Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[harry]

If Swanson's memory was good,and it seems to have been so,then the identity of the witness would have been recalled. Why wasn't that included in the marginella,or by Anderson.The witness was the most important part of the identification,yet on no occasion was his name mentioned.That knowledge would not have incited riots.On the question of riots,can we take that seriously.Protests no doubt,but that occurs these days,and it's never been a reason for police to abstain from arrest or publishing names.

[Scott Nelson]

Because it was a secret.

[Jonathan H]

To Scott

I think your work and analysis is absolutely top shelf. But I can't see how such a 'secret' could have been kept from Macnaghten and Smith.

On the other hand, I am also proposing a theory--in book form--that Macnaghten kept Druitt secret from the entire Yard, and hustled his loathsome boss with "Kosminski" the fictional variant of a real person.

The most critical aspect of Mac's hustle was to convince Anderson the suspect was deceased. That took the incentive and the pressure off his checking any of the details--and they were not checked.

You could argue, I'm sure, that it is pretty rich coming from the likes of me; that I object to Macnaghten simply being kept out of the loop while proposing that the same police chief and career bureaucrat actively deceived and misled his superior, and by extension his junior.

[Batman]

The thing about conspiracy theories is that apart from being a conspiracy theory why is Anderson publishing it?

[Jonathan H]

Personally I do not think Anderson was involved in a conspiracy at all.

The moment "Kosminski" became his solution, I argue in 1895, he began talking about him, starting with Major Griffiths.

One thing Anderson held back, though, was that the suspect was long deceased (Swanson was not so restrained about this, in 1895, and perhaps was told off for doing so?) Possibly because it looked appalling to be accusing a man who was permanently in no position to defend himself. Also perhaps because it would look very dodgy and very convenient.

[Trevor Marriott]

Personally I do not think Anderson was involved in a conspiracy at all.

The moment "Kosminski" became his solution, I argue in 1895, he began talking about him, starting with Major Griffiths.

One thing Anderson held back, though, was that the suspect was long deceased (Swanson was not so restrained about this, in 1895, and perhaps was told off for doing so?) Possibly because it looked appalling to be accusing a man who was permanently in no position to defend himself. Also perhaps because it would look very dodgy and very convenient.

A post full of "perhaps this" and "I argue that" hardly concrete evidence is it?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

And our marriage was going so well until now, Trevor ...

The reason I use perhaps and maybe and arguably (which specifically concedes that data could be interpreted differently, even diametrically) is because this is historical methodology.

I am not dealing in concrete claims, like a policeman or a prosecutor, but debating and advocating provisional theories based on incomplete scraps bequeathed to us from a very long time ago.

Anderson in 1892 gave an interview in which he had no specific suspect in mind (that's a disputed interpretation). Three years later he told Griffiths that he believed it was a madman locked up and beyond the justice of the sane. What changed? We are not told. Perhaps there was no change. Perhaps there was? Even this glimpse matches Aaron Kosminski in some bits and not in others. Why?

In my opinion the Seaside Home identification, as recorded by Swanson, never literally happened, though there was a failed identification of a major Ripper suspect after the 'final' murder by a Jewish witness (Lawende, Sadler and Coles in 1891). This happened at almost the same time that an Aaron Kosminski was permanently sectioned (that's quite a coincidence, hey?) This suspect also involved a witness from a Seamen's or Sailor's Home (that's quite a coincidence too, hey?)

Could the above theory be wrong? Of course.

[Jeff Leahy]

Originally Posted by Trevor MArriot
.
I don't think that is a presumption that can be confirmed. What we do know is there was a suspect file which contained details, of as you would imagine suspects.

And we know that it has not survived. But it seems a logical conclusion that it still survived when MacNaughten wrote his report in 1894.

Ah yes we get back to this old chestnut where it is suggested the answers to all the modern day questions now being asked were thrown out or destroyed. This suggestion is a modern day researchers dream to use, because it keeps the mystery alive.

But what if that were not the case that the police had very little to go on, and there were no significant major files on the case. The comments made by senior officers in later years tend to support this belief.

Well you've already said that there was a suspect file, now your simply arguing the size and quantity of information and there is no way of knowing that.. Foreinstance I was talking to someone at the LMA archive last week about the missing Leavesdon Asylum Files, we know they existed and have currently been lost. That’s because many Asylums were left to rot and open to trespass and vandals. One set of records had been taken by an actress in the 1970’s when an asylum in Surrey was used as a film set, and these returned by her sister when she died… There are hundreds of such records known to exist and missing still possibly out in the public domain.

