Seaside Home?

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

No, actually, I would argue that that is exactly what Macnaghten does do in 'Aberconway' which was, furthermore, an opinion disseminated to the public via his pals -- who very much wrote it just like you did, especially Sims.

As I point out in my recent article on 'Aberconway' William Le Queux, among others, was not fooled by this propaganda about the 'drowned doctor', in 1898, and said so.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Personally, Paul, I tend to think that people fall into the trap of assuming that investigators used only one witness per suspect. The greater likelihood, in my view, is that multiple witnesses would have been used in each and every case - Kosminski included.

As for Schwartz, he was the only witness who observed an attack taking place immediately prior to a victim's death. In view of the fact that the Seaside Home identification was said to have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz.

[PaulB]

To Jeff and PaulB

This is where we disagree, fundamentally.

The 'stupid' act is, in my opinion, to drag the entire 'Jack the Ripper' tar-baby needlessly into the Coles murder inquiry, when you [supposedly] privately know that Sadler is not 'Jack'. The real killer was a Polish Jew protected by a Jewish witness, which fortunately did not matter in the long run because 'Kosminski' was permanently sectioned and then 'died soon after'.

Hang on a minute. Firstly, the police didn't bring the "tar-baby" into the Coles inquiry, the public and the press did, and let's not forget that the use of Lawende to identify Sadler was reported in passing in one newspaper and wasn't refered to be the police at all. Secondly, given that we have no evidence that anyone knew about let alone shared the conclusion that the Polish Jew was Jack the Ripper, or even that Anderson and Swanson were satisfied in February 1891 that he was, you are making a bold assumption when you claim that they privately knew Sadler wasn't the Ripper.

To give the vile tabloids, over Sadler-Coles, that kind of ammunition against a police department already unfairly tarnished, and unfairly pressured, and unfairly ridiculed by this series of publicly unsolved murders -- when you know the real killer is banged up in a madhouse -- is stupid to the point of . well, you might as well order your next meal from the gutter.

Yep. But, as said, who, exactly, knew the killed was banged up? Patently they didn't, otherwise they wouldn't have dragged in Lawende. But when he didn't identify Sadler, when Sadler was shown not to have been in the country at the time of some of the murders, did they - or should we be precise and say did Anderson - then decide it had to be Kosminski?

Otherwise the words of the Marginalia make no sense. They are not referring to some Jack murders but all of the five, based on their being an annotation of Anderson's chapter.

You don't paint a target on your back for nothing. The police hoped Sadler was the Ripper and they could not even make the Coles murder-charge stick!

My personal theory -- here I resume my lonely perch again -- is that the events of 1891 were so disappointing and so traumatic for Anderson that they collided with his massive ego and, by 1910, his memory had wiped them from existence; by recasting them as the 'Seaside Home' scenario which is really the story of a near-triumph, or certainly a self-servingly satisfying tale.

Well, yes, but we don't know Anderson had a "massive ego", we don't kow he found any events at any time "traumatic", we don't know that Anderson really gave more than a passing toss about Jack the Ripper, and we don't know that he recast anything as anything, or even f he did why Swanson would have believed it.

[PaulB]

Personally, Paul, I tend to think that people fall into the trap of assuming that investigators used only one witness per suspect. The greater likelihood, in my view, is that multiple witnesses would have been used in each and every case - Kosminski included.

As for Schwartz, he was the only witness who observed an attack taking place immediately prior to a victim's death. In view of the fact that the Seaside Home identification was said to have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz.

Hi Garry,
Well, yes, that's my take on it too, but isn't the only evidence that the eye-witness's evidence would secure a conviction Swanson's statement to that effect? He doesn't actually say it would have done, although that can be inferred.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, right, so despite the fact that Tumblety was suspected of having committed the murders to the extent that the Met telegraphed for samples of his handwriting to San Franciso, the police didn't include any of that in any file?



Really. Well, I'd like to know which of my theories is "misguided". Indeed, I'd like to know what theories you imagine I have, because you haven't demonstrated that you have the remotest idea what my thinking on this case is, anymore that you have demonstrated here or in your show what Martin Fido's thinking is. Anyway, you seem to be getting confused over who is drawing inferences here; you are inferring, just in case you haven't noticed, that because the files don't contain material about the suspects that they never contained material about the suspects. I, on the other hand, noting that the files are seriously depleted (I possess copies of the files, by the way, and have done since 1988) and having gone through more files at Scotland Yard and elsewhere than I care to recall, and by applying a judicious common sense, argue that any investigation generated a huge amount of documentation relating to almost every avenue of inquiry, right down to the letters received from the public. To suppose that there was no paperwork relating to suspects is a nonsense. What's more, as a former policeman you know it.



