Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[harry]

Pity about the lost posts,but I did have just one more observation to make.
If the identification was positive,but only referred to one killing,then the need to detain or arrest into custody was essential,and would have been acted upon.

Firstly to allow questioning and investigation into the other four canonical murders,as to whether all four,or at least some, were committed by the suspect.Were other murders of that time committed by the suspect. Whether the suspect acted alone or had accomplices.Whether any aid was given to the suspect in avoiding capture.Pretty standard stuff in multiple murder investigation,but time consuming.

[Jeff Leahy]

There is too much of this wanting to believe these senior officers simply because they were senior officers, when much of what they did say has now proved to be questionable, along with connecting documentation which has now also proved to be more than questionable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We take the senior officers opinions because they are Primary sources. They were there and talk from first hand experience.

As to what they have said having been proved questionable that is your opinion. I don't see that anything of the kind has been proved just because a large number of ripperologists have reached certain consensus and miss understood or miss-interpreted the facts.

The only apparent difficulty is that both Anderson and Swanson appear to have believed the suspect died shortly after entering the asylum.

If both Anderson and Swanson alone knew that Kozminski entered Colney Hatch in 1891, then as Anderson is known to have written to the person in charge of Colney Hatch (which would have been his source) if some sort of error occurred when Kozminski was transferred to Leavesdon three years later, then it might explain their belief.

This wouldn't make Anderson forgetful, a fantasist or a liar. But simply handed the wrong information, which in due course he passed to Swanson.

Yours Jef

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

It may appear that we are off thread given the missing posts that place this in context but hopefully everyone can figure the relevance to the ID.

Your problem is your taking secondary sources and reading to much into generalised terms..

I think it safe to presume that both Griffiths and Simms (Asw they weren't there) used MacNaughten as their main source. However its impossible to say how much and from where they also assimilated and over what period of time. That why its important to place secondary sources in context and be cautious of generalisations.

Major Griffiths on Anderson 1895, the same year a Jewish witness said yes to a Ripper suspect and nothing came of it:

“Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.” '

But Anderson started this claim as early as 1892. What Griffiths is actually telling you is why Anderson spoke out, while Monroe and Swanson kept quiet

From Anderson's son's biography of his parents:

“Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.”

Macnaghten in a report, some of whose contents were disseminated to the public via cronies. It may have been written in 1894 or as late as 1898:

[Kosminski] was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum, about March 1889.” '

I've taken the liberty of removing your emphasis and placing the correct emphasis… 'And I believe still is' This is quiet clear, he does not know for certain. Thats because MacNaughten was very clear that the suspect was placed in an Asylum in March 1889.

That is a very specific date rather than a generalisation.

Sims in 1907:
'They [Kosminski and Ostrog] were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.'

Here Simm's is talking very general about two completely different people in very generalised terms. However if MacNaughten is his source he must have believed that Kozminski entered the Asylum in March 1889. Long after the horrors as applied to Druit who killed himself shortly after the murders.

So your problem remains in trying to make MacNaughten and Anderson match. Because the two men are discussing two separate (if loosely related ) events McNaughten events unto March 1889. ANd Anderson events between July 1890 and Feb 1891. However they are both describing the same suspect.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

If the last murder is in November 1888. And as has been speculated the ID doesn't take place until shortly before Feb 1891.

Then what is Aarn Kozminski doing in Cheapside (nr St Pauls) walking a dog. A considerable distance from Berner Street, Greenfeild Street and Provenance Street in Dec 1889?

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

You have it backwards; you are reading too little into them. You are not alone by any means.

First of all you are confusing--as does Trevor--secondary sources with second-hand sources.

Second-hand sources can still be primary sources, as Paul Begg has pointed out, e.g. most newspapers are second-hand yet primary, and that is their strength and their limitation (in that reporters cover an event but are not necessarily an actual eyewitness to said event. They interview eyewitnesses, and so on).

What you are missing is that Major Griffiths is a primary source about Anderson and Macnaghten, and what they claimed, and George Sims is even more than that: arguably a mouthpiece for the latter top cop to hide behind.

You also do not grasp that the diabolical implication of Sims' 1907 piece is that [the un-named] Ostrog and Kosminski are not deceased at all, and the latter wasn't (the Russian we do not know).

To repeat, from the scraps bequeathed to us we have two police chiefs writing and talking about the same suspect and one can be shown to be more broadly accurate about that suspect than the other--and that chief is Macnaghten, not Anderson (or Swanson).

A range of primary sources between 1888 and 1895 support Macnaghten and not Anderson.

Furthermore Anderson's 1892 interview does not have him referring to a Jewish suspect or a locked-up suspect (you seem, ironically, to be confusing and conflating a couple of other, later sources) but says he believed that the killer was a maniac. That's it. This source can also easily be interpreted as Anderson not having a prime suspect, yet.

As a sideline, consider that by the year before, 1891, Macnaghten (according to his memoirs) had likely found the deceased Druitt, yet Anderson, in 1892, remains in the dark that the case has been solved.

How odd? And it gets odder!

Within three years Swanson is telling a reporter that the fiend is deceased and Anderson is, presumably, telling his son the same thing. But their suspect is not Druitt and is not dead either.

Your theory that Macnaghten is mistaken because he has information only about an initial incarceration of this suspect in March 1889, and is thus unaware that this suspect was later permanently sectioned, is not impossible but it is not strong either.

It needs an admission record to that effect. Do you have one?

Otherwise, what you have is the bald fact that Mac believed this suspect remained alive--if not exactly well--into the Edwardian years (he was) and Anderson/Swanson has him deceased soon after his identification and sectioning, years before 1910 (he wasn't).

I think that Macnaghten repeats data, albeit semi-fictionalized, which matches the admission records from 1891 (self-abuse; threatening a female relative with a knife).

Every source that is by or linked to Anderson has the Polish suspect having been taken care of well before 1891, hence part of the reason Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski in 1987.

The short answer to the thread's question is no; there was no witness identification of Kosminski by a Jewish witness who refused to testify.

It is a sincere, though typically self-serving memory mix-up of Sadler's Seamen's Home, and a Jewish witness, likely Lawende, saying no and yes to two other Rippers suspects, about the same time that somebody informed Anderson about "Kosminski" the [allegedly] madhouse-detained, safely deceased self-abuser.

[Jeff Leahy]

You have it backwards; you are reading too little into them. You are not alone by any means.

No Jonathon its you that have it all back to front which is why you constantly tie yourself in knots

Second-hand sources can still be primary sources, as Paul Begg has pointed out, e.g. most newspapers are second-hand yet primary, and that is their strength and their limitation (in that reporters cover an event but are not necessarily an actual eyewitness to said event. They interview eyewitnesses, and so on).

If Paul has stated this, then I'm happy to take my hat off and agree with him. However it doesn't change the reality that we can't be certain about Griffiths or Simms sources. Whether there were sources or whether they simply made stuff up. Given that they were men of good character it would seem unreasonable to dismiss what they say, and logic would dictate that if they did have inside information as somethings they say seem to fit. Logic says that McNaughten (Disliked by Anderson because he was considered a blabber mouth) was probably the source. Especially for Simms.

(But neither Griffiths or Simms would have understood Anderson and MacNaughten were describing different events, they were as confused as you are.)

But if MacNaughten was the source he only gave information about Kozminski in the files unto March 1889, because he is very clear and specific about that date (Presumably it was in the file he wrote his MM from in 1894). Where as the info passed to him on Druit probably came from MP Farqharson the Private info.

What you are missing is that Major Griffiths is a primary source about Anderson and Macnaghten, and what they claimed, and George Sims is even more than that: arguably a mouthpiece for the latter top cop to hide behind.

Whether he was or wasn't it don't change the fact that MacNaughten didn't know anything about the ID. Only what was in the files unto March 1889, because he didn't know much about Kozminski (And I believe he still is) He preferred the story given to him by Farqharsen, and thus would have pushed his preferred theory to Simms and Griffiths.

You also do not grasp that the diabolical implication of Sims' 1907 piece is that [the un-named] Ostrog and Kosminski are not deceased at all, and the latter wasn't (the Russian we do not know).

Simms talks in general terms that might be interpreted in a number of ways. The idea that he would know more than Anderson is preposterous.

To repeat, from the scraps bequeathed to us we have two police chiefs writing and talking about the same suspect and one can be shown to be more broadly accurate about that suspect than the other--and that chief is Macnaghten, not Anderson (or Swanson).

No we have a senior Commissioner who was there actively working on the case and a pen pusher. MacNaughten writes a memo based on a file Dated March 1889. He doesn't know what Anderson, Monroe and Swanson know because it was a Hot Potato.

A range of primary sources between 1888 and 1895 support Macnaghten and not Anderson.

Thats because they don't know about the ID in 1890-91.

Furthermore Anderson's 1892 interview does not have him referring to a Jewish suspect or a locked-up suspect (you seem, ironically, to be confusing and conflating a couple of other, later sources) but says he believed that the killer was a maniac. That's it. This source can also easily be interpreted as Anderson not having a prime suspect, yet.

OK lets bury this once and for all and actually look at what Anderson said:

" There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a MANIAC revelling in blood"

Major Aurther Griffiths (and friend of Andersons) says in 1895:

"Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homocidal MANIAC temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an Asylum"

This stamens clearly supports and expands upon Anderson first statement, in other words Anderson didn't have a clue in Sept 1889 but had a well formed MANIAC theory by 1892. HWich means something happened between those dates to change his mind and by coincidence bang in the middle Koz goes into Coney Hatch

As a sideline, consider that by the year before, 1891, Macnaghten (according to his memoirs) had likely found the deceased Druitt, yet Anderson, in 1892, remains in the dark that the case has been solved.
How odd? And it gets odder!
Within three years Swanson is telling a reporter that the fiend is deceased and Anderson is, presumably, telling his son the same thing. But their suspect is not Druitt and is not dead either.

MacNaughten only knows what is in the files unto March 1889. He does not know about the ID. If Anderson is informed that Koz is dead when transferred to Leavesdon….there is NO mystery

Your theory that Macnaghten is mistaken because he has information only about an initial incarceration of this suspect in March 1889, and is thus unaware that this suspect was later permanently sectioned, is not impossible but it is not strong either.

I know its not impossible. And its strong because it actually fits every officers accounts and what the sources tell us. It explains why Abberline, Reid , Drew , Cox, Sagar etc etc say what they say, it is a theory of everything, a simple clear explanation for events in 1888 and how they unfolded.

There were two separate events one given by MacNaughten and a second event described by Anderson and Swanson. Of the same Suspect.

Once you grasp that, you have the answer

Otherwise, what you have is the bald fact that Mac believed this suspect remained alive--if not exactly well--into the Edwardian years (he was) and Anderson/Swanson has him deceased soon after his identification and sectioning, years before 1910 (he wasn't).

No he didn't. MacNaughten clearly states 'I believe he still is'

That is clear. He only knows that Kozminski went into an Asylum in March 1889… What happened after that he is uncertain about hence the emphasis 'AND I believe he still is'

MacNaughten doesn't know about the ID.

I think that Macnaghten repeats data, albeit semi-fictionalized, which matches the admission records from 1891 (self-abuse; threatening a female relative with a knife).

Know he repeats data in the file up to March 1889. I will expand on the knife sister threat, at a later date. However if Kozminski was followed for Four months they gained quite alot of info, but no proof before the Kozminski family took him out of harms way.

And when he next appears he is a long way from Home in Cheapside..A coincidence?

Every source that is by or linked to Anderson has the Polish suspect having been taken care of well before 1891, hence part of the reason Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski in 1987.

YES YES YES, thats what I've been saying Martin Fido was right all along. But he couldn't have possibly have figured out Kozminski went into an asylum twice. No wonder he was confused when the name turned up in 1891. Logic says one thing the facts say another?

I also have suspicions that his name confusion theory might also be closer to the truth than many believe. But my advice is everyone should get there Martin Fido fan club shirts out of mouth balls.

The short answer to the thread's question is no; there was no witness identification of Kosminski by a Jewish witness who refused to testify.

Then you have to dismiss the Marginalia as the ranting of a senile old man… A that flies in the face of everything we know about Swanson the true super cop.

It is a sincere, though typically self-serving memory mix-up of Sadler's Seamen's Home, and a Jewish witness, likely Lawende, saying no and yes to two other Rippers suspects, about the same time that somebody informed Anderson about "Kosminski" the [allegedly] madhouse-detained, safely deceased self-abuser.

Yeah confusion miss memory, Grainger, Sadler yardie yardie Yadder…I've been listening to this tosh for years. Its never made any sense and it don't fit the FACTS

You only require to grasp one simple thing, there were two events separated by nearly two years relating to the same suspect.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

I think our positions are clearly stated and obviously irreconcilable, being diametrical interpretations of limited and contradictory data.

You made some errors of fact, however, that you need to be alerted to. I am happy to be of service.

You had written that in 1892 Anderson had claimed the maniac was Jewish. I think -- I write 'think', because you have used the 1892 quote as if it backs your original claim, which obviously it doesn't?-- you have discovered that you are mistaken. The suspect being Jewish does not appear, from Anderson, until 1910.

You keep writing that Macnaghten was not sure in 1894 (or was it 1898?) that Kosminski was still alive when he wrote the version that was disseminated to the public by Major Griffiths. That this proves that he did not realize he was supposed to be deceased, when he, eh, wasn't (and you call me complicated?) What Mac actually meant was that the last time he checked-- he checked, not Anderson--this man was still alive in the madhouse. In 1907 Sims writes an article implying that this same man was still alive--and he was. Meaning that, Macnaghten had, you know, checked again.

Another error is to dismiss Macnaghten as a pen-pusher. This is a lazy, modern notion of Macnaghten debunked the moment you read any of the primary sources about him, and by him; whether he was actually much of a sleuth, or not, he was certainly hands-on and on the streets--including in the East End. In 1898, for example, Major Griffiths confirms that the Chief Constable insinuated himself into the most sensational crime scenes.

You also write that Anderson did not think much of Macnaghten because he was a blabber-mouth. Really? Can you cite the source for that slander? Certainly Anderson in his memoir tosses off a despicable doozy of put-down of [the un-named] Macnaghten for allegedly having nerves of jelly, and that this flagrant cowardice nearly caused Gladstone's assassination. Quite a contrast with Griffiths' "man of action".

Furthermore, H. L. Adam characterized Mac as affable but close-mouthed. Fred Wensley adored him, but his memoirs arguably show that his mentor and patron never shared his Druitt solution with him. Mac's successor as Assistant Commissioner CID was similarly never told that there was a document in the SY archive that named the Drowned Doctor (and half-named the Polish madman) and thus Sir Basil Thomson never knew it was somebody he had studied with at New College Oxford--a Mr. M. J. Druitt.

This is a blabber mouth?

Whereas in 1910 Anderson was eviscerated by all side--Tories, Liberals, Hebrews, Dagonet--for his, according to them, boastful, indiscreet and inaccurate memoirs.

For being, um, dare I say it, a blabber mouth?

Also you keep repeating that Macnaghten did not know about the I.D. In fact, he inadvertently set the whole thing in motion by swapping Jew and Gentile, suspect and beat cop, in the 'Aberconway Papers' (repeated by Griffiths in 1898 and Sims in 1907) to place "Kosminski" prominently inside the 1888 investigation (because the evidence, e.g. masturbation, was, eh, a touch thin). In a sense he invented the myth of the i.d., one Mac pointedly retracted in his anti-Anderson memoir chapter IV of 1914.

