Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

I quoted a previous casebook link last night in which Stewart Evans wrote and postulated the same things I did with regard to the Id parade and The marginalia I dont see these same persons wanting him banned, funny old world isnt it. I dont see him being taken to task.

Enjoy your summer holidays see you in York then perhaps you can tell me face to face what you think.

Trevor, I think its fairly well known and you can check our past confrontations on casebook that SPE and I haven't always seen eye to eye..

However Stewart Evans is a giant, one of the greats of Ripperology, a man who everyone, including myself , has the utmost respect for...

When those of us youngsters sit and debate 'ripper' stuff over a pint it is he along with, Fido, Begg , skinner and Rumblow that we quote because these are the greats....Like Pele, Best, Moore, Hurst and Allan Clark

But Stewart despite all his faults was always a Gentleman and always always stuck to the sources and the Facts..

You'd do well to learn from such a great exponent of Ripperology

I look forward to seeing you York (hopefully)

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev,

Earlier today you wrote: I will now finally withdraw and yet here you are back once more to abuse our patience. Promises, promises.

Don

Yes some definatly need further abuse. and now you have got involved just another to add to my list.

But i really do have better things to do than argeu here with individuals who habve no sense of reasong or understanding logic and simply want to read and belive what they read.

Thats the diference between so called historians and me I never take anyhting on face value thats the secret never beleive what you read and never believe what you are told, always check and double check, thats how crimes are solved and criminals caught.

Historians belive what they read what they are told and then the find themselves out on a limb or as i keep saying "up the swanson river without a paddle"

I am happy to leave in the knowledge that the Kosminski suspect has been debunked and the marginalia is not as authentic as those who seek to rely on would have all you people beleive.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Rob et al

I may be none the wiser, but I'm less worried about it now!

Dave

[robhouse]

Hello Dave,

It is all how you interpret that "in a very short time..." Paul Begg has interpreted that to mean that the identification happened shortly before February 4, 1891... say within a week or so. I personally do not agree with this and prefer a date of July 1890 for the identification, or even earlier. The fact is, no one knows for sure when (or where) the identification took place.

Rob H

[Trevor Marriott]

It is difficult to attempt to conduct a thoughtful debate when a troll is constantly disrupting it with non-sensical and insulting behavior. In my opinion, Trevor should be banned. He does not contribute anything to the debate here.

Rob H

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm you dont like the truth being told you, something you cant handle and you would like to silence me from here, do I care no I dont every dog has is day and I can tell you mine in on the horizon.

You need to take a look at yourself first you and others can try to beliitle me insult me all you like but there will only be one winner in the end, and that winner will be the truth as accepted by the public who wont give a rats arse about the views of six or seven individuals who think they are gods gift to ripperology and everyone else should take notice of what they say.

I quoted a previous casebook link last night in which Stewart Evans wrote and postulated the same things I did with regard to the Id parade and The marginalia I dont see these same persons wanting him banned, funny old world isnt it. I dont see him being taken to task.

Enjoy your summer holidays see you in York then perhaps you can tell me face to face what you think.

[Abby Normal]

To Abby

Try and acquire a copy of 'Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) by Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow. It is a wonderful book, and one of the best on this subect -- and for once I am not alone in my opinion.

One of its last chapters, 'Did Anderson Know', outlines their theory that the Kosminski slam dunk 'confrontation' with a treacherous Jewish witness is a myth.

It sure convinced me, though I add my own minor additions to it for what they are worth.

I will not do this elegantly and lucidly argued thesis any justice here, but you asked for a nutshell summary.

The authors argue that it is too much of a coincidence that a 'Kosminski' (Aaron) was sectioned just days before [almost certainly] Joseph Lawende was 'confronted' with a Ripper suspect [the Gentile sailor, Tom Sadler) who had killed a young, and pretty victim (Coles, not Kelly) for it all to have happened again with 'Kosminski' and Lawende, or another witness.

Why make yourself look like chumps about the Ripper, with Sadler, if you already know he is 'safely caged' in an asylum. Police agitation over the Coles murder -- after Aaron Kosminski had been permanently incarcerated -- argaubly suggests that if this was their best suspect cognition about him came sometime after he was already beyond their reach.

Anderson's magazine version of his memoirs seems to make this slip, as they ahve the 'confrontation' happening after he has been placed in a madhouse, a detail he dropped in the book version. After all, how could the suspect be arrested if he was already an inmate? But the slip may have come from a true though distorted memory: a kosminski sectioned around the time of a 'Ripper' murder, and a prime suspect being 'confronted' with a witness -- a Jewish witness who did not give them the answer for which they hoped.

That this confrontation between Lawende and Sadler, which led to disappointment for the police regarding a Jewish witness and a Ripper suspect, is the only one, and sits there in the extant record -- albeit in a single press source, unlike the 'other'.

Therefore, Anderson and/or Swanson's claims about a successful witness confronation, though the Jew refused to testify, are a product of probably a fading, self-serving memory lapse -- and the tale only enters the extant record in 1910 anyhow. Anderson had mentioned his 'safely caged' lunatic 'Jack' before in several sources and never even hinted at such an event.

That the Marginalia does not necessarily provide confirmation of Anderson's story as the whole thing may have originated with Swanson anyhow who apssed it along to his desk-bound boss. This is arguably the weakest element of the thesis as it requires a simultaneous memory malfucntion by two competent policemen about the same subject at the same time.

That the weird 'Seaside Home' location of the confrontation is perhaps a misremebering of another element of the Sadler story, in which the sailor attempted to sell a knife in a Seaman's Home, aka Sailor's Home.

That another key police figure, Macnaghten, about whom 'Kosminski' begins in the extant record, makes no such claim about a witness identifcation by a Jew -- but did through cronies claim that a beat cop had seen a man who somewhat resembled the Polish suspect with a victim (in his memoirs he pointedly retracted this story). And that, of course, Macnaghten preferred another 'suspect', an odd thing to do if it was so clear-cut that 'Kosminski' was the fiend?

That such a conforntation, in a police hospital no less, would be well known at the very least as a leaked story either at the start certainly later. Instead nobody backed up or defended Anderson, not even Swanson whose annotation is limted in value because he can write what he likes to himself, and his claims were not published; not pubplished in a forum in which they could be tested. They seem to have been of so little significance that the never shared them with his family.

Another objection to the theory is that in a much more rigidly sectarian age, people might misremember names and places and events but not people's race and religion. That to think that a Gentile, English sailor was a poor, Russian-Polish Jew borders on the ludicrous.

The arguable brilliance of the theory is that it makes sense of all available sources which otherwise are a perplexing contradiction?

Thanks JH
i find it hard to beleive that both Anderson and swanson could have made the same mistake in confusing Kos with the sadler ID. This was a whole series of events, not just a date or name. The main point(among many others) was that both witness and suspect were jewish, which is why the ID went nowhere after that.


I think the simplest and most likely explanation for the whole Kos/ID issue is that it took place, but Anderson (and perhaps Swanson) misremembered the significance of the outcome many years later about a "positive" ID-Looking back, with wishful thinking to make himself look better so to speak. At the time of the ID and shortly thereafter it seems clear Anderson had not arrived at his "definitely ascertained fact" which makes then all the subsequent actions with sadler and grant make sense.

[Supe]

Trev,

Earlier today you wrote: I will now finally withdraw and yet here you are back once more to abuse our patience. Promises, promises.

Don

[Trevor Marriott]

Your ramblings have completely lost me now. Er, let's see, do you appreciate, understand at all, that Kosminski came to police attention c.late 1890/early 1891, and Druitt emerged as a suspect several years after Macnaghten joined the Met. So what possible bearing does a date up to and including the murder of Mary Kelly have on any of this?

And even if it was true that Macnaghten tells us to remove Kosminski from the list, which he does not, we are still faced with a story told by informed and senior police officers in a document which is authentic. That story may be wrong, but we have no idea why it was believed... But, hell, why am I wasting my time arguing with you.

The marginila you seek to heavily rely on to prop up you theories has not be proven to be authentic so please refrain from keep trying to convince everyone it is.

You are so blinkered virtually everyone can see that Kosminski is a non starter now even without the marginalia. MM exonerates him. Fido traced an Aaron Kosminski and exonaterd him, or do you want to inlcude anyone else who just happened to have a surname Kosminski, Jesus how many more exonerations do you want before you take the blinkers off.

If MM exonerates him why are you and others trying to find someone eles who fits Anderson polish jew fable. Fido tried with Cohen and Kaminsky. You seem to want to readily accpet the word of two senior officers why not accpet the writen word of MM when he says he exonarates Kosminski and Ostrog you cant have it both ways.