As said, I have been though enough case files at Scotland Yard and elsewhere to know you're talking through your bottom. Reports, memos, theories, letters, interviews, blah, blah, blah. All goes into the files. Much of the dross gets culled even before the files leave the Yard for the NA. And nobody is questioning that the paperwork would have been kept together. That's wholly irrelevant. What is meant is that there would have been paperwork relating to suspects and that none of it now exists.



Okay, let's think about that shall we? The memorandum was about accusations made against Thomas Cutbush, so all reference to other suspects would in fact have been irrelevant and it wouldn't have been necessary for Macnaghten to give any more detail that he did. Secondly, he apparently received information about Druitt, so he wouldn't have had to consult any files about him as the information would have been at his fingertips. He didn't include it. Why? Because it was irrelevant. Thirdly, the whole memorandum would have been irrelevant had he been able to say, "I respectfully point out that the allegations against Thomas Cutbush are rubbish because Jack the Ripper was Montague Druitt, and then gone on to outline the evidence in detail (cue Jonathan to tell us why he wouldn't have done that).



So, when we actually look for evidence or even reasoned thinking in your argument that there weren't a suspects file(s), and when we strip away all the excess verbiage about you being a policeman and knowing procedure, what it boils down to is that you personally don't believe that files relating to the suspects existed because Macnaghten would have made more use of them if they had done. That's it is it?

At last you are seeing the light the last sentence is so simple but so right

There was me thinking you were out with fairies all the time

[Jeff Leahy]

Eh, no ... Jeff, I'm saying that if Anderson and/or Swanson knew that the Ripper was banged up in an asylum he would not have let the vulture think that Sadler might be the fiend.

He would have quashed that aspect either by saying that this murder was quite different or because he believed 'Jack' to be deceased -- just as he did in 1895.

I'm not following you here. Surely Swanson had a responsibility to investigate the Coles murder even consider it a possible ripper attack...bearing in mind that there had been a series of murders after the now accepted Cannon (or McNaughten's Cannon)

However as far as I remember Lawende didnt ID the Suspect (which is why I've never bought the confusion argument) but more imprtantly Swanson discovered Sadler couldnt have committed the other JtR murders, while he must have suspected he killed Coles?

So nothing your saying really seems to add up

Yours Jeff

[Monty]

Trevor is trying to put some of Ripperology back on an even keel by separating the wheat from the chafe.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

Well, yes, that's my take on it too, but isn't the only evidence that the eye-witness's evidence would secure a conviction Swanson's statement to that effect? He doesn't actually say it would have done, although that can be inferred.

More than inferred, I would suggest, Paul. Swanson stated that the witness's 'evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.' (My emphasis.)

Assuming that Swanson was not a man given to exaggeration, such a statement could not be true of Lawende. It is applicable to Schwartz, and Schwartz alone.

[Trevor Marriott]

suspects

Lets put this whole business of suspects into perspective.

lets go back to a time after the double event when the police were under intense critisism from the press and the public. Questions were asked in high places for them to disclose what attempts they had made to catch the killer.

Cue Swanson who writes out indvidual reports on all the murders. It should be noted that he also included Tabram so it would seem he beleived that her killing was part of the series. As he did with Coles in later years.

Those reports are detailed but despite him highlighting the enquiries and persons interviewed I dont recall him mentioning the names of any specific suspects. Now I would have expected to higlight any suspects that had come to the notice of the police.

Clearly up until the Kelly murder the police did not have any idea who the killer was. Yet all of MM suspects were still around at that time and I have no doubt many jewsih men were deemed mad and sent to lunatic asylums between 1888-1894. So what is so different about Kosminski and what evidence could have led the police to suspect he was the killer as late as perhaps 1891.

