Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

Holloway:

“In June 1891 the Committee of the Sanatorium purchased Hove Villa, with 2 acres of grounds, in Brighton for £1,500 for use as a holiday and convalescent facility. The annual ground rent was £112. The property, with 24 beds, was redecorated and refurbished. The first patients arrived in October 1891“.

Is it the same Police Convalescent Seaside Home in 51 Clarendon Villas, Brighton/Hove which opened in March 1890?

http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/holloway.html

I'm now being shouted at by Catrin that she told me there was a connection weeks ago, which I somehow missed… I'll chase this lead up, thanks for pointing this out

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

At the end of the day a book has one purpose and that is for people to buy it now by putting the comments about knowing who jack the ripper was Mr Anderson was double sure of selling a lot more books.perhaps he was advised by his publisher to mention he knew who jack the ripper was perhaps they told him his book was rubbish and to make it more interesting who knows.

I'm not certain that such things in 1910 were quiet as they are today. A very different world. Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Then Fido was wrong and he knew he was wrong and later admitted that.

I very much doubt Martin would say that… I said I corresponded with Martin who confirmed he never searched Private Asylum records only the large porpers Public Asylums

And Paul Begg nailed his colours to the mast then, but of course would never admit that he was wrong. So the propping up of Aaron Kosminski has been ongoing, and you are still keeping it going by all this rubbish you keep posting about relatives and mysterious letters.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On this thread Paul confirmed his belief that Aaron Kozminski was the most likely person found in the records, so far, to be the 'Kozminski'. (as discussed by MacANughten, Simms, Griffiths, Swanson and by connection Anderson)

As far as I'm aware that has always been his position.

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

There are a large number of Asylums in Surrey that might fit the bill. They range from the large like Holloway to private Asylums around Surbiton that only took two or three patients. If i was a betting man I'd say we were looking for something small with connections to a synagog… I noted with interest that there was a small synagog connected to the back ally in Greenfeild street not far from Issac's premises and wonder if its possible to find out who was the rabbie there at the time?

Holloway's Private Home in Brighton didn't open until 1891 but did have a Seaside Home in Poole at the time. Holloway also had an oral tradition that Jack the Ripper stayed there.

Better possibilities in my opinion are Bethlam in Southwark and an Ayslum in Balham. Both took private patients who would be free to come and go as they wished.

Its also interesting to note that Woolfe Abraham appears to have moved around the March 1889 to Yaflod Street which would suggest he down sized.

Many thanks for your post on Cox. I'm not certain why Roy was getting so shirty yesterday, a number of people including Rob House have speculated that Cox might be talking about Kozminski, and if he is surely it supports the idea that Kozminski was highly functional in 1888 to March 1889.

Many thanks and good morning

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Talking of Roy Corduroy:

Please go to the JTRForums-Roy Corduroy-

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=267526#post267526

Holloway:

“In June 1891 the Committee of the Sanatorium purchased Hove Villa, with 2 acres of grounds, in Brighton for £1,500 for use as a holiday and convalescent facility. The annual ground rent was £112. The property, with 24 beds, was redecorated and refurbished. The first patients arrived in October 1891“.

Is it the same Police Convalescent Seaside Home in 51 Clarendon Villas, Brighton/Hove which opened in March 1890?

http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/holloway.html

[S.Brett]

One cant deny that there were various newpaper articles that could have been talking about Kozminski, so there could have been suspicions about him?
I posted an article published in the Hudersfield Daily Chronicle Feb 19th 1894 (earlier on this thread) headed The Jack the Ripper Story. It mentioned an attack by a young man on his relative who later retracted her complaint to the police.

The following article from the Bury and Norwich Post on Sept 11th 1888, to my mind could tie in with the Lodger story. I assume Detective Sergeant Abberley was meant to be Abberline?

Pat................

Hello Paddy!

Please see my post #647.

Huddersfield Chronicle Feb. 1894, I think it is about Cutbush.

