Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

sorry cross post cancel

[pinkmoon]

Am I the only one baffled at how Lawende could've positively identified someone, who he admitted he probably wouldn't recognize again, some seven years after the fact? I'm, of course, referring to Grainger here.

The police didn't have a clue who the ripper was so when you have no suspect ANYTHING must look half decent in the case of Kosminski the fact that he picked up a knife and lived locally made the police look at him maybe they did attempt an identification just in case but to draw the conclusion from this that he was the ripper is just plain wrong.I Just cannot believe that a witness or kosminski would be left in peace if the outcome was "yes it's him but I don't want his death on my concience so I'm not cooperating" that scenario is just to fanciful.The truth of the matter is lawende would never have been able to identify the man he saw that night and I think he told the police that he was only used out of police desperation.I think sir Melville mentions kosminski out of desperation as well when he was asked to compile his now famous memo he couldn't really say" no sorry can't help the police never had a clue " so he puts together a list after scraping the bottom of the barrel at least one person on that list (ostrog) was put on just to make the numbers up!In the case of Druitt some one who he wants to protect has told him something in confidence of that we have no doubt and Druitt is quite close to some of the descriptions Chuck in his suicide and sir Melville thought it's a possibility .

[S.Brett]

My main worry is that it implies a certain continuity between 1888 and 1891.

In my scenario, yes!

PS are you suggesting that when Simms and Griffiths say After the crime (Presuming Kelly) he developed homocidal tendencies, relates to events 22 Nov 1888?

Exactly!

It seems to me that "Kosminski" had been the prime suspect after November 1888 (Cox). Before he was a suspect among many others. Maybe already high up on the list (bloody clothes/ Batty Street, PC near Mitre Square) in October 1888. The suspect (October 1888) became the prime suspect (November 1888) after Kelly. But why? What happened? There were no other murders of this kind but a man was captured in Brick Lane who draw a knife. In this context we read about a woman:

“She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age”

An exact match with Matilda Lubnowski. Strange...

I feel sure the Seaside Home identification took place after July 1890 (really late). In my scenario Schwartz and Lawende did not recognize Aaron Kozminski in October/November 1888.

Remember:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" (Macnaghten)

“had a good view of the murderer” (Anderson)

Did the witness see a murder?

The PC near Mitre Square had a "bad" view of the murderer but did he see a murder?

Jeff, in your messages on Facebook you will find these links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMQ5b5qPwWo

http://www.rottenworks.com/index.php/2013/12/07/killer-contact-jack-the-ripper-s01e01/

Yours.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry if somebody has already mentioned this, but I think the Psychic documentary (referring to Kosminski) that is being debated was 'Killer Contact' which came out a year or two ago.

They apparently contacted Kosminski using some gadget or other in the Princess Alice, as far as I recall. It was pretty awful.

Needless to say, the programme (an American one) had nothing to do with Jeff.

Many thanks for that clarity John

Ironically the Princess Alice would have been a better choice than the Ten Bells but I'm pleased to say i'm long out of the psychic TV game, it simply paid the mortgage for a while.

I'm hoping we can now 'all' move on, into an interesting discussion on the ID.

Trusting you are both well.

Yours Jeff

[John Bennett]

Sorry if somebody has already mentioned this, but I think the Psychic documentary (referring to Kosminski) that is being debated was 'Killer Contact' which came out a year or two ago.

They apparently contacted Kosminski using some gadget or other in the Princess Alice, as far as I recall. It was pretty awful.

Needless to say, the programme (an American one) had nothing to do with Jeff.

[Jeff Leahy]

That’s odd. Not so long ago you insisted that the programme didn’t exist. You stated quite categorically that I’d made up the whole thing. So which is it?

You made the whole thing up in terms of my involvement…from a reliable source I'm told there was a 'psychic' investigation on Kozminski. I had know idea of its existence why should I.. You attached my name to something I knew nothing about

But you have been caught with your metaphorical trousers round your ankles

now please stick to the ID. I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say I gather this kind of diversionary tactic is your haul mark.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I know what it is.

You surprise me all the time.

[Jeff Leahy]

It is just a crazy idea...

Hi Jeff,

"had strong homicidal tendencies" (macnaghten)/ "afterwards… such undoubted signs of homicidal mania" (Sims)/ "afterwards… developed homicidal tendencies" (Griffiths)

Does not sound like a murder/murders. Sounds more like an attack/ attacks.

"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" (Anderson)

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" (Macnaghten)

This does not sound like much.

Aaron Kozminski “threatening his sister with a knife” (Is it an attack?)

In a case of an attempted murder; Matilda was a victim (she survived) and a witness.

About schizophrenics:

"When identities of victims were analyzed based on a British study, it was reported that 55% of murder actions were towards a family member, 22% were towards someone known and 14% were towards someone not known (8)"

Richard Trenton Chase:

"Two weeks later, he attempted to enter the home of another woman but, finding that her doors were locked, went into her backyard and walked away; Chase later told detectives that he took locked doors as a sign that he was not welcome, but that unlocked doors were an invitation to come inside. While wandering around, he encountered a girl named Nancy Holden, with whom he attended high school. He attempted to get a ride from her, but frightened by his appearance, she refused."

Nancy Holden… someone known…

My problem is: Matilda before the court as a member of the Kozminski family… against her brother Jack the Ripper… or just the witness who saw Aaron Kozminski threatening his sister?

Anderson:

“It sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but evidence is wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and built up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interrogations.”

Perhaps, the Seaside Home identification has been the last link of a chain (together with the bloody laundry in Batty Street and the PC near Mitre Square…) and was enough to convict Aaron Kozminski.

I like what Rob House said: “Moral proof“and “moral certainty“ instead of “legal proof“.

Yours Karsten.

Theres still a lot to get my head around here Karsten, its so outside the box its difficult to get my head around… My main worry is that it implies a certain continuity between 1888 and 1891.

I'm seeing it as two completely unrelated set of events one in March 1889 and a seperate event following the Crawford letter July 1890-Feb1891

But I like outside the box. An interesting new theory

Yours Jeff

PS are you suggesting that when Simms and Griffiths say After the crime (Presuming Kelly) he developed homocidal tendencies, relates to events 22 Nov 1888?

[Garry Wroe]

It is a letter written by the Earl of Crawford. It is not dated but its context suggests it was written around the time of the Jack the Ripper scare.

I know what it is.

[Garry Wroe]

No Garry you saw a psychic program on Kozminski.

That’s odd. Not so long ago you insisted that the programme didn’t exist. You stated quite categorically that I’d made up the whole thing. So which is it?

You googled my name and noted I had made psychic programs many years ago …

I did nothing of the kind. The only time I have ever googled your name was after the present argument commenced, and even that was in an attempt to locate the programme itself. You flatter yourself if you believe that I have any interest in you or your directorial pursuits.

Once again, therefore, you have presented wishful thinking as fact.

And you made a story up trying to score some cheap points, putting incorrect information together.

Wrong again, Sherlock.

I had no reason to make up anything. None whatsoever. If anything the diversion over the psychic programme has served to let you off the hook with regard to the nonsense you were peddling concerning the Ripper’s mode of approach and attack, which not only exposed your criminological ignorance, but your lack of cohesive thought too.

your now digging yourself an even bigger hole trying to get yourself out of the one you dug in the first place..pathetic

Again, wishful thinking masquerading as fact.

[S.Brett]

I'm still trying to get my head around how this might work. If I get what I think your suggesting here that Kozminski attacked his sister in Bricklane on 22nd Nov 1888 and there was a witness.

When the sister changes her mind about her brother the original witness for that attack comes into play?

Yours Jeff

It is just a crazy idea...

Hi Jeff,

"had strong homicidal tendencies" (macnaghten)/ "afterwards… such undoubted signs of homicidal mania" (Sims)/ "afterwards… developed homicidal tendencies" (Griffiths)

Does not sound like a murder/murders. Sounds more like an attack/ attacks.

"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" (Anderson)

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" (Macnaghten)

This does not sound like much.

Aaron Kozminski “threatening his sister with a knife” (Is it an attack?)

In a case of an attempted murder; Matilda was a victim (she survived) and a witness.

About schizophrenics:

"When identities of victims were analyzed based on a British study, it was reported that 55% of murder actions were towards a family member, 22% were towards someone known and 14% were towards someone not known (8)"

Richard Trenton Chase:

"Two weeks later, he attempted to enter the home of another woman but, finding that her doors were locked, went into her backyard and walked away; Chase later told detectives that he took locked doors as a sign that he was not welcome, but that unlocked doors were an invitation to come inside. While wandering around, he encountered a girl named Nancy Holden, with whom he attended high school. He attempted to get a ride from her, but frightened by his appearance, she refused."

Nancy Holden… someone known…

My problem is: Matilda before the court as a member of the Kozminski family… against her brother Jack the Ripper… or just the witness who saw Aaron Kozminski threatening his sister?

Anderson:

“It sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but evidence is wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and built up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interrogations.”

Perhaps, the Seaside Home identification has been the last link of a chain (together with the bloody laundry in Batty Street and the PC near Mitre Square…) and was enough to convict Aaron Kozminski.

I like what Rob House said: “Moral proof“and “moral certainty“ instead of “legal proof“.

Yours Karsten.

[pinkmoon]

Could you imagine trying to use lawende as a witness in court he would have been slaughterd by the defence.

[Jeff Leahy]

Am I the only one baffled at how Lawende could've positively identified someone, who he admitted he probably wouldn't recognize again, some seven years after the fact? I'm, of course, referring to Grainger here.

Agreed. I wonder how many people here could. But I guess without modern forensics the police need to take a chance on such sitings.

It might also explain Anderson's insistence that more police powers were required to gain confessions.

Yours Jeff

[Harry D]

Am I the only one baffled at how Lawende could've positively identified someone, who he admitted he probably wouldn't recognize again, some seven years after the fact? I'm, of course, referring to Grainger here.

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh, so of course, this must

Back to the Crawford letter …

It is a letter written by the Earl of Crawford. It is not dated but its context suggests it was written around the time of the Jack the Ripper scare.

Although Anderson kept many correspondence during his life time, only one relating to Jack the Ripper remains in existence suggesting it had some importance to Anderson.

The content of the letter is an introduction of a woman nearly related to a person she believes to be the Whitechapel Murderer. While encially suggested the letter was connected to Druit it has since been discovered that Farqharsen was probably the source of private info and it simpy makes more sense that the Crawford letter relates to Anderson's suspect.

Its also significant to the claim being made by a poster here, that Matilda was threatened with a knife in brick lane 22 nd Nov 1888 and there may have been a witness to this event. Speculation of course.

Yours Jeff