Seaside Home?

[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'.

[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]

To Jeff

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

snap

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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?

[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

[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?

[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