Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Hi John

I know you keep repeating it but there were no issues regarding Schwartz`s statement. The police believed him.

Hello Jon,

Yes, but they also believed Violena, who gave a very similar statement, and Hutchinson, at least initially. In fact, wasn't Violena utilized to identity Pizer? That said, I'm certainly not convinced that Schwartz lied, although it is possible that his timings were inaccurate, just as Spooner's and several club members obviously were. In that context, he could have witnessed a simple domestic squabble involving Stride but earlier in the evening, say around 12:15. It's also possible that he misidentified Stride, and the assault that he witnessed was an unrelated domestic dispute. It's worth noting that he failed to recall the flower she was wearing, as did Marshall and Brown, who may also have wrongly identified Stride. In this context, it's possible that his timing was accurate, but that Stride was already dead, or died later, i.e closer to 1:00am or before 12:45pm.

The possibilities seem endless!

[John G]

Hi Rocky,

Harris stated that he only saw the back of the suspect. Levy I believe did give a description, but it was very vague. The Evening News, 9 October, also interviewed Levy and Harris and made this comment:"Mr Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but he is afraid to be called on the inquest. He assumes a knowing air."

Of course, some writers have suggested that Levy recognized the suspect but didn't want to implicate him. I believe it is also the case that he new a Martin Kosminski, however, no link has been shown with Aaron Kosminksi.


Nonetheless, Evans and Rumbellow (2006), suggest that Levy's "knowing air", and refusal to communicate with the press, was simply indicative of "self importance".

I think that's probably right. In fact, I've also speculated that Lawende may have seen even less than he claimed, and simply got carried away when interviewed by the police: that could explain Levy's reluctance to speak to the press, especially if he'd also exaggerated his own evidence. In fact, in the same Evening News interview Harris implies as much: " He [Harris] is of the opinion that neither Mr Levander nor Mr Leve saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." I think wonder if Harris was trying to did dig his friends out of a very big hole!

[Jon Guy]

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

Hi John

I know you keep repeating it but there were no issues regarding Schwartz`s statement. The police believed him.

[RockySullivan]

Hello Jeff,

My understanding is that Lawende identified Grainger in 1895, i.e. possibly several years after Kosminski's supposed identification. Could it therefore be possible that Lawende initially identified Kosminski but then started to have doubts?

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

In fact, is it possible that some senior police officers could have accepted that Kosminski may have murdered Stride, especially considering his connections to the local area, but that the other C5 victims were possibly murdered by someone else?

That's an interesting hypotenuse john...why isn't possible that the men with Lawemde couldn't have been used. Despite their claims they may have seen the same man as him

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

My understanding is that Lawende identified Grainger in 1895, i.e. possibly several years after Kosminski's supposed identification. Could it therefore be possible that Lawende initially identified Kosminski but then started to have doubts?

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

In fact, is it possible that some senior police officers could have accepted that Kosminski may have murdered Stride, especially considering his connections to the local area, but that the other C5 victims were possibly murdered by someone else?

[Jeff Leahy]

, instead of derailing a very interesting public discussion thread?

Absolutely unbelievable, Garry derails the thread with aload of irrelevant rubbish he's made up about imaginary programs and semantic references to the definition of a serial killer, and another idiot turns up claiming I've derailed the thread, unbelievable.

OK lets start getting back on course. What we know is that that Aaron enters the Public Asylum in February 1891. Almost two years after MacNaughten claimed he entered an Asylum March 1889. Which begs the question where had Aaron Kozminski been for all that time?

We know Harry Cox follows a suspect following MJK murder for several months using the sweatershop subdefuge. And that the sweater shop committee met between March 1888 and about April 1889 its report being over by July 1889. And by September 1889 Robert Anderson was still claiming they had no clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper. So clearly the ID had not happened by September 1889. And it seems logical that MAcNAughtens memo was accessed from a file created during this period.

If Kozminski first came to the attention of police following the bloody Shirt incident, Batty Street 14th October 1888, and Cox was on his trail it supports the idea that Kozminski indeed enters the asylum where MAcNAughten claims in March 1889 and where Harry Cox claims a private Asylum in Surrey…possibly Bethlem in Southwark.

In July 1890 Anderson and Monroe fallout supposedly over pensions but this has never made any sense. If the argument was indeed over the handling of the Crawford letter that would place the ID between July 1890 and Feb 1891.

The location at a Seaside convalescent Home connected to a Private asylum.

The problem is the witness. All we can say for certain is it could not have been Lawende as we know he is involved in other ID attempts and it does not make sense that he would positively ID someone and then be asked to ID someone else…

The question is…Is schwartz the only possibility or are there others including Levy and even possibly members of Kozminski's own family?

"He threatened the life of his sister"

Yours Jeff

[RockySullivan]

Even if it wasn't disturbing a murder, its a disturbance. All one needs add is murder and motive. JtR has a knife on him. If she makes enough noise he might have the club down on him shouting JtR, something which she had been warned about jokingly before according to witness testimony. Any suspect found with a knife, a prostitute screaming and a dark alley is game for JtR in my books. Imagine the craze on here if someone found a new suspect like that in the files/news somewhere.

Richardson was in the yard with Annie's corpse and he had a knife not only in his possession but out in his hand next to her body. He knew the victim. He lied and changed his story numerous times. His leather apron was found freshly washed. He was able to leave work shortly after arriving to go sightsee a body when he had no indication it was in his own yard. A gaiter spring was one of the only things mentioned found at the body and he claimed to be ******* with his shoe on the steps next to the murder site. His timing doesn't match with the doctors time of death. There are a lot of reasons to look at richardson.

Again, it's only an assumption that the witness was there and the suspect was sent to him. And it's an assumption that the Police Seaside Home is the one referred to.

I think a more plausible explanation is that the suspect was sent to a seaside home as a patient, and that the witness was taken to see him there.

Now I'm not very knowledgable about the seaside home idea but here is a theory that is just a theory with no basis in fact. Has anyone ever heard of a Jew refusing to testify against another Jewish murderer? If the seaside home was a home for retired policeman, could He have subsituted "Jew" for policeman? I can see a fellow policeman not wanting to testify against a fellow officer, the blue wall and all...never heard of the Jew wall...possibly in an attempt to protect the name of the police force? The railway policeman theory comes to mind. I don't see why else the id would take place at a police retirement home? And if Lawrence had already identified granger his id would be useless.

[Pcdunn]

Hi John

Yes I'm finally getting some information from people who know what they are talking about on Facebook. Apparently there was a recent Psychic investigation specifically into Kozminski. I'll try and see why i can find out..

However and lets make this absolutely clear, its production had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with myself and I've not seen it.

Lets see if the person responsible for this error can admit their mistake and apologise

Yours Jeff

There are four people named Jeff Leahy listed at the Internet Movie Database.

http://m.imdb.com/find?q=Jeff+Leahy

Garry apologized in an earlier post if he had mixed you up with another person. Why not have your agent look into this possible copyright violation re your unused interview footage, instead of derailing a very interesting public discussion thread?

[Jeff Leahy]

The onus, as always, is on the person making the accusation.

I have myself had cause to question assertions made by this same member. Replies like, "I am too busy at the moment", or "I am not sufficiently interested", betray the fact no such justification existed for the assertions being made.
This looks to me like a repeat performance.

Hi John

Yes I'm finally getting some information from people who know what they are talking about on Facebook. Apparently there was a recent Psychic investigation specifically into Kozminski. I'll try and see why i can find out..

However and lets make this absolutely clear, its production had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with myself and I've not seen it.

Lets see if the person responsible for this error can admit their mistake and apologise

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

The onus, as always, is on the person making the accusation.

I have myself had cause to question assertions made by this same member. Replies like, "I am too busy at the moment", or "I am not sufficiently interested", betray the fact no such justification existed for the assertions being made.
This looks to me like a repeat performance.

[Jeff Leahy]

Talk of solicitors on here is perhaps the biggest no-no there is. Jeff, you have a drinking problem. Get help.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom if someone was using your book or material in a form that you had never given permission for I think you'd rightly be as upset as I am…

What is being muted here is that there is a program being played on a channel somewhere using my name possibly footage I've created in the passed.

Frankly i think the whole story largely an invention as I've never filmed at the 10 Bells pub, which has little connection to the Jack the Ripper story. However i was involved in filming a pilot (many many years ago) that was never broadcast for a production company that has since been liquidated. If that footage has been re-used in any form then it has serious copyright and permissions problems attached to it (this would effect other people/authors). Given that no reasonable explanation has been given I'm inclined to believe it is still gathering dust in a tape library somewhere.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I’ve already told you what I saw. If you think that there’s something amiss, you do the necessary research and follow-up.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Your somewhat missing the point here Garry. You claim to have seen a program directed by myself that clearly I've never been involved with. Never.

I was absolutely clear that the only program I have been involved with on the subject of Jack the Ripper was the 'Definitive Story'.

So you are either inventing something in your mind in order to create trouble or you did see something on a TV channel which has broken copyright regulations. Should that be the case like any author whose pictures are used without permission I have the right to take this up with Directors UK.

Frankly given that you have currently failed to provide any sort of proof to support your claims to the existence of this program, I am given to the former judgement and my original reaction that it never 'existed' and was a total fabrication on your part. Which makes me wonder how much else you've claimed is the product of the same fertile imagination.

Yours Jeff

[Harry D]

As per the new forum rules, I can decide whether to have this thread closed or not. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I don't see the alternative if people can't take their personal spats elsewhere.

[Tom_Wescott]

I've always suspected that Garry Wroe made serious alligators, but it's good to have confirmation from a reliable source.

Seriously though, I don't give a rats arse how much you've had to drink, it's no excuse to write posts like the ones I just saw. Talk of solicitors on here is perhaps the biggest no-no there is. Jeff, you have a drinking problem. Get help.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Gary you are making some very serious aligations here.

You don’t read and you don’t absorb.

This should go throw the correct legal channels at Directors UK I'd be grateful if you could be more specific exactly what you are talking about and supply names and contact information

I suggest that you read your outburst in post #722 and then consider the likelihood that I’d be inclined to offer assistance even if were able.

I’ve already told you what I saw. If you think that there’s something amiss, you do the necessary research and follow-up.