[S.Brett]

I've read a good deal about Kosminski, and the pros and cons of his identification. Some of the details seem to me to fit Hyam Hyams, an insane Jew of the period. See:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-hyam-hyams.html

He is linked to Mitre Square and Aldgate, is known to have been violent towards women, especially his wife, praticed "self-abuse", and was in Colney Hatch asylum. It just seems odd that two men could have so many similarities at approximately the same time. Thoughts? Could the names been mixed up?

Hi Pcdunn!

It seems that he was not the suspect in the case of Cox.

Hyam "was described as 5ft 7"tall, medium build with brown hair and a large brown moustache"

Cox:

"The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair"

What do you think about?

[Paddy]

One cant deny that there were various newpaper articles that could have been talking about Kozminski, so there could have been suspicions about him?
I posted an article published in the Hudersfield Daily Chronicle Feb 19th 1894 (earlier on this thread) headed The Jack the Ripper Story. It mentioned an attack by a young man on his relative who later retracted her complaint to the police.

The following article from the Bury and Norwich Post on Sept 11th 1888, to my mind could tie in with the Lodger story. I assume Detective Sergeant Abberley was meant to be Abberline?

Pat................

[pinkmoon]

Hi Harry

What we have is the Head of CID Sir Robert Anderson writing an Auto-biography for public consumption in which he makes a number of most surprising claims. The identity of the killer was known to police and instantly recognised when confronted by the only man who ever had a good look at him.

I'd say of all the provenance we have on the case this is by far the most intriguing, as of course did Martin Fido.

Over the years many theories and claims have been put forward about Andersons claims, from he lied, to was going senile, was become forgetful to wishful thinking.

However none of these claims have ever answered with satisfaction what happened. And the discovery of the Marginalia further confounded the explanation of a witness with the added Seaside Home.

Of all the evidence in the Ripper case, and various clues we have, i think this is the most important and its the mysteries within this evidence and statements that I am trying to get to the bottom of…Why did they claim these things, if they did not happen?

I believe if nothing else further investigation into areas connected to this might shine some new light on that Mystery.

Certainly with areas like the Crawford otter we still know comparatively little, and I'd be most surprised if something somewhere didn't offer knew onsite into that letter.

Yours Jeff

At the end of the day a book has one purpose and that is for people to buy it now by putting the comments about knowing who jack the ripper was Mr Anderson was double sure of selling a lot more books.perhaps he was advised by his publisher to mention he knew who jack the ripper was perhaps they told him his book was rubbish and to make it more interesting who knows.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

But someone did say, it was at a Seaside Home and Anderson himself expands saying it took place in an Asylum… So thats what happened.



Martin Fido theorized kozminski was Anderson's suspect. To this point in history it was commonly believed to be Pizer.

Martin Fido searched the Asylum records where MacANughten said he would be in March 1889. By his own admission Martin Never searched the Private Asylum records because he didn't know Kozminski may have had wealthy Taylors as relatives, Anderson indicating lowest class.

But this really does go to the heart of what I'm arguing that Martin Fido theorised correctly and Begg was right to stick to Aaron as 'the' Kozminski

Yours Jeff

Then Fido was wrong and he knew he was wrong and later admitted that.

And Paul Begg nailed his colours to the mast then, but of course would never admit that he was wrong. So the propping up of Aaron Kosminski has been ongoing, and you are still keeping it going by all this rubbish you keep posting about relatives and mysterious letters.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

This statement is ambiguous because no one can say which ID Anderson was referring to. You seem convinced that it was the same one mentioned in the Marginalia, but then again and I keep using these words "there is not one scrap of evidence" to suggest the two were one and the same.

But of course we know a later suspect Grainger was subjected to an ID when the police believed him to be the killer.

Hi Trevor

But someone did say, it was at a Seaside Home and Anderson himself expands saying it took place in an Asylum… So thats what happened.

I'd say of all the provenance we have on the case this is by far the most intriguing, as of course did Martin Fido.

With all due respect to Martin Fido he later accepted that he had made a mistake in suggesting that Aaron Kosminski was the same Kosminski mentioned by MM and Swanson.