Another error you made is to claim that I claim that Swanson was suffering geriatric delusions. That was a sub-theory championed by the late and brilliant Mr. Sudgen (and Evans and Rumeblow also argue, cogently as usual, that the desk-bound Anderson was overly reliant on a probably mistaken Swanson) but I am not arguing any of that.

I am saying that Donald Swanson in 1910 was so perplexed by Anderson's memoir that he sought clarification from his beloved ex-chief. The latter, an old man, with a fading memory and a very high opinion of himself--and excruciatingly under siege--told the self-serving, error-riddled tale we call the Swanson Marginalia.

I argue that Swanson felt he had to record these annotations or else he would never recall them himself--as he had no personal recollection of a Jewish witness affirming to a Jewish suspect. That is why he had to record it right next to Anderson's words. The reason he had no such recollection, and had to put pencil to paper, was not because it had been handled by the City Police--as Anderson told the tale--but because it was not a literal event.

You also claim it is "preposterous" that George Sims could know more than Anderson about the Polish suspect. Well, not really. Not if Sims' source is Macnaghten who can be shown to know more about the Polish suspect than does Anderson. Like that he is still alive in 1907.

The weakest link of your two incarcerations theory is that a hands-on super-cop like Macnaghten could not know about it, and supposedly could not find out about the secret Seaside Home identification. Ever?! That the City Police could have effected all these shenanigans and not only does it not leak to the Chief Constable, later the Assistant Commissioner, but nor to Major Henry Smith! He is none the wiser either, about an extraordinary event on his own turf? Nor for that matter do Edmund Reid, or Frederic Abberline, or Jack Littlechild ever know?

You want to see what preposterous looks like, mate, then look no further.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'll answer in full later I have a boat to get started..

But the answer is very simple…Anderson and Mcnaughten are describing different events that happened two years apart.

Thats all anyone need to know

Yours Jef

[Jonathan H]

That is untrue because:

Macnaghten places the incarceration of "Kosminski" in March 1889.

By implication so do Anderson and Swanson.

There is nothing, nothing at all, nothing, in their writings to even hint at a protracted affair leading to a solution beyond 1889. A solution happening as late as early 1891.

That is why no researcher was looking for the Polish suspect so much later, and he was only stumbled upon by accident.

It is why David Cohen remains a much better bet, if you go for Anderson as essentially reliable--as I do not.

[Batman]

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his 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...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - "DSS

---

he had been sent by us

Since he is referencing Anderson there seems no reason to reject that it was Anderson and Swanson who participated in this. Since Anderson has previously talked about how he can tell something about someone by their reactions this seems to explain why he thought the witness wouldn't testify. That the witness seem to notice something about the man but then rejected wanting to testify against him, Anderson could be responsible for the interpretation that one Jew wouldn't want the death of another Jew on his mind. As there is no evidence that Jews protect other Jews from the gallows for murder (since execution for murder was a penalty for homicide in Torah law) it seems to make sense that this is purely Anderson's assumption and interpretation of events.

It is actually quite clear that Swanson thinks Kozminski was JtR when he says ".And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.."

This a key part of the hypothesis. What this says is that crimes stopped after he was identified and watched. Yet we have heard this before. There are examples of suspects who left London after MJK was murdered and due to the correlation (not causation inferred) it is notable.

"In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards"

What this tells us is that at the time Swanson didn't seem to kept up to date on what happened to this suspect as Kozminski was still alive. It seems Swanson assumed the man was dead.

Conclusion:
It appears that Swanson has bought into the incarceration theory at a later date. That he remembers a suspect called Kozminski being brought before a witness by himself and Anderson. Since Anderson is known to bend his interpretation of witness/suspect behaviour it seems Swanson has opted for Anderson's interpretation based on the fact no more murders where committed and that as time went by, increased his acceptance of it.

Looking back what is likely is that many people where taken to see a witness in the seaside home following the double murder. That this is where they kept a secret witness away from the press and away from harm. It would seem that Schwartz would fit the bill better because he felt threatened by the man he saw with Liz Stride. This also can explain why Schwartz was not at the inquest!

That many characters where put before him, probably mostly gentiles and the one time a Jew was put before him, he probably reacted in a way different to the rest.

So my take on things is that Schwartz was held up somewhere and was subject to identification processes over a period of time. One of those involved Kozminski and since Kozminski was committed and the crimes stopped, Swanson correlated them and gave it the Anderson interpretation.


(As a note for those who still suspect Kozminski, the witness may have clammed up because he felt genuinely threatened by the site of Kozminski before him).

[Scott Nelson]

[Wickerman]

Hi Batman.

Sadler did not appear in court, but his statement was read aloud.
If fear of being recognised was the reason Schwartz did not want to be seen in public, then his statement could also have been read to the court.

It is actually quite clear that Swanson thinks Kozminski was JtR when he says ".And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.."

It depends on what was meant by "murder of this kind", the same could be said about Druitt. Swanson could be just echoing what Anderson believed, and it could have been true, but still not an indication of guilt, nor of Swanson concurring.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Ignore this post.

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

I doubt the ID by itself would have been regarded as anything like sufficient, particularly if Lawende was the witness.

If we trust to Swanson’s contention, John, that the witness identification would have been sufficient in itself to have convicted Kosminski, then Lawende couldn’t have been the man. Indeed, given Lawende’s self-professed doubt that he would recognize Church Passage man again, he would have been next to worthless as a prosecution witness.

Swanson tells us that City officers mounted a round-the-clock surveillance operation on Kosminski during a period more or less contemporaneous with the claimed Seaside Home identification. Such a procedure would have been costly, labour intensive and could have continued for weeks or even months without any tangible result. The only way it would have been abandoned was if Major Smith was satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper. The simplest and most cost-effective method of reaching such a conclusion would have been for Smith to have invoked standard procedure and call in Lawende to determine whether Kosminski was the man seen with Kate Eddowes shortly before her death.

Clearly, since Lawende didn’t identify Kosminski on behalf of Major Smith, he couldn’t have been the witness who made a certain and unhesitating identification on behalf of the Met at the Seaside Home. Had he done so Major Smith would have been aware of it and would never have condemned Anderson for stating that the Ripper had been positively identified as a Polish Jew.

Thus the Major Smith factor provides compelling evidence that Lawende could not have been Anderson’s witness. Were this not the case we’d be confronted by a scenario in which Lawende was able to provide an immediate and unequivocal identification for the Met whilst having failed to do so on behalf of the City force.

[Jonathan H]

Actually Lawende--according to a single source and without his name--did affirm to a Ripper suspect, in 1895.

The implications are consistently underestimated by those who propose the Seaside Home identification of Kosminski as a literal event.

I subscribe to the Sailor's Home theory. Let me add this. Swanson gives the impression--from Anderson I believe--that the murders ended after Kosminski was sectioned. This refers to Mary Jane Kelly in 1888. He has forgotten the McKenzie and Coles murders, and his own reaction to them at the time. He is recording that the police hunt was over before the McKenzie murder which was July 1889.

The theory, accepted by some as fact, that Anderson and/or Swanson realized in 1910 that "Kosminski' was not incarcerated until 1891 is an entirely modern one, and is not supported by sources by these men on on their behalf.

Therefore, the very fact that Swanson recorded the Seaside Home location, a hospital not built until 1890, shows that he is compressing events into 1888 and shortly afterwards. In other words he is claiming that the suspect was taken to a place, in early 1889, that did not yet exist. If he did recall Aaron Kosminksi's incarceration, he would have added the date of 1890 or 1891. He does not, because he is simply expanding on Anderson's tale without qualification.