[Scott Nelson]

There is no reference to the ID other than the Swanson Marginalia and Anderson (and likely Robert Sagar's recollections). Kosminski was released back to his brother's care in July 1890. But we don't know what transpired after that, until he was brought back to the workhouse by persons unknown on February 4, 1891. The identification, if it happened, was probably a few days before the February 4th date. The suspect was watched by day and night, and "in a very short time..." he was brought to the workhouse with his hands tied behind his back.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jeff

Yes, thanks, that admission in March 1889 is in the MM...

But it's that Feb 1891 ID date that puzzles me...I keep seeing references to it and wonder where it comes from...because I thought, per the Swanson Marginalia, Kosminski was released back to the care of his brother (which happened in 1890 rather than 1891)...

Still baffled (not an unusual state of affairs!)

Dave

Hi Cog
first admittance to the workhouse - July 12, 1890
second stint at workhouse - Feb 4, 1891 then admitted directly to Colney Hatch asylum Feb, 7 1891. Stayed there till his death.

It is generally beleived that the events described in the margenalia took place between the first and second stint at the workhouse.

[Cogidubnus]

A-Z

Hi Jeff

Yes of course it is...P269 is where the ID is in mine...Must've missed it first (and second!) times round...like you say though, it must come from Mile End Town Work House or Asylum records or the like...

And yes I did catch on you were being mischievous about March 1889...just wondered how far you'd take it!

Cheers

Dave

PS later on: (1894) Demented and Incoherent, Health fair...sounds like me!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

Yes, thanks, that admission in March 1889 is in the MM...

Hi dave,,dont quote me on that I was being naughty...March 1989 is indeed the specualtion date that throws all into a tizzle..

Swanson believes that Kosminski is placed into an asylumn at this date. Fido Speculates that he is talking about Cohen.

I'm speculating that Kosminski possibly went into a private asylum in surrey at this time but it is that speculation so be careful how you quote me.

But it's that Feb 1891 ID date that puzzles me...I keep seeing references to it and wonder where it comes from...because I thought, per the Swanson Marginalia, Kosmoski was released back to the care of his brother (which happened in 1890 rather than 1891)...

Still baffled (not an unusual state of affairs!)

Dave

Well I have a copy of the A to Z in front of me at all times and its on P268 but i assume referances the mile end work house records.

What interests me is that it clearly shows that their was disagreement about how to handle Aaron within the Kosminski Family, i mean three days?

Yours Jeff

PS incidently I own the only copy of the A to Z in the world Signed by Michael Schumar..its would make a great charity auction if Mr Paul Begg were agreeable and it could be signed by the worlds leading authorities..its still in pretty good condition even though it went to New York reading it

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jeff

Yes, thanks, that admission in March 1889 is in the MM...

But it's that Feb 1891 ID date that puzzles me...I keep seeing references to it and wonder where it comes from...because I thought, per the Swanson Marginalia, Kosminski was released back to the care of his brother (which happened in 1890 rather than 1891)...

Still baffled (not an unusual state of affairs!)

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm puzzled now, or perhaps I have my chronology wrong...or perhaps I'm just too thick to get it...but after the abortive ID incident wasn't the suspect released back into the care of his brother?

I thought, as far as Kominski was concerned, this happened after his commital to the Work House 0n 12th July 1890 and release on 15th July 1890.

I thought the whole point was ,that when he was readmitted to the Work House on 4th February 1891, he wasn't released back into the care of his brother, but admitted direct to Colney Hatch on 7th February 1891...

So aren't we talking a potential ID in July 1890 rather than 1891, or have I got my facts muddled somewhere? And before someone jumps to conclusions, I haven't got a point to make...just genuinely puzzled....

Help please someone

Dave

My understanding is that Kosminski was placed into care for three days from 12th July 1890...he was released...common as schizophrenia is wave like it comes and goes...sometimes ill sometimes sane..

Hes not ID'ed until feb 1891...

Also I might speculate that an attack placed him in an 'Private' asylum in Surrey March 1889...but thats speculation

Yours Jeff

PS Mike, buy your long suffering wife some flowers and take her out to dinner...this stuff is endless...I've struck lucky by finding someone whose now my writing partner, so sunday morning in bed with an autopsy report is now seventh heaven, we're also working on a comedy so you guys are an endless source of material..good luck

[mklhawley]

I'm Happy to lend you the costumes and you can have hours of fun trying to figure out how the murders were commited...did wonders of my relationship

Hi Jeff,

Now, there could be a comedy Ripper movie in the making!


Lynn, you're not the first person I've heard that from!

Mike