Finally no one ever saw the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Martin Fido theorized kozminski was Anderson's suspect. To this point in history it was commonly believed to be Pizer.

Martin Fido searched the Asylum records where MacANughten said he would be in March 1889. By his own admission Martin Never searched the Private Asylum records because he didn't know Kozminski may have had wealthy Taylors as relatives, Anderson indicating lowest class.

But this really does go to the heart of what I'm arguing that Martin Fido theorised correctly and Begg was right to stick to Aaron as 'the' Kozminski

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry

What we have is the Head of CID Sir Robert Anderson writing an Auto-biography for public consumption in which he makes a number of most surprising claims. The identity of the killer was known to police and instantly recognised when confronted by the only man who ever had a good look at him.

This statement is ambiguous because no one can say which ID Anderson was referring to. You seem convinced that it was the same one mentioned in the Marginalia, but then again and I keep using these words "there is not one scrap of evidence" to suggest the two were one and the same.

But of course we know a later suspect Grainger was subjected to an ID when the police believed him to be the killer.

I'd say of all the provenance we have on the case this is by far the most intriguing, as of course did Martin Fido.

With all due respect to Martin Fido he later accepted that he had made a mistake in suggesting that Aaron Kosminski was the same Kosminski mentioned by MM and Swanson.

Finally no one ever saw the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
It is one thing to have a belief in things claimed,another to produce provenence.
I asked a simple question regarding persons you claim were at an ID.Where is the evidence these persons were there,wherever there was?
None of those three persons, and I have kept a close watch on this,ever made the claim themselves. At the best,they only expressed hearsay knowledge of such a happening.Crawford,unless he was present,can do no better.

Hi Harry

What we have is the Head of CID Sir Robert Anderson writing an Auto-biography for public consumption in which he makes a number of most surprising claims. The identity of the killer was known to police and instantly recognised when confronted by the only man who ever had a good look at him.

I'd say of all the provenance we have on the case this is by far the most intriguing, as of course did Martin Fido.

Over the years many theories and claims have been put forward about Andersons claims, from he lied, to was going senile, was become forgetful to wishful thinking.

However none of these claims have ever answered with satisfaction what happened. And the discovery of the Marginalia further confounded the explanation of a witness with the added Seaside Home.

Of all the evidence in the Ripper case, and various clues we have, i think this is the most important and its the mysteries within this evidence and statements that I am trying to get to the bottom of…Why did they claim these things, if they did not happen?

I believe if nothing else further investigation into areas connected to this might shine some new light on that Mystery.

Certainly with areas like the Crawford otter we still know comparatively little, and I'd be most surprised if something somewhere didn't offer knew onsite into that letter.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I think the most likely explanation was that Mr lawende was asked if there was any possibility that he might be able to recognise the man he saw and his reply might well have been "no"now some policemen might have drawn the conclusion that he could and he was trying to protect a fellow Jew and other policemen decided he was telling the truth .

[harry]

Jeff,
It is one thing to have a belief in things claimed,another to produce provenence.
I asked a simple question regarding persons you claim were at an ID.Where is the evidence these persons were there,wherever there was?
None of those three persons, and I have kept a close watch on this,ever made the claim themselves. At the best,they only expressed hearsay knowledge of such a happening.Crawford,unless he was present,can do no better.

[Jeff Leahy]

I've read a good deal about Kosminski, and the pros and cons of his identification. Some of the details seem to me to fit Hyam Hyams, an insane Jew of the period. See:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-hyam-hyams.html

He is linked to Mitre Square and Aldgate, is known to have been violent towards women, especially his wife, praticed "self-abuse", and was in Colney Hatch asylum. It just seems odd that two men could have so many similarities at approximately the same time. Thoughts? Could the names been mixed up?

The confusion theory has been largely rejected by most people who losely might be described as Kozminsites.

Personally I now believe that there might have been confusion on the ground around the time of the leather apron scare between known lunatics and unknown lunatics.

So I'm happy to keep an open mind on possible mix ups at the time but believe they would have been ironed out eventually.

Thats not being evasive just open minded on the issue.

Yours Jeff