminal, till within a month at any rate, has been shadowed night and day, awake and asleep, by Scotland Yard detectives. Everything points to the conclusion that he has himself been perfectly aware of this vigilance on the part of the police, and it is, no doubt, from this cause, and this alone, that the Whitechapel murders have ceased . . .

" . . . They knew who the man was perfectly well, shadowed him persistently in the East End, knew his address, and several of his friends and accomplices. Yet they could not complete their chain of evidence. The man was never nailed, and he finally left London because his business was too much hampered by the police. But he has never to this day been arrested."

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Ingredients.... I like that terminology.

Best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

We, those who do not believe that the marginalia has any base of reality, have been told that the onus of proof is upon us to disprove it could/would happen in the way Swanson described.

Denialist Ripperologist' s please use there collective noun

People can argue until the sun goes down on why anybody would write what is in the marginalia, but the fact is that the onus of proof must now be on provenance of it actually happening in that manner when faced with this concrete example of how an JTR ID situation ACTUALLY happened.

NO IT ISNT. The onus is on anyone Denying that it happened to demonstrate why Swanson would make it up or lie in notes made to himself. He simply wouldnt do that. And as has been explained to you endlessly. He is coroborating the head of the CID a highly intelligent and religious man..

What you need to do is supply some sort of evidence that he wasnt telling the truth something the 'Denialists' have constantly failed to do.

100% iron-clad proof of an example of a REAL , not alleged, ID has been provided, it also ticks ALL the boxes the SM does not, and to help it along, its ID'ing a Jew- in the heart of the East End Full of Jewish people, all occuring WITHOUT any follow-on 'riot', please note.

Therefore until proof of the above can be shown, in my humble opinion the Seaside Home ID didnt happen.
l

Your humble humble opinion is baseless twaddle. Denialist History at its worst. Please demonstrate why Swanson would have lied or made up what he wrote in the marginalia ..you can not

Give my greetings again to master Copperfeild. Yours Jeff