Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Thank you..and indeed.

However I am yet to see any evidence of this in this Kosminski Seaside Home story.

I see more evidence of police and a identification situation in The Seaman's Home plausibility.

None of this means though that any Kosminski ID actually took place. There is no solid evidence for it, as far as I am aware.

What we have is ridden with holes that are at odds with known facts. It simply cannot be relied upon as trustworthy.

Phil

We have two senior officials stating the event took place, we have a third adding a name, another independently, confirms this name.

We know such parades were not solely restricted to police stations, and that parades took place during the investigations into the murders.

We have evidence, we have plausibility, what we don't have is intention, and that's where the confusion reigns.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

I;m hoping this thread has been re-opened and I'm not treading on any proceedial toes..

OK when and where did the the ID take place?

I think Chris has already hinted at this and Martin Fido expressed his concerns about the Police Seaside Home in Brighton.

If Aaron Kozminski entered a private asylum in Surrey (As I now believe) around March 1889. These private asylums were largely short stay affairs so its quite possible given the nature of schizophrenia that he made periods of recovery and was released privately to the family over a two year period.

The key event is Monroes resignation and a fallout between Monroe and Anderson. I now believe this is the first time that the family raises there suspicions about Kozminski with the police, as Anderson is still saying they don't have a clue up to Sept 1889.

So the ID take place between Monroes resignation Around July 1890 and the time Kozminski is placed in Colney hatch. February 1891.

My guess is that Kozminski spends most of his time in a Private asylum at this point connected to the Seaside Home (Possibly in Poole) hence the 'difficulty' It was fairly common for Private Asylums to have rest homes near the sea in this period.

The final ID takes some time to arrange. As the Police are aware that Kosminski lives close to the Berner Street murders. Reid clearly says so, although he only knows information up to March 1889.

Then Swanson ID's Kozminski for the Stride Murder not the others…Thus Schwartz is the only possible witness.

Obviously its impossible to say exactly when the ID took place , but shortly after Xmas 1890 seems the most logical date given my investigation so far.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Monty

You wrote that two senior police figure wrote that the event took place; a positive identification by a Jewish witness of a Jewish suspect.

This is very important, for sure.

These are two vital police figure who were there, and who were known for their competence and honesty.

Neither contributed an official document on this specific matter (at least not documentation that has survived) but one went on the public record several times, and in his memoirs stood by the allegation of a witness who refused to testify for sectarian reasons. Anderson stood by this much ridiculed tale even though it caused him excruciating grief with English Jews, whom he supported and was not opposed to on racial/ideological grounds.

Swanson committed to paper a more detailed account that seems to fit some of the facts better, and softens the motive of the un-cooperative witness: he was terrified of being responsible for an execution (of a man who was already mentally incompetent). And why would a person lie to themselves, in a marginal annotation--right?

On the other hand, all the above has to be weighed against Major Smith of the City Police dismissing the tale, and, even more devastating, Anderson's no. 2, Macnaghten, using his memoirs to debunk the tale altogether, and using a crony (George Sims) to accuse Anderson of going beyond ascertainable facts about Jewish treachery.

And there is no backing from any other police source, in fact quite the opposite (other cops suspects who are supposed to be Kosminski are not 'really a match, for various reasons: vocation, date, non-identification, etc).

Common sense says that this is not a slam dunk solution that would never have leaked before 1910, and, when it was announced, be brushed aside by other senior police as nothing more than empty egoism.

Why go with Macnaghten over Anderson about "Kosminski"? Because he arguably knew more accurate information about this suspect than did either Anderson or Swanson.

Hence the compelling nature of the third alternative proposed by Evans/Rumbelow: there was a witness confrontation with a prime Ripper suspect (two in fact) but neither was Aaron Kosminski. Yet the latter may have come to police attention in 1891, when Sadler was being investigated.

To develop from this theory, this suspect may have come to more prominent police attention when Grant was being investigated, in 1895.

By the Edwardian years Anderson can be shown to be quite muddled about bits of data (Home Secretaries, pipes, victims) so why not suspects and witnesses? And Swanson may only be repeating Anderson, and therefore is not independent confirmation of the solution.

This is also arguably a minor sideshow from the 1900's elevated by modern writers into the conclusive or likeliest solution. It was a good try (and a necessary corrective as it is book-ended by the Royal Circus and the modern 'Diary' Hoax) but it does not hang together. Not like the solution that actually dominated that era, e.g. not a foreign non-entity but, much more appallingly, the fiend was one of the better classes--like it or lump it.

Do you want to engage in debate about these theories, Monty, or not? If not, that's fine, and I wish you further success as a fellow author on this subject.

[Trevor Marriott]

What are the purposes (plural) of an identification parade Trevor?

And what were those known procedures?

Monty

Well seeing as you are regarded by some as the Victorian police expert might I suggest you find the answers you seek in one on the many victorian police manuals that prop your desk up.

Once you find the answers you seek you will see that the basic identification procedure had not changed from 1888 up until the police started to use The VIPER ID system in 2003.

Of course if you want to know more about current ID procedures and legal guidelines I am happy to provide you with the following link which will assist you and others in getting a better understanding of just how ID procedures work in the current criminal justice system

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/identification_of_suspects/

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

To Jonathan,

I don't know, haven't really decided.

However, until someone gets to grips with the aims of an identity parade, the rest is really moot. See above.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I;m hoping this thread has been re-opened and I'm not treading on any proceedial toes..

OK when and where did the the ID take place?

I think Chris has already hinted at this and Martin Fido expressed his concerns about the Police Seaside Home in Brighton.

If Aaron Kozminski entered a private asylum in Surrey (As I now believe) around March 1889. These private asylums were largely short stay affairs so its quite possible given the nature of schizophrenia that he made periods of recovery and was released privately to the family over a two year period.

The key event is Monroes resignation and a fallout between Monroe and Anderson. I now believe this is the first time that the family raises there suspicions about Kozminski with the police, as Anderson is still saying they don't have a clue up to Sept 1889.

So the ID take place between Monroes resignation Around July 1890 and the time Kozminski is placed in Colney hatch. February 1891.

My guess is that Kozminski spends most of his time in a Private asylum at this point connected to the Seaside Home (Possibly in Poole) hence the 'difficulty' It was fairly common for Private Asylums to have rest homes near the sea in this period.

The final ID takes some time to arrange. As the Police are aware that Kosminski lives close to the Berner Street murders. Reid clearly says so, although he only knows information up to March 1889.

Then Swanson ID's Kozminski for the Stride Murder not the others…Thus Schwartz is the only possible witness.

Obviously its impossible to say exactly when the ID took place , but shortly after Xmas 1890 seems the most logical date given my investigation so far.

Yours Jeff

Why would Kosminski be taken to a private home when their is clear evidence that he was taken on two occasions to more local asylums, and why one so far from London, which would have meant financial outlay by the family. It does not make sense. Its another case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and not wanting to drop Aaron Kosminski from the prime suspect list

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Well seeing as you are regarded by some as the Victorian police expert might I suggest you find the answers you seek in one on the many victorian police manuals that prop your desk up.

Once you find the answers you seek you will see that the basic identification procedure had not changed from 1888 up until the police started to use The VIPER ID system in 2003.

Of course if you want to know more about current ID procedures and legal guidelines I am happy to provide you with the following link which will assist you and others in getting a better understanding of just how ID procedures work in the current criminal justice system

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/identification_of_suspects/

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, so you have no idea. This explains much.

The procedure has altered greatly in terms of legal ramifications, not so much on intention, which is why I am surprised that your focus remains on a sole objective as opposed to its possible secondary intention, and even beyond that.

Three birds, one stone, even in todays policing world.

Stick to the internet, I'm sure you shall find all your primary sources there.

Monty

[John G]

We have two senior officials stating the event took place, we have a third adding a name, another independently, confirms this name.

We know such parades were not solely restricted to police stations, and that parades took place during the investigations into the murders.

We have evidence, we have plausibility, what we don't have is intention, and that's where the confusion reigns.

Monty

Hello Monty,

You refer to "parades". Did the identification involve an ID parade? I thought that the evidence pointed toward a direct confrontation, I.e the suspect was simply confronted with the witness.

[Batman]

Can anyone give examples of Jews who refused to testify against each other because of the death penalty. This seems odd as punishment of death for less than murder is historically there, I don't see where orthodoxy objected to the death penalty for murder.

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

You refer to "parades". Did the identification involve an ID parade? I thought that the evidence pointed toward a direct confrontation, I.e the suspect was simply confronted with the witness.

You are quite right John,

However confrontation comes under the identity parade 'umbrella' which includes the different formats.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, so you have no idea. This explains much.

The procedure has altered greatly in terms of legal ramifications, not so much on intention, which is why I am surprised that your focus remains on a sole objective as opposed to its possible secondary intention, and even beyond that.

Three birds, one stone, even in todays policing world.

Stick to the internet, I'm sure you shall find all your primary sources there.

Monty

There were still legal ramifications in 1888. Why dont you post the guidelines that infer what the ramifications would have been had the ID parade not been conducted as set out in the police code section relative to ID parades.

The main intention of holding such a parade would seem to have been for the police to obtain a positive identification on some matter of fact which had arisen from the results of their investigation.

And please do not patronize me with regards to ID parade and procedures I have been involved in more that you have had hot dinners.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Monty,

You refer to "parades". Did the identification involve an ID parade? I thought that the evidence pointed toward a direct confrontation, I.e the suspect was simply confronted with the witness.

Hi John
You are correct that is my interpretation also. This type of ID is used as a last resort. It evidential value is almost nil, and even if it did take place the police would not have had a snowballs chance in hell of securing a conviction without any other corroborating evidence, even if the witness agreed to give evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

There were still legal ramifications in 1888. Why dont you post the guidelines that infer what the ramifications would have been had the ID parade not been conducted as set out in the police code section relative to ID parades.

The main intention of holding such a parade would seem to have been for the police to obtain a positive identification on some matter of fact which had arisen from the results of their investigation.

And please do not patronize me with regards to ID parade and procedures I have been involved in more that you have had hot dinners.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hence my surprise Trevor,

Ah, the main intention, as opposed to the only intention being painted here by yourself.

I agree, it is the main intention, and the impact of such a positive identification puts the ball firmly in the suspects court.

Hi John
You are correct that is my interpretation also. This type of ID is used as a last resort. It evidential value is almost nil, and even if it did take place the police would not have had a snowballs chance in hell of securing a conviction without any other corroborating evidence, even if the witness agreed to give evidence.

Again, agreed, if conviction was the aim of said process.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

We have two senior officials stating the event took place, we have a third adding a name, another independently, confirms this name.

We know such parades were not solely restricted to police stations, and that parades took place during the investigations into the murders.

We have evidence, we have plausibility, what we don't have is intention, and that's where the confusion reigns.

Monty

exactly. its corroborated by more than one person. There are the level of details provided and a sequence of events that substantiate it.
I would also add, that the phrase "with difficulty" probably made it stand out in ones mind, as it were.

[Monty]

exactly. its corroborated by more than one person. There are the level of details provided and a sequence of events that substantiate it.
I would also add, that the phrase "with difficulty" probably made it stand out in ones mind, as it were.

We are not certain as to the context of "with great difficulty", it may go to some way of explaining away why that location was selected.

Dr Mickle strings to mind.

Monty