Well if there ever was any it could have been nothing more than weak hearsay. With that in mind for them to even consider an ID parade would have been out of the question, they would have known that had any Identification been made having regard to the passage of time and the circumstancxes surrounding the witness seeing what ever it was he saw any from of prosecution would not get off the ground

If the name Kosminski was involved in an incident involving his sister and the knife, that would have no doubt been recorded as was the incident involving cutbush.and good old Druitt who committed suicide at the wrong time. MM couldnt have mentioned any others because it appears none had been recorded, and I mean in the true sense of the defintion of suspect not someone who came to notice because they were mentioned for whatever reason and there were many of those. If there had have been any listed I cant see why Swanson would not have mentioned any of them in his detailed reports on all of those murders.

So where and how did MM get his information from to compile the MM. The answer is obvioulsy from the records relating to the two incidents involing Kosminki and Cutbush, and if his infrmation was that good not only would he have included more detail but would have included what evidence there was to class them as suspects. Again I say clearly there was none because having suggested Kosminsiki and Otsrog were likely suspects he then in another document exonarates them.

Come on people get real on this look at all of this sensibly and objectively we are still arguing about the viabilty of Kosminski when his name should have been removed from the list a long time ago.MM tells us to and even writes it down.

Remove Kosminski and you remove Cohen and Kaminsky also and while you are at it Tumblety also. Littlechilds entry in The SB register doenst do a lot for his credibilty with regards to his later ramblings to Simms about Tumblety.

Oh of course not forgetting all the quotes from the ranks in later years stating the police didnt have a clue.

Shall I write to Stephen Ryder or does someone else want to effecting the removals

[Jeff Leahy]

Well if there ever was any it could have been nothing more than weak hearsay. With that in mind for them to even consider an ID parade would have been out of the question, they would have known that had any Identification been made having regard to the passage of time and the circumstancxes surrounding the witness seeing what ever it was he saw any from of prosecution would not get off the ground

Well done Trevor looks like your beginning to play catch up..

And of course they must have had more evidence on Kosminski. We just dont know what that is/was?

If you'd taken the trouble to explore some of the theorizing put forward by Rob House however then you would understand that there are all sorts of possible expainations for this, his ideas are seminal. However I would imagine even he would except that its there that we enter the 'ripperology' world of speculation..

Something you and I might enjoy, but I think you'll find people like Paul Begg and even SPE to a point do not, Prefering to stick to the known sources and what can be said about the case with a direct source..

At least your at last beginning to ask the right questions, I'll have you converted yet

Jeff

[mklhawley]

Trevor, in reference to Tumblety...

In April 2000, Roger Palmer began the publication of a three-part article in The Casebook Examiner (Issues One, Two, and Four) titled Inspector Andrews Revisited with part three being published in October 2010. Amongst other issues, Palmer revisited a series of communications between Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner CID Robert Anderson, Head of the Whitechapel murders investigation, and San Francisco’s Chief of Police Patrick Crowley at the end of November 1888. The subject of the communication was none other than Francis Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

The San Francisco newspapers reporting this correspondence seem to diverge from each other on one fact. Palmer points out that The San Francisco Chronicle on November 23, 1888, insinuated (not directly claiming) Chief Crowley initiated contact with Anderson. It stated, “When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city...”, while The San Francisco Examiner in a more detailed article on the very same day stated directly that Scotland Yard contacted Crowley, “The London Detectives ask Chief Crowley about him [Tumblety]…there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...When the Chief of Police learned these facts, and that the bank still had several letters written by Tumblety, he telegraphed to the Superintendent of Police in London that he could, if desired, furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting. The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday [November 22 –three days later] this answer was received: P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. Anderson. Scotland Yard.”

Your view that Tumblety was never considered a suspect or a serious suspect by Scotland Yard must take the position that Chief Crowley contacted with Assistant Commissioner Anderson. Anderson contacting Crowley is an unacceptable possibility, because this would clearly refute the minimalist position. The Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard –Head of the detective division- PERSONALLY contacting the top law enforcement official in a US city about a ripper suspect can only mean he is a suspect and is important (not merely ‘one amongst many’).

If we assume that the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was a US newspaper report and not a correspondence from Scotland Yard, then one of the newspapers certainly got the fact of who initiated the correspondence wrong. Palmer points out a huge temporal problem with the minimalist’s position. The first news of ‘Tumblety’ ever being in San Francisco in order for Crowley to make any connection with his city was The Examiner dated November 19, 1888 (the November 18 article said ‘Kumblety’ not ‘Tumblety’ with no mention of him ever operating out of San Francisco), which is on the SAME day that Crowley sent a telegram to Anderson with the results of a completed nineteenth century style investigation by his second in command Captain Isaiah W. Lees. Here’s the Chronicle’s November 19 article taken from the New York Herald, which would have been the only US newspaper report Crowley could have read prior to his November 19 telegram to Anderson,

An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Tumblety, who has resided in this city off and on for about twenty-five or thirty years, is a Canadian. He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers. He had an office in this city some years ago, and went abroad last summer. He is well off and peculiar, and is the inventor of a preparation for the cure of pimples.