But there was no need for him to do that because in 1894 as I said he had Swanson to turn to. But of course if Swanson had nothing to tell him because between 1888-1894 nothing significant had happened with the case then yes he would have had to consult the main ripper file, and if he did and thats all he could come up with that tells us that as I said the police had not made any significant progress

That depends whether you think Anderson, Monroe and Swanson were capable of operating the event in secret to avoid public backlash a ‘Hot Potato’. Anderson had gotten into the police force specializing as a Spy.. If anyone was capable of keeping the ID stum it was Anderson. Monroe spoke to knowone not even his wife, and Swanson spoke to no one only writing for his own benefit in the margins of a Private book, I doubt he had any idea of the faraw he would cause.

You are right its speculation based on what you want to believe happened

All suspect ripperology is speculation, the art is theorizing logically by listening and absorbing the ‘knowns’ and making sence of them.

Again nothing more than wild speculation on your part

As I said its not wild speculation, its reasoned speculation that makes sence of what is known and the facts. Sir Robert Anderson was clear that the identity of the murderer was a definitively ascertained Fact. My theory explains why this statement appears at first site not to match MacNaughten’s account. Once you understand they are talking about different events relating to the same suspect it all becomes clearer.

But he must have because if Swanson purportedly knew about it then so must is boss have and that boss was Macnaghten.

Not if Swanson was asked to do a specific investigation and keep it quiet by Anderson. Bear in mind MacNaughten was new and appointed by Monroe.

Well if he wasn't senile then that points us back to asking the same question again. Did Swanson write all or only sum of the marginalia?

We know Swanson wrote the marginalia, as this has been confirmed by experts. We know Swanson wasn’t going senile and even if he was, if you’ve ever dealt with someone who had dementure you would not think it possible they’d make something like this up..So the logical conclusion is what he says is correct…as far as he understood.

Logic dectates that the event described by Swanson wasn’t known to MacNaughten who clearly describes events up to March 1889, he gives that date. While Swanson describes events shortly before Aaron Kozminski goes into the Asylum which we now know was... Feb 1891.

Two separate events the second not known to MacNaughten.

Then everything adds up

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson in 1892 gave an interview in which he had no specific suspect in mind (that's a disputed interpretation). Three years later he told Griffiths that he believed it was a madman locked up and beyond the justice of the sane. What changed? We are not told. Perhaps there was no change. Perhaps there was? Even this glimpse matches Aaron Kosminski in some bits and not in others. Why?

This isn't true is it?

Anderson gave a statement in 1892 which was almost identical to the information given in 1895 by Griffiths..

So Anderson had already formed his opinion about a 'Maniac revelling in blood' committing the murders, the change happening between Sept 1889 and 1892, long before MacNaughten writes the MM.

Those are the facts

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson was considered a blabber mouth in 1910 by many different people. Blabbing does not mean what you are saying is inaccurate, just indiscreet. There is nothing I have read that Mac was such a person or such a professional--quite the opposite.

In the words of Mandy Rice Davis 'They would say that wouldn't they' (They being my change)

The fact is that Anderson was accused of telling Fairy tales to discredit i'm, when actually its almost certain the government tried to frame Parnell etc etc.

Clearly Anderson felt he had a moral duty to say what he did about the ripper and not reveal his name. That is because he felt police procedure required changing. He must have thought given more powers he could have got a conviction on Aaron Kozminski but the rules prevented him from doing so.

There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was in care twice, or that Anderson recalled these events happening as late as 1891 (or 1895).

The evidence has been in front of everyone all along. It is the only possible explanation that makes sense of what is known.

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jonathan

Anderson in 1892 gave an interview in which he had no specific suspect in mind (that's a disputed interpretation). Three years later he told Griffiths that he believed it was a madman locked up and beyond the justice of the sane. What changed? We are not told. Perhaps there was no change. Perhaps there was? Even this glimpse matches Aaron Kosminski in some bits and not in others. Why?

And he might have been correct in that interview, if the Grainger ID was one he was referring to in his book. You asked what changed? Three years later takes us to 1895 and the Grainger ID.

Its as you say some bits match up, but there are many more that dont
.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

Hello Harry,

If there is one thing I have found throughout this thread..It is protracted supposition pulled in just about every position possible for the viability of the existence of this purported identification at a Seaside Home.

That tells me more of today than yesteryear.

Phil

[John G]

A major problem that I have with Robert Anderson is that he seems such an intransigent character. In other words, once his mind was made up he seemed reluctant to change it, whatever the evidence.

Thus, in the case of Rose Mylett, he convinced himself that it was a case of accidental death. However, four doctors, including Dr Phillips and the Senior Police Surgeon, disagreed concluding she'd been murdered. Anderson still wasn't satisfied and insisted that Dr Bond take another look. Eventually Dr Bond agreed that her death was accidental, although he only saw the body five days after she'd been killed.

