Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

A previous poster claimed that Macnaghten had little, if not nothing to do with investigating the Whitechapel murders--apart from writing a report in 1894 (actually there were two versions) about people and events with which he had supposedly no direct experience.

This is demonstrably false, but this caricature of an incurious, desk-bound pen pusher is certainly one of the foundation stones of contemporary [so-called] Ripperology.

From Sir Melville's 1914 memoirs:

‘During my first years of police work I was frequently down in the East End o’ nights.'

and

“I'm not a butcher,
I'm not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign Skipper,
But I'm your own light-hearted friend,
Yours truly, Jack the Ripper.”
ANONYMOUS

‘THE Above queer verse was one of the first documents which I perused at Scotland Yard, for at that time the police post-bag bulged large with hundreds of anonymous communications on the subject of the East End tragedies.'

and,

‘I remember being down in Whitechapel one night in September 1889, in connection with what was known as the Pinchin Street murder, and being in a doss house, entered the large common room where the inmates were allowed to do their cooking. The code of immorality in the East End is, or was, unwashed in its depths of degradation.'

From the ‘Sutherland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette’ of February 13th 1891, during the Frances Coles' murder and Ripper inquiry:

“… at an early hour Mr. MacNaghten (Acting Chief Constable) with a large number of the most experienced detectives in the force was soon in the locality, and Mr. MacNaghten, accompanied by other officials, paid a visit to the spot where the body had been found, and made himself familiar with the surroundings.”

Major Griffiths from 1898:

‘... but it is Mr. Macnaghten’s duty, no less than his earnest desire, to be first on the scene of any such sinister catastrophe. He is therefore more intimately acquainted, perhaps, with the details of the more recent celebrated crimes than anyone else at Scotland Yard.’

'The Evening Telegraph and Post’, June 2nd, 1913:

'There was no case of murder and no important burglary during his time which he did not personally investigate. Sir Melville confessed that the greatest regret of his life was that he joined the force six months after “Jack the Ripper” committed suicide. “That remarkable man”, he said, “was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course he was a maniac but I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide, but that with other secrets will never be revealed by me.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in ‘The Evening News’ of February 8th 1908:

“In London when a sensational mystery occurs Sir Melville Macnaghten, the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, often rushes to the spot in a motorcar, with a little band of assistants, comprising the keenest men at the Yard.”

But what yur saying here is MacNaughten did get out and about and go to the scenes of crimes but wasn't involved in the Ripper investigation which he openly claims..

He may have visit the pinching Street murder. Which most people including MacNaughten don't think a ripper crime. And then he visited the location of the Coles murder scene, a murder that took place after the Aaron Kozminski affair was done and dusted…

So we are back to the same question. Could Anderson have kept the ID secret from MacNaughten or at least not informed him it had happened.

And I believe given Anderson spying past that is more than possible

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I wonder if the witness was an employee of the seaside home and not just a general resident. That he was offered a job while held up there as a secret suspect. Could that be overlooked in the historical research?

The most obvious conclusion is that there was no seaside home identification the police would not nor would the asylum authorities get involved in such a long winded complicated attempt when a much easier way was available for example something really hard and complicated like taking the witness to the asylum which carried no risk at all.

[Jeff Leahy]

It seems obvious that if Swanson did consider this suspect a serious candidate if not the ripper himself, he would have known what happened to him or his current whereabouts. To say he died is like Robert Keppel claiming Ted Bundy died in prison, while in fact he was still waiting on death row. How could Swanson be so careless? Either Swanson's suspect is alive or not. If not, then its not Aaron Kozminski right? So who is he talking about if not Kozminski despite mentioning him by name?

Once Kozminski was placed in an asylum Swanson had no reason to keep tabs. And we know that Anderson did write and keep tabs on suspects.

All is required is for Anderson to inform Swanson that Kozminski was dead for Swanson to believe that to be true…

Colney Hatch was a train journey out of London in those days, what reason would he have for making it?

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I wonder if the witness was an employee of the seaside home and not just a general resident. That he was offered a job while held up there as a secret suspect. Could that be overlooked in the historical research?

Another square peg in a round hole scenario ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

Are we all sitting comfortably then let's just summarise what we are lead to believe about Kosminski here we have someone who lived in the area of the murders he suffered from some form of mental illness and came to the police's attention because he committed an act of violence involving a knife all agree so far so good.Now we are then lead to believe the police treated him as a serious suspect to these appalling murders going as far to arrange a complicated identification by the most genuine eyewitness we are asked to believe that the eyewitness identifies him but dosnt want to cooperate any further in case poor Kosminski is hung so the police agree leave the witness in peace and let Kosminski disappear into an asylum for years and is forgotten about and they all lived happily ever after.

No. We are saying that Kozminski came to the attention of the police and was watched night and day. But that, he was placed out of harms way by the family in March 1889….

Then nothing for over a years…zero not a bean. Until he is released and the family keep him out the area..cheapside

Then around July 1890 Anderson is approached by a member of Kozminskis family and a deal struck to get Kozminski out of harms way…Probably Broadmoore….But it went wrong

The compromise was Colney Hatch

It was kept quiet because of possible backlash against the Jewish tailors.

Anderson kept it quite and never revealed the families name, However he felt it his moral duty to speak out against a system which he believed tied his hands in the matter..

End

Yours Jef

[Monty]

If I do decide to read one it wont be yours !

Thank you for absolving me of any blame for your ignorance.

Appreciated.

This is demonstrably false, but this caricature of an incurious, desk-bound pen pusher is certainly one of the foundation stones of contemporary [so-called] Ripperology.

Jonathan makes a valid point. Whilst it was his duty, as Chief Constable with responsibility to CID, to be appraised of the case, there is no evidence of him participating in the actual investigation of the Whitechapel Murders, merely overseeing said investigation.

Obviously, that was all part of his duties, and his knowledge, again as Jonathan points out, goes beyond a Johnny come lately with no idea of the case at all. There is a difference between being actively involved in the investigation on a regular basis, and being updated on an irregular one however, as stated, Jonathan is correct, in my revised opinion.

Macnaghten should not be considered as completely ignorant prior to 1894.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

Do you know that an inability to give ground, or concede that multiple--and competing--interpretations are possible, is the sign of a closed mind and a fragile argument?

I will try this from a different angle.

Macnaghten in 1913 claimed he knew the identity of the Whitechapel murderer. That it was a secret that had come to him. He claimed to have destroyed the pertinent documentation and so nobody after he retired, at the Yard,, would be able to access the secret.

This begs a question nobody seems to have thought to pose in 1913: since no succeeding police chiefs were going to know the truth, were the people Mac worked with during his tenure similarly in the dark?

It is curious, very curious, that two men who almost successively achieved the same high position at the Yard would both claim to have solved the case, and both claim to know the identity of the fiend, and that both suspects cannot be brought to trial.

They both might be wrong, or one might be right. But which one ...?

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Monty!

My forthcoming book will argue that Macnaghten made a personal, one-man investigation of the late Mr Druitt, strictly off the grid.

The strength of that line of argument will be up to the indivdual reader.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

Do you know that an inability to give ground, or concede that multiple--and competing--interpretations are possible, is the sign of a closed mind and a fragile argument?

Well theres certainly some ironie in that statement..

But I agree that it comes down to which suspect is more probable

The maniac living in the heart of the murders

or the Maniac travelling by Train from Black heath?

And I would again bring you back to the obvious that if Druit were the killer the kill zone would have a wider net…it doesn't which simply makes Kozminski the more probable suspect what ever is said by Anderson or MAcNaughten.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

No. We are saying that Kozminski came to the attention of the police and was watched night and day. But that, he was placed out of harms way by the family in March 1889….

Then nothing for over a years…zero not a bean. Until he is released and the family keep him out the area..cheapside

Then around July 1890 Anderson is approached by a member of Kozminskis family and a deal struck to get Kozminski out of harms way…Probably Broadmoore….But it went wrong

The compromise was Colney Hatch

It was kept quiet because of possible backlash against the Jewish tailors.

Anderson kept it quite and never revealed the families name, However he felt it his moral duty to speak out against a system which he believed tied his hands in the matter..

End

Yours Jef

If that is true then this wonderfully site would not exist nor would all the hundreds of books that have been written because the police would have known who the killer was and it would have become general knowledge amongst them we wouldn't have different policemen with different theories.The police were baffled by these crimes when a local lunatic came to their attention who had picked up a knife their ears pricked up I think it was a case of when you have no real suspect then ANY suspect must have looked good and I'm sure the police would take the chance on a little bit of unrest towards the Jews because by solving this case it would have helped repair its tarnished image .

[Jeff Leahy]

Macnaghten should not be considered as completely ignorant prior to 1894.

Monty

Thats not really the question Monty. The question is could Anderson if approached by an informant have made a deal in secret, keeping MacNaughten who wasn't openly involved in the investigation out of the equation in July 1890

When Anderson and Monroe fell out over something?

Yours Jef

[Jeff Leahy]

If that is true then this wonderfully site would not exist nor would all the hundreds of books that have been written because the police would have known who the killer was and it would have become general knowledge amongst them we wouldn't have different policemen with different theories.The police were baffled by these crimes when a local lunatic came to their attention who had picked up a knife their ears pricked up I think it was a case of when you have no real suspect then ANY suspect must have looked good and I'm sure the police would take the chance on a little bit of unrest towards the Jews because by solving this case it would have helped repair its tarnished image .

I don't think your following what I'm saying…

There were two separate events the first unto March 1889…is the one everyone is referencing..including Cox sagar, abberline Reid etc etc

The ID is done in secret thus only Monroe, Anderson and Swanson are aware it took place…it was kept quiet because kozminski own family were involved.

Its all rather simple really…

There is nothing anyone has provided me that currently disproves that infolding of events the only real problem is why Anderson believes Kozminski is dead…And i think that is explained by Kozminskis transfer to Leavesdon

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I don't think your following what I'm saying…

There were two separate events the first unto March 1889…is the one everyone is referencing..including Cox sagar, abberline Reid etc etc

The ID is done in secret thus only Monroe, Anderson and Swanson are aware it took place…it was kept quiet because kozminski own family were involved.

Its all rather simple really…

There is nothing anyone has provided me that currently disproves that infolding of events the only real problem is why Anderson believes Kozminski is dead…And i think that is explained by Kozminskis transfer to Leavesdon

Yours Jeff

There would still be a general understanding amongst the police that the case is closed and the perpetrator is locked up and we don't get that do we .

[Monty]

Thats not really the question Monty. The question is could Anderson if approached by an informant have made a deal in secret, keeping MacNaughten who wasn't openly involved in the investigation out of the equation in July 1890

When Anderson and Monroe fell out over something?

Yours Jef

That may be your question Jeff, others, such as myself, may not be asking it.

I am merely pointing out that Jonathan has rightly urged caution by claiming Macnaghten was not an ignoramus of the case when he compiled his memoranda. And has cited evidence to support it.

I am willing to concede to such a point.

I find it hard to believe Anderson could have kept such knowledge out of Macnaghten's reach. As the latters remit was both logistical and investigational, the expense sheet alone would have raised interest if noted.

Monty

[Monty]

Thanks Monty!

My forthcoming book will argue that Macnaghten made a personal, one-man investigation of the late Mr Druitt, strictly off the grid.

The strength of that line of argument will be up to the indivdual reader.

Yes Jonathan,

Your work is greatly anticipated in the field, and no doubt shall be thorough. I wish you every success on a suspect who shall always remain of interest.

Monty