Seaside Home?

[harry]

I will add my opimion to that of Trevor.Not that my opinions will shake the foundations of Ripperollogy,but to object to those who take for granted,and post to the effect, that Trevor is the only one who disbelieves an identification took place.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Two questions.

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

Well kosminski becomes the leading suspect by default. Largely because of the lack of any credible evidence against any other suspect but more simply because the Two leading policeman in charge of the case both seem to indicate Aron Kosminski although I except Martin Fido's agruements as an outside possibility..

The fact is we just dont know because so much information is missing. And Of course Trevor and Phil will scream thats unfair you cant make accessments on what we dont know...

If I might use a Physics metophor here we dont actually know how the universe was created? But its now generally accepted that there was a big bang. Shortly before this was a large amout of Nothing and its theorrized that nothing becomes unstable. But large parts almost 70% of the universe is missing. This is usually explained by dark matter or Dark enregy, but theres an awful lot of chaps at Cern firing electrons into things trying to figure it all out. The fact is that a hell of alot isnt known. The curremt most popular suggestion is string theory which suggests an eleven dementional universe but how big or small these other dementions are? Well noone knows..there are gaps in our knowledge..

What we dont do is now believe the universe was created by some deity in seven days or that the world is flat or sitting on an elephant.. Just because we dont fully understand Quantum Mechanics.

Do you believe your "leading suspect" was guilty?

Regards, Simon

Thats a much harder question. Describe guilty?

I've always thought that without Kosminski as a suspect I'd sit in the UNKNOWN local man put forward by Don Rumblow. Someone who new the area, slipped into the background, didn't stand out. Someone who was deeply desturbed suffering savere psychosis..

And out of the credible leading suspects that has always eliminated Druitt and Tumbelty for me..

Possibly adding Bury? even Chapman?

But its the one thing that usually ticks Aaron Kosminski off peoples suspect lists, ie the fact that he appears to have been quite harmless once placed in an asylum that I find most interesting...for me that fits with what little is known about schizophrenic serial killers going through a phaze known as PSYCHOSIS..

So my answer would be if Aaron Kosminski wasnt Jack the Ripper we are looking for an individual much like him..

Yours Jeff

[DVV]

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.

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

Excellent link, Trevor.
"Anderson 1910 and Swanson's marginalia"....no other evidence the ID.

[Jeff Leahy]

Excellent link, Trevor.
"Anderson 1910 and Swanson's marginalia"....no other evidence the ID.

Yes some wise words by some wise people However it doesnt change the fact that Schwartz was the witness...

Now if someone could only discover if the theatrical Schwartz was actually a Tailor?

Yours Jeff

[Nemo]

I wonder if Kosminski was privately/secretly committed to the asylum, based on the circumstantial evidence alone

When, shortly after, the opportunity arose for Sadler to be confronted with a witness, ie Lawende, maybe Anderson/Swanson thought it opportune to include Kosminski in the line-up to see what occurred

We would then have one single attempt to ID the Ripper, Sadler being rejected, and Kosminski being recognised but the witness refusing to testify

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

It is not a fact that Schwartz was the witness, but a theory.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

It is not a fact that Schwartz was the witness, but a theory.

The marginalia is fairly clear that in the ID the two recognised each other..

Schwartz and BSM had a clear view of each others face. Lawende and Sailor did not..

Also Scwartz and Kozminski were men of the same age living in close proximity, I've therefore theorized the possibility that they were known to each other..

But yes as with so much of the case it is logical speculation. The witness isnt listed anywhere, it could have been Pipeman for all we know, as fact.

I'm suggesting probability based on what is known

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

That's right, Jeff, a theory -- and a very unconvincing one.

If Schwartz is the witness, and from his evidence Anderson and/or Swanson know that 'Kosminski' is the fiend, why on eath are they getting in Lawende to look at Sadler but for the whitechapel murders, which they believed Coles was probably the latest?!

It makes no sense. Not me anyhow. Whereas the Evans-Rumbelow theory that Lawende's 'no' to Sadler is being honestly mis-remembered does.

I tried to put a summary of it a few posts back. I also tried to also put some of the counter-arguments to it.

Plus, Schwartz did not describe a figure who was Semitic, or lithe for that matter. In his tale to the cops he was singled out for anti-Semitic abuse, not 'Broad-Shouldered Man'.

[PaulB]

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

Just to clarify, as I understand it, Stewart's opinion is not quite so simple. Whilst he understandably does not accept that the identification took place as described by Anderson and Swanson, he nevertheless accepts that something nevertheless happened which gave rise to the story they tell, and a possible solution is the suggested confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home. This is an utterly fair and sensible suggestion given that the marginalia tells a story which runs against expected procedure and that Anderson's conclusion goes against the general received opinion that the Ripper wasn't caught. Stewart and Don have therefore advanced a theory which fits within the known facts and allows that the sources are authentic and genuine, albeit confused.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to clarify, as I understand it, Stewart's opinion is not quite so simple. Whilst he understandably does not accept that the identification took place as described by Anderson and Swanson, he nevertheless accepts that something nevertheless happened which gave rise to the story they tell, and a possible solution is the suggested confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home. This is an utterly fair and sensible suggestion given that the marginalia tells a story which runs against expected procedure and that Anderson's conclusion goes against the general received opinion that the Ripper wasn't caught. Stewart and Don have therefore advanced a theory which fits within the known facts and allows that the sources are authentic and genuine, albeit confused.

Are you by any chance taking part in pool events being held at the summer olympics you are doing enough ducking and diving to win a gold medal !

[PaulB]

If Schwartz is the witness, and from his evidence Anderson and/or Swanson know that 'Kosminski' is the fiend, why on eath are they getting in Lawende to look at Sadler but for the whitechapel murders, which they believed Coles was probably the latest?!

Jonathan,
The question is whether a witness who has positively identified a suspect as the man he saw can or would be used to identify someone else as the person he had seen. In other words, if Lawende had positively identified Kosminski, would he have been re-used to identify Sadler? Maybe there are reasons why he would have been, but it seems more likely that being called upon in the Coles case points to Schwartz being the witness who identified Kosminski.

[Jeff Leahy]

That's right, Jeff, a theory -- and a very unconvincing one.

If Schwartz is the witness, and from his evidence Anderson and/or Swanson know that 'Kosminski' is the fiend, why on eath are they getting in Lawende to look at Sadler but for the whitechapel murders, which they believed Coles was probably the latest?!

It makes no sense. Not me anyhow. Whereas the Evans-Rumbelow theory that Lawende's 'no' to Sadler is being honestly mis-remembered does.

I tried to put a summary of it a few posts back. I also tried to also put some of the counter-arguments to it.

Plus, Schwartz did not describe a figure who was Semitic, or lithe for that matter. In his tale to the cops he was singled out for anti-Semitic abuse, not 'Broad-Shouldered Man'.

Hi Jonathon

Many thanks for the biggest laugh of the month I did enjoy that...

Of course it is this precise argument that proves that what I say is logical..

If Lawende was the witness then why? Would it even cross Swansons mind to use Lawende in the Sadler ID?

You can imagin that conversation "Hello Mr Lawende, you know that you went all the way to Brighton last week and POSITIVELY identified that scoundral Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper. Well would you mind coming over to another identity parade and looking at a differnet man?"

Strike me the only possible reply to that is 'Stop wasting my time'

So ironically you've given the best reason yet why Schwartz must have been the witness.

Yours Jeff

PS Do you know what Kosminski looked like? Do you know what Lipski means?

PS PS Sorry Paul I hadnt noticed that you had already made this point..sorry

[PaulB]

Are you by any chance taking part in pool events being held at the summer olympics you are doing enough ducking and diving to win a gold medal !

Are you really an idiot, Trevor? Instead of these meaningless platitudes, why don't you actually get to grips with the facts. If you have any, which I doubt.

[PaulB]

I guess the defination and interpretation of "Exonerated" depends on which side of the fence you are on.

In my book it means "removed" from all suspicion,

He clearly came to his senses about Ostrog having perhaps realised he had been provided inaccurate information when setting out to compile the memo and the same in relation to Kosminski, hence "exonarates"

If you are removed from all supsicion then clearly you cant be guilty of the murders, and you certainly cant be a prime suspect without any suspicion.

From what i have seen and read in police documents and records I do not beleive their was ever a specific suspect file persee. Exitsing police records and documents are littered with the names of persons who were put forward in various way by various sources as suspects. If there had have been a file why were all of these not added to that file. Again i say that its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed.

Trevor,
As the above post was one of the few you make in which you try to argue a point sensibly, and as I did not have the opportunity to respond yesterday, exonerating in the sense of removing from suspicion is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't what you wrote, which was that Macnaghten "retracted the suggestions that Kosminski and Ostrog were ever involved" (my italics). As said, Macnaghten never wrote anything approaching that, but in fact acknowledged that there were good grounds for suspicion. Being personally inclined to exonerate is a long, long way from "retracting the suggestion..." and at the risk of being unduly po faced, it is important that people in general and you very much in particular report what the sources actually say rather than what you apparently want them to say.

Turning to you comment that "its so easy to say evidence of suspicion etc was part of those files lost stolen or destroyed." You are absolutely correct. Totally. 100%. Except nobody is arguing that. At least I am not. What is being said is something quite different, namely that one cannot reach a conclusion on what isn't in the files because most of the files are missing and what survives doesn't refer to any suspects (apart from Issenschmidt and Pizer and so on) , therefore the absence of mention in the files means zilch, nada, nothing.

As for your opinion that there never was a suspect's file, as you have been told, there was a file concerning suspects and it was seen in the 1970s by Stephen Knight, who transcribed some of them. There was a file on Tumblety because Littlechild refers to it and there is no reason to suppose that files didn't exist on Kosminsky or Ostrog or even Cutbush and Bury. Abberline says that Druitt was investigated, from which some paperwork would inevitably have been generated. And we know that there was much discussion about the three insane medical students, yet there is barely a mention of them in the official files. So the combined weight of common sense, procedure, and inferential evidence points to the existence of suspect files. To conclude that there weren't any isn't sustainable.

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathon

Many thanks for the biggest laugh of the month I did enjoy that...

Of course it is this precise argument that proves that what I say is logical..

If Lawende was the witness then why? Would it even cross Swansons mind to use Lawende in the Sadler ID?

You can imagin that conversation "Hello Mr Lawende, you know that you went all the way to Brighton last week and POSITIVELY identified that scoundral Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper. Well would you mind coming over to another identity parade and looking at a differnet man?"

Strike me the only possible reply to that is 'Stop wasting my time'

So ironically you've given the best reason yet why Schwartz must have been the witness.

Yours Jeff

PS Do you know what Kosminski looked like? Do you know what Lipski means?

PS PS Sorry Paul I hadnt noticed that you had already made this point..sorry

It's one of the main reasons why one might advocate Schwartz as the witness. Of course, other problems arise with the Met using a City witness to a City crime to identify a Met suspect. It isn't that they wouldn't or couldn't have done, but it raises the question of why they didn't let the City get Lawende to do the identification, especially as the City was involved maintaining surveillance - and in the opinion of some theorists suspected him (the suspect) of the murders, hence maintaining surveillance.