Wynne Baxter was having none of it. He stated that a conclusion of death by natural cause was "nonsense", and the jury sided with the coroner returning a verdict of wilful murder.

Nonetheless, Anderson was still insisting several years later, in The Lighter Side of My Official Life, that it was a case of death by natural causes, and that homicide had only been suggested because of the "Ripper scare."

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

We agree--at least I think we do--on this point.

The [alleged] positive identification of Grant in 1895 is, partly, the source of Anderson's tale of 1910. Partly because it coincided with being briefed about "Kosminski" for the first time.

To Jeff

No, it is not a fact that in 1892 Anderson knew anything of significance about any suspect. It just is not a fact. It is an interpretation of a limited and ambiguous source. It might be a correct interpretation, or it might not be.

I think, as do many, that Anderson is talking broadly in the interview about the killer being a maniac, not that he has anybody in particular in kind.

Whereas in 1895, in the wake of the Grant fizzer, now Anderson has his sectioned madman. He says that the killer was "temporarily at large" and his reign was "cut short" by committal to an asylum. Two of the bits of data do not match Aaron Kosminski, who was out and about for years after the Kelly murder. His being on the streets was not cut short by being sent to Colney Hatch.

Of course that does, broadly, match David Cohen.

This is why your two incarcerations will not fly. Your sources, Anderson and Swanson, both talk and write about a man who was off the streets much, much earlier than 1891--to about when Macnaghten dates the incarceration, in early 1889.

And they refer to a man who is dead, a detail they are humiliatingly and self-servingly wrong about. To be fair, that means there is a cut-out between them and the facts about this suspect.

Who or what was this buffer?

How is that the most famous writer of true crime of the day (1907) knows that the Polish suspect is still alive and the retired Assistant Commissioner--and the retired Swanson--do not know this?

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Trevor MArriot
.
And we know that it has not survived. But it seems a logical conclusion that it still survived when MacNaughten wrote his report in 1894.


You originally said a suspect file relating to an individual suspect I merely pointed out that may not have been the case


Well you've already said that there was a suspect file, now your simply arguing the size and quantity of information and there is no way of knowing that.. Foreinstance I was talking to someone at the LMA archive last week about the missing Leavesdon Asylum Files, we know they existed and have currently been lost. That’s because many Asylums were left to rot and open to trespass and vandals. One set of records had been taken by an actress in the 1970’s when an asylum in Surrey was used as a film set, and these returned by her sister when she died… There are hundreds of such records known to exist and missing still possibly out in the public domain.


But you still have to accept that there may have been nothing in existence in the first place which was important to this case for it to be destroyed or lost, So people keep inferring that all the answers may have been lost in these make believe files. There is enough problems trying to get to the bottom of what does exist.

That depends whether you think Anderson, Monroe and Swanson were capable of operating the event in secret to avoid public backlash a ‘Hot Potato’. Anderson had gotten into the police force specializing as a Spy.. If anyone was capable of keeping the ID stum it was Anderson. Monroe spoke to knowone not even his wife, and Swanson spoke to no one only writing for his own benefit in the margins of a Private book, I doubt he had any idea of the faraw he would cause.

But why keep the ID secret they were all investigating a serial killer what would be the point in identifying him and doing nothing or telling anyone

All suspect ripperology is speculation, the art is theorizing logically by listening and absorbing the ‘knowns’ and making sence of them.

Thats the rub of the green making sense of them. Or is it a case of interpreting them in a way which suits a particular theory or suspect?


As I said its not wild speculation, its reasoned speculation that makes sence of what is known and the facts. Sir Robert Anderson was clear that the identity of the murderer was a definitively ascertained Fact. My theory explains why this statement appears at first site not to match MacNaughten’s account. Once you understand they are talking about different events relating to the same suspect it all becomes clearer.


Wasnt Graingers ID an ascertained fact ?

Not if Swanson was asked to do a specific investigation and keep it quiet by Anderson. Bear in mind MacNaughten was new and appointed by Monroe.


So you are suggesting that Anderson went to Swanson and by passed MM ?

We know Swanson wrote the marginalia, as this has been confirmed by experts.
Logic dectates that the event described by Swanson wasn’t known to MacNaughten who clearly describes events up to March 1889, he gives that date. While Swanson describes events shortly before Aaron Kozminski goes into the Asylum which we now know was... Feb 1891.

One expert has given an opinion, that opinion and how he arrived at that opinion has not been tested. For those who want to read my assessment and evaluation of everything connected to the marginalia there is a full chapter dedicated to this in my book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://amzn.to/1Ldknjr

Finally Lets deal with facts and not logic on the point of MM and Swanson. As stated MM was Swanson's boss to suggest he did not have his finger on the pulse and that Anderson recruited Swanson behind his back is in comprehensible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk