Seaside Home?

[DVV]

Still on Reid's gauntlet : of course, the "we-haven't-the-power-of-the-French-police" argument wouldn't have worked with Reid.
That was just a trick to abuse the general public, and Reid was a real policeman, which Anderson was not.
Hence Anderson's silence ?

In France, the dispute would have been cut short by a duel - although it was forbidden, and notwithstanding the extensive power of local police.

[Bridewell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVV
Neither Anderson nor Swanson did take up Reid's gauntlet : "Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that JtR was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove."
Why ?
It was such a straightforward invective.
Hello David,

Maybe Swanson and Anderson thought the onus of proof was on Reid and even Abberline!
Hehe

Kindly

Phil

Hi Phil,

I entirely agree (assuming that you are indeed joking). Isn't that what happens in the upside-down world of internet forums:- someone makes a claim and expects everyone else to prove them wrong? In real life, it is the person making the assertion who has to support their claim with evidence. I suspect that Reid made his challenge in the full knowledge that there was no proof whatever that the Ripper was Jewish.

In the case of the Swanson Marginalia, who should prove their case? I think it's arguable either way, if I'm honest, but the text asserts the authorship of DSS, so I think that should stand until his authorship is discredited. The content is perhaps another matter.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bridewell,

Yes, twas a one-liner, fear not,

The content of the SM has been shown, with certainty, to go against known ID MET police methodology. This cannot be denied although personal commentary, labelling and name calling and goading will not, sadly, subside in some quarters.

The question of onus has, in the nature of the content of the marginalia, been answered with concrete known occurrance and fact. When an example is presented of an ACTUAL ID, performed in the manner it was by the Met Police, then ANY written claim from ANY Met Policeman, of ANY rank, that suggests something in complete contrast to the KNOWN methods used, must be shown to have some basis of factual occurranse to have credibility attached in the face of known fact.

I agree with your posting on some of the other poimts.

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

H

The content of the SM has been shown, with certainty, to go against known ID MET police methodology.

NO IT HAS NOT ...ARE YOU AN IDIOT?

We spent ages today demonstrating that this was STANDARD practice in 1888

Can you not understand English..were all the posters who advised you including Monty talking rubbish? no they were not!!

Jesus

Yours humbly groveling and acting like you would, sorry admin

Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

Bingo.. YES YES YES...

Thats exactly it, thank god someone has figured it out

Yours Jef

[Bridewell]

Gender Specific

Just had a thought...an odd leftfield thought...we're all supposing the witness is a male, someone we're familiar with from former testimony...

What if the witness were female, someone we may be familiar with, or not...and vulnerable, so to protect her the police have her hidden away somewhere...
then the identification might well (to continue protecting her) be attempted on some neutral ground...the Seaside Home? maybe...perhaps even before opening (or if after, perhaps the two visitors Jeff mentions are the suspect and the witness)...

Just a stray lateral thought....

Dave

Hi David,

You had me scrabbling for my copy of The Ultimate there. The marginalia are gender-specific though, are they not?

"...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind."

You have, in turn, flagged up a left-field thought in me:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew..." has always been understood to point towards Schwartz or Lawende, meaning "because the suspect was also like the witness a Jew". It could be read as meaning "...because the suspect was a Jew as well as being something else...". It would still be suggestive of a fellow-Jew, I suppose.

There is also the possibility that the witness was in fear of another person of Semitic descent: "because the suspect was also a Jew, like the person he owed money to", "like the person who had attacked him in the street the previous week", "like the person who threatened to kill him if he ever visited a police station"? Pure speculation, which I completely acknowledge is not evidence, by the way!

Before someone jumps in and claims otherwise, I am not saying this is what it does mean, only that it is an alternative, however unlikely.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

Still on Reid's gauntlet : of course, the "we-haven't-the-power-of-the-French-police" argument wouldn't have worked with Reid.
That was just a trick to abuse the general public, and Reid was a real policeman, which Anderson was not.

Hello David

Alice: The point is...

Caterpillar: The point is... who is to be master.

(quoted from fragile memory)

[Cogidubnus]

The marginalia are gender-specific though, are they not?

Well? In those days of non-equality the one covered the other so to speak...besides to protect the little lady wouldn't a gentleman feel justified in exercising a little subterfuge?

Again, just a thought

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

"...because the suspect was also a Jew..." has always been understood to point towards Schwartz or Lawende, meaning "because the suspect was also like the witness a Jew". It could be read as meaning "...because the suspect was a Jew as well as being something else...".

Actually, now you mention it, there IS something suggestive there....complicated isn't it?

Dave

[Admin]

Since it appears that posters are not capable of recognizing polite requests, we are now going to be more specific. Expressly violating our requests and then posting "sorry admin" does not excuse you.

So let's be clear. The next person who posts a personal insult on this thread of any sort, expressed or implied, will receive a six month suspension from posting.

[Stephen Thomas]

what kind of clueless idiot is meant to have invented a scenario like this one, thinking it would satisfy anyone, let alone be accepted without question? Even Trevor or Phil could surely have come up with something a tad more believable if they had really tried?

Exactly, Caz. The bottom line though is the question of why either Schwartz or Lawende would have been staying in a police hospital when they weren't policemen which is something some people here seem to believe.

[Cogidubnus]

The bottom line though is the question of why either Schwartz or Lawende would have been staying in a police hospital when they weren't policemen which is something some people here seem to believe.

Sorry if I'm butting in Stephen/Caz but whilst we may surmise it was most likely either Schwartz or Lawende, it could well have been someone else the police were keeping quiet about...and apparently remained quiet about, donkeys years later...and if that's so, it may well influence the choice of venue for an ID confrontation...do you not think?

Dave

[Wickerman]

Sorry if I'm butting in Stephen/Caz but whilst we may surmise it was most likely either Schwartz or Lawende, it could well have been someone else the police were keeping quiet about...and apparently remained quiet about, donkeys years later...and if that's so, it may well influence the choice of venue for an ID confrontation...do you not think?

Dave

There's an interesting snippet from the Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888, which suggests Lawende was removed to a 'private location', or at least sequestrated away from the press & public, at the expense of the police.

"...the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."

But, where was he sequestrated?
And, during the first week of October, is this too early to be connected with the Anderson's Witness story?

Regards, Jon S.

[Trevor Marriott]

There's an interesting snippet from the Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888, which suggests Lawende was removed to a 'private location', or at least sequestrated away from the press & public, at the expense of the police.

"...the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."

But, where was he sequestrated?
And, during the first week of October, is this too early to be connected with the Anderson's Witness story?

Regards, Jon S.

Much to early you should not fall into the same trap as others trying to put square pegs in round holes.

For those who havent read it yet and because this thread was closed last night I posted other issues apperatining to the ID parade under a thread titles "Another Thought"