Dr. Tumblety always attracted attention in the street. Some years ago he used to go about wearing jack boots, accompanied by a greyhound and followed by a manservant, who also rode after his master when he took exercise on horseback. The Doctor had offices at various times in Jersey City, Pittsburg and San Francisco.

During the war he was arrested in Washington...

So, your is that Crowley read the paper in the morning, saw the article and remembered Tumblety, contacted his second in command and told him to drop everything and immediately start a nineteenth century investigation by figuring out which bank Tumblety might still have or had money in, waiting for the band to check to see if Tumblety has or had an account there and then see if there are any handwriting samples, going back to Crowley to discuss his findings, and then Crowley drafting the message to Scotland Yard, and finally having it actually be sent on the same day before the telegraph station closes. Why would he direct the second in command to rush it?

…Or the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was earlier correspondence from Scotland Yard, which conforms not only to Scotland Yard initiating contact (prior to November 19) but also to the statement, ‘there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London’. Note what the Evening Post stated, “When Dr. Francis Tumblety, the eccentric physician, was arrested in London, some days ago, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was telegraphed out here that he had lived in this city for years…”

This argument has actually been resolved. Roger Palmer discovered that at nearly the same time Anderson was in correspondence with Crowley (prior to Tumblety’s escape from England) he had initiated contact with another Chief of Police of a major US city that Francis Tumblety was associated with, Brooklyn’s Chief Patrick Campbell. Note what The Brooklyn Citizen stated on November 23, 1888,

Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting. Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday [November 22] from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault.


Not only does this New York newspaper state that Anderson initiated contact with Campbell, but there were also no other New York newspaper accounts that conflict with this fact. Keep in mind; this took place at around the same time Anderson was in contact with Crowley. Rejecting the reality of Anderson initiating contact with US Chiefs of Police in two cities known to be connected to Francis Tumblety after reviewing Palmers discoveries must now be considered tenuous.

In short, Tumblety certainly was considered a serious suspect by even Anderson.

Sincerely,

[Trevor Marriott]

Well done Trevor looks like your beginning to play catch up..

And of course they must have had more evidence on Kosminski. We just dont know what that is/was?

If you'd taken the trouble to explore some of the theorizing put forward by Rob House however then you would understand that there are all sorts of possible expainations for this, his ideas are seminal. However I would imagine even he would except that its there that we enter the 'ripperology' world of speculation..

Something you and I might enjoy, but I think you'll find people like Paul Begg and even SPE to a point do not, Prefering to stick to the known sources and what can be said about the case with a direct source..

At least your at last beginning to ask the right questions, I'll have you converted yet

Jeff

Cases are not solved on theories

[Jeff Leahy]

Cases are not solved on theories

Now your beginning to sound like Begg, you'll be quoting sources next

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, in reference to Tumblety...

In April 2000, Roger Palmer began the publication of a three-part article in The Casebook Examiner (Issues One, Two, and Four) titled Inspector Andrews Revisited with part three being published in October 2010. Amongst other issues, Palmer revisited a series of communications between Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner CID Robert Anderson, Head of the Whitechapel murders investigation, and San Francisco’s Chief of Police Patrick Crowley at the end of November 1888. The subject of the communication was none other than Francis Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation.

The San Francisco newspapers reporting this correspondence seem to diverge from each other on one fact. Palmer points out that The San Francisco Chronicle on November 23, 1888, insinuated (not directly claiming) Chief Crowley initiated contact with Anderson. It stated, “When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city...”, while The San Francisco Examiner in a more detailed article on the very same day stated directly that Scotland Yard contacted Crowley, “The London Detectives ask Chief Crowley about him [Tumblety]…there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...When the Chief of Police learned these facts, and that the bank still had several letters written by Tumblety, he telegraphed to the Superintendent of Police in London that he could, if desired, furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting. The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday [November 22 –three days later] this answer was received: P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. Anderson. Scotland Yard.”

Your view that Tumblety was never considered a suspect or a serious suspect by Scotland Yard must take the position that Chief Crowley contacted with Assistant Commissioner Anderson. Anderson contacting Crowley is an unacceptable possibility, because this would clearly refute the minimalist position. The Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard –Head of the detective division- PERSONALLY contacting the top law enforcement official in a US city about a ripper suspect can only mean he is a suspect and is important (not merely ‘one amongst many’).

If we assume that the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was a US newspaper report and not a correspondence from Scotland Yard, then one of the newspapers certainly got the fact of who initiated the correspondence wrong. Palmer points out a huge temporal problem with the minimalist’s position. The first news of ‘Tumblety’ ever being in San Francisco in order for Crowley to make any connection with his city was The Examiner dated November 19, 1888 (the November 18 article said ‘Kumblety’ not ‘Tumblety’ with no mention of him ever operating out of San Francisco), which is on the SAME day that Crowley sent a telegram to Anderson with the results of a completed nineteenth century style investigation by his second in command Captain Isaiah W. Lees. Here’s the Chronicle’s November 19 article taken from the New York Herald, which would have been the only US newspaper report Crowley could have read prior to his November 19 telegram to Anderson,

An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Tumblety, who has resided in this city off and on for about twenty-five or thirty years, is a Canadian. He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers. He had an office in this city some years ago, and went abroad last summer. He is well off and peculiar, and is the inventor of a preparation for the cure of pimples.

Dr. Tumblety always attracted attention in the street. Some years ago he used to go about wearing jack boots, accompanied by a greyhound and followed by a manservant, who also rode after his master when he took exercise on horseback. The Doctor had offices at various times in Jersey City, Pittsburg and San Francisco.

During the war he was arrested in Washington...

So, your is that Crowley read the paper in the morning, saw the article and remembered Tumblety, contacted his second in command and told him to drop everything and immediately start a nineteenth century investigation by figuring out which bank Tumblety might still have or had money in, waiting for the band to check to see if Tumblety has or had an account there and then see if there are any handwriting samples, going back to Crowley to discuss his findings, and then Crowley drafting the message to Scotland Yard, and finally having it actually be sent on the same day before the telegraph station closes. Why would he direct the second in command to rush it?

…Or the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was earlier correspondence from Scotland Yard, which conforms not only to Scotland Yard initiating contact (prior to November 19) but also to the statement, ‘there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London’. Note what the Evening Post stated, “When Dr. Francis Tumblety, the eccentric physician, was arrested in London, some days ago, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was telegraphed out here that he had lived in this city for years…”

This argument has actually been resolved. Roger Palmer discovered that at nearly the same time Anderson was in correspondence with Crowley (prior to Tumblety’s escape from England) he had initiated contact with another Chief of Police of a major US city that Francis Tumblety was associated with, Brooklyn’s Chief Patrick Campbell. Note what The Brooklyn Citizen stated on November 23, 1888,

Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting. Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday [November 22] from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault.


Not only does this New York newspaper state that Anderson initiated contact with Campbell, but there were also no other New York newspaper accounts that conflict with this fact. Keep in mind; this took place at around the same time Anderson was in contact with Crowley. Rejecting the reality of Anderson initiating contact with US Chiefs of Police in two cities known to be connected to Francis Tumblety after reviewing Palmers discoveries must now be considered tenuous.

In short, Tumblety certainly was considered a serious suspect by even Anderson.

Sincerely,

Oh not not Hans Christian again do you mean the man that was not capable of telling lies or for that matter even bending the truth.

If they wanted handwriting sample why not get them from him when he was in custody. Why not refer to any handwriting he may have made on official police documents for example on a charge sgee or on his bail sheet etc etc.

Or is it a case of Druit all over again by the police saying "Oh dear he has done the offski so he must be the killer."

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

On 7th February 1891 Aaron Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch.

Therefore the marginalia events — sent with difficulty to the Seaside Home, identified, returned home to his brother's house in Whitechapel, watched day and night by City CID, sent with his hands tied behind his back etc. etc. — had to have taken place prior to 7th February 1891.

On 13th February 1891 Francis Coles was murdered.

The "Swanson" marginalia therefore tells us [1] that Kosminski could not have murdered Coles, and [2] that if Kosminki was the Ripper, Coles could not have been a Ripper victim.

Why did the police attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon