Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh so you have no interest and all those worthy points I rasied in that long post yesterday are of no interest to you that is strange.

Well I guess its the only comment you could have made because the truth hurts and when confronted with issues that have a direct bearing on your beleifs, your thoughts and most of all your book inferring that Kosminski was Scotland yards prime suspect I would want to run and hide to.

Trevor you have to except that despite the odd supporting post from Phil Carter your position in the Ripper community has become a solo one..

Take your premise that the torn apron discovered in Goulston street was in fact placed there by Cathrine Eddows after use as a Giant sanitary towl with the biggest flying wings known to man?

I have been unable to find one ripperologist willing to suport this theory? And was even subject of humour in the recent podcast..Obviously not helped by the fact that it was pionted out to you that Cathrine Eddows was actually carrying small pieces of clothe for that very purpose.

Yet you steam rolled on with your theory ignoring everyones advice because if the killer did indeed drop the apron it meant he was heading EAST not back towards the docks which would have fitted your own theory

So naturally the community (in-fort though it may be) naturally has become cinacal to all your theories even though this might be a little unfair..

Sometime its just better to admit when your wrong and fess up.

There's a classic Black Adder Sketch were Captain red beard Rum claims 'all the other Captains require a crew, I say you dont' you're currently in the metophorical position of going around the Isle of Wright until everyone gets giddy (Those of you who watch Black Adder will know the scene)

Yours Jeff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOEehh_i_v8 for those of you who dont know Black Adder

[auspirograph]

To auspirograph
"Are you suggesting the primacy of a Polish Jew line of police inquiry in the Whitechapel murders despite developments introduced with Clutterbuck's thesis?"

I am still awaiting your answer about this. What "developments introduced with Clutterbuck's thesis" have any bearing on the Polish Jew line of police inquiry, or on Kozminski's candidicy as a likely suspect?

Rob,

I wish you could make up your mind on whether your queries refer to Kosminski as a "likely suspect" or the "prime suspect". There is a difference, a vast and significant difference that colours the historical context of this debate.

I don't have a problem with accepting Kosminski, or any Polish Jew, as a possible suspect for the Whitechapel murders. The evidence is there for all to see. The writing on the wall if you will.

However, when other credible sources are introduced and objectively permitted to inform the debate and more importantly, the research investigation of Jack the Ripper, I am inclined to question Anderson's version of events. In my opinion based on further documentary proof, I would go further and say that his version left to prosperity was politically motivated. That is to say, that serial murder investigations cannot be isolated from politically sanctioned police resources that fund them any more than the nature of serial killers can be isolated from their violent precedents.

What Clutterbuck did in 2002 was to document an alternative, equally viable and concurrent internal police investigation of the Whitechapel murders conducted by the same men who gave us Kosminski as a "definitely ascertained fact", which of course we now know wasn't the definitive story. Nor did Anderson's 'consensus' go beyond the senior police officers who are the direct source for the Polish Jew theory.

I am suggesting that you read my book, Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders which fully examines Clutterbuck's thesis, introduces further supporting evidence and explains why Kosminski can only be regarded as one suspect among many in the research investigation of Jack the Ripper.

The Polish Jew theory is unsustainable as the primary direction in Ripper studies and criminology because of the known presence of other historically contrary and legitimate police sources, which are not being accounted for.

But I cannot expect that you or Kosminski supporters will consider or accept any of these points as it appears your minds are already made up. And just to be clear, I do not support Marriott's version either.

[Jeff Leahy]

Rob,

I wish you could make up your mind on whether your queries refer to Kosminski as a "likely suspect" or the "prime suspect". There is a difference, a vast and significant difference that colours the historical context of this debate.

I don't have a problem with accepting Kosminski, or any Polish Jew, as a possible suspect for the Whitechapel murders. The evidence is there for all to see. The writing on the wall if you will.

Then lets make a very simple process as clear as possible for you.

There are over 150 potential suspects for being Jack the Ripper..

Out of these thre are may be twenty thirty that are credible...some great out siders like Bury or Cream or Cutbush

But basically we have four leading contenders because they were put forward by the officers that investigated the case and thus had access to all the files, that existed at the time now largely destroyed (yes we know it hurts Trevor but its called reality) So these guys new more than everyone else

That leaves: Kosminski, Druitt, Chapman and Tumbelty..

And if we ignore the sources and go back to looking at these individuals and the crimes committed by JtR...

Then one person comes out as the most probable or at least the suspect on which the fewest arguemnets can be put together to dismiss him..

That name is KOSMINSKI

However whether you wish to call him the prime Suspect, the leading suspect or even the only reasonable suspect in the frame..there is still not enough evidence to prove he was Jack the Ripper..

So of a poor crop he remains the best and most convincing suspect we have Based on a simple process of allimination.

I trust that helps clarify

Yours Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks.

That certainly helps to clarify your opinion.

The world now awaits with bated breath any evidence you may have in support of that opinion.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Can someone in a nut shell please explain to me why Stewart Evans does not believe the ID of Kosminski took place. I am truly baffled by this.

[Monty]

I don't think Stewart does Abby however, in a nutshell, the parade kinda runs against procedure.

Then again, we are gleaming this from 2 sources, Anderson and Swanson (via the Macnaghten Memoranda.

Not complete reports.

However I'm afraid its a lil more than a nutshell.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks.

That certainly helps to clarify your opinion.

The world now awaits with bated breath any evidence you may have in support of that opinion.

Regards,

Simon

No simon that simply is the position. If you would like to demonstrate where its wrong I'm happy to take that on board..

But then if I wasnt right there wont be so many of you trying to disprove the Kosminski theory, irronically it is the fact that so many of you who disagree with each other on every aspect of the case that consider KOSMINSKI the main suspect to disprove that proves what I say is correct

Ironic

Yours Jeff

[robhouse]

I wish you could make up your mind on whether your queries refer to Kosminski as a "likely suspect" or the "prime suspect".

I am using the terms loosely and interchangeably I admit. My intention is to say he is the top suspect (in my opinion).

However, when other credible sources are introduced and objectively permitted to inform the debate and more importantly, the research investigation of Jack the Ripper, I am inclined to question Anderson's version of events. In my opinion based on further documentary proof, I would go further and say that his version left to prosperity was politically motivated.

Well, that is your opinion. I do not agree with it, although you will find many people on here who do agree with you.

What Clutterbuck did in 2002 was to document an alternative, equally viable and concurrent internal police investigation of the Whitechapel murders conducted by the same men who gave us Kosminski as a "definitely ascertained fact", which of course we now know wasn't the definitive story.

This is not what Clutterbuck's thesis is about, as I am sure you know. Clutterbuck's thesis was a detailed analysis of the methods and structure of the Special Branch. As an aside he mentioned that a few entries in the Special Branch registers mentioned references to the Whitechapel murders. I am not going to go into a detailed description here, and I do not have my notes on it, but this in no way means that the Special Branch was "conducting" a "concurrent internal" investigation of the murders. The investigation of the Whitechapel Murders fell to the CID. The Special Branch collected (from a variety of sources) intelligence, tips, information etc. from informants, regular citizens, PCs etc. Certain types of information was considered to fall under Special Branch jurisdiction, namely, threats to domestic security from Irish terrorists and related topics. That some of this information had "cross-over" with the Whitechapel murders is in no way surprising. Indeed, it would have been surprising if in all the data collected and indexed by the SB there was NO mention of the Whitechapel murders. This in no way suggests that the SB was conducting an investigation of the Whitechapel murders.

That is not to say that they were not involved in it somehow. In my estimation, they would have been more likely involved in press manipulation perhaps.

The Polish Jew theory is unsustainable as the primary direction in Ripper studies and criminology because of the known presence of other historically contrary and legitimate police sources, which are not being accounted for.

But I cannot expect that you or Kosminski supporters will consider or accept any of these points as it appears your minds are already made up. And just to be clear, I do not support Marriott's version either.

I admit I have not read your book, so I cannot guess as to what theories you present in it that diminish Kozminski as a "top" suspect.. I have always assumed that part of the reason that several other police officials say things contrary to Swanson and Anderson is that the Police contrived to keep aspects of the investigation top secret, so to speak, and the Kozminski inquiry, in my opinion, was one of these aspects... that was known only to top officials at CID. I.e. not known by Reid, Abberline, Smith, etc. Or Macnaghten for that matter.

RH

[Phil Carter]

No simon that simply is the position. If you would like to demonstrate where its wrong I'm happy to take that on board..

But then if I wasnt right there wont be so many of you trying to disprove the Kosminski theory, irronically it is the fact that so many of you who disagree with each other on every aspect of the case that consider KOSMINSKI the main suspect to disprove that proves what I say is correct

Ironic

Yours Jeff

Hello Simon,

You will notice the truth here in this post.
There are "so many" of us trying to disprove...

That tells the truth. So many see the Kosminski suspect theory as a worn out, scratched, overplayed, badly warped record full of background noise, and hiss. And every so often this noise madf on a cylinder gets renewed- to a 16rpm, 33rpm, 78rpm, 45rpm, 12" extended version, 8-track, cassette, cd, mp3 and even the definitive remix version. It doesnt matter how well packaged it gets, the song remains the same. And "so many" see it for what it is and "so many" are telling the dj's the same thing. It STILL sounds like it did in 1894- badly recorded and without substance.
Even the original "owner" disowned it, it was so unplayable.

"SO MANY" hear it...and object.
Thats the trouble with record company executives- they believe they can get blood out of a stone and believe 'so many' cant hear, so they turn up the volume. The louder they play the same old background noise, more people hear it for what it is. ,
Top of the Flops.

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Simon,

You will notice the truth here in this post.
There are "so many" of us trying to disprove...

That tells the truth. So many see the Kosminski suspect theory as a worn out, scratched, overplayed, badly warped record full of background noise, and hiss. And every so often this noise madf on a cylinder gets renewed- to a 16rpm, 33rpm, 78rpm, 45rpm, 12" extended version, 8-track, cassette, cd, mp3 and even the definitive remix version. It doesnt matter how well packaged it gets, the song remains the same. And "so many" see it for what it is and "so many" are telling the dj's the same thing. It STILL sounds like it did in 1894- badly recorded and without substance.
Even the original "owner" disowned it, it was so unplayable.

"SO MANY" hear it...and object.
Thats the trouble with record company executives- they believe they can get blood out of a stone and believe 'so many' cant hear, so they turn up the volume. The louder they play the same old background noise, more people hear it for what it is. ,
Top of the Flops.

Kindly Phil

No Phil its called Ironey, I know thats a very difficult concept for some of you guys to understand..it requires a sense of humour

But the very fact that so many people , who agree on nothing but one thing; they must try and disprove the leading suspect..

Well it sort of proves me point doesnt it..

I'll give you a couple of days thinking room to try and work that out..

Please let me know when you have something remotely approaching new or original to add...

At least that should give me another good nights beauty sleep

Jeff

PS does this mean you'll go away in tears telling tales to teacher again?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Two questions.

What makes you believe Kosminski was the "leading suspect"?

Do you believe your "leading suspect" was guilty?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

'Sailor's Home' theory

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

Corroboration

FAO Kosminksi`ites.

In one of my postings I quoted Stewart Evans and his views on the ID parade and I would have perhaps expected Stewart to come on here and corroborate much of what I had posted on a topic which has been heavily debated in the past,including the marginalia and its authenticity and the handwriting examination it was subjected to.

In his absence I would draw you attention to a number of postings made by Stewart on the same topic in 2008 please follow the link all the way through.

I doubt Mr House will be calling Mr Evans a buffoon

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=810&page=2

[lynn cates]

snap

Hello Jonathan. I would submit that Evans and Rumbelow have fitted another piece into the puzzle with a "snap."

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
"As far as the seaside home is concerned I am in total agreement with Stewart Evans in that it never happened."

But Trevor, I'm sure Stewart can speak for himself but as far as I'm aware and as most informed people would agree, that has never been his position here or in any of his published works.

As you say, Stewart is more than capable of speaking for himself, but he's not been on the boards recently. I was fortunate enough to spend a very pleasant and enlightening day in his company earlier this year, when he spoke on this very subject. My recollection is that his view was exactly as described by Trevor, namely that the Seaside Home incident did not take place.

Regards, Bridewell