Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Garry Wroe
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Frankly it seems like your splitting hairs over some definition that differs from that given by Hazelwood.

    Er, no, Jeff.

    You provided a quote in which Roy Hazelwood postulated that the Ripper was a disorganized offender who used a blitz-style mode of attack. You also cited Bill Beadle, who believes that the Ripper attacked in blitz-style. Clearly you were attempting to imply the link of disorganized blitz attacker to Kosminski the disorganized schizophrenic.

    The flaw in this line of reasoning, however, is that the Ripper did not employ a blitz mode of attack. The fact that he was seen with Kate Eddowes some distance from the Mitre Square crime scene demonstrates as much. So too does the lack of noise at the other crime scenes coupled with an almost total absence of defence wounds on the known victims.

    Now you are saying:-

    The way I've always used it and I presume how Bill Beadle is defining it, is that the women were caught suddenly by surprise when they reached the place they planned to have intercourse having no idea what there client would do. They were jumped.

    Then it would help matters no end if you were to understand the terminologies you adopt before using them.

    What tosh. Are you trying to argue that the average urban fox studied at Cambridge and is this years cox for the boat race.

    You’ve responded with similar irrelevant nonsense on a number of occasions now. If there’s a point being made I’m struggling to identify it.

    However I was quoting Hazelwood from the recent 'Scotland Yard Prime Suspect' where he writes the forward and there is nothing in that book where i find myself in strong disagreement with what he says

    Really? Even the demonstrably inaccurate assertion that the Ripper attacked in blitz mode?

    KOZMINSKI WAS THE SUSPECT

    I’m aware of what Swanson wrote with regard to Kosminski the suspect, Jeff. What I asked you to do was provide some element of official confirmation that Kosminski was identified as Jack the Ripper. Once again you have responded to a question that was never asked.

    Only Anderson/Swanson and arguably Monroe knew about the ID. MacANughten didn't have a clue, thus he favoured Druit

    Pure speculation. Nothing more.

    We don't know that Major Smith was talking about kozminski.

    Yes we do. Major Smith stated that there was no evidence to implicate any Jew in the Ripper murders.

    Any Jew.

    This was the same Major Smith, remember, who orchestrated the round-the-clock surveillance operation on Kosminski. Thus he knew Kosminski and was almost certainly aware that Anderson was attempting to implicate him in the murders.

    Stride almost certain was a ripper victim in my opinion. The murders are far to close together both in timing and location for there to be any real doubt.

    As I stated previously, the difference in crime scene signature between Stride and the other victims was that of night and day. Were this a latter-day case no competent crime analyst would include Stride in the overall series. The evidence simply isn’t there.

    Most of the arguments put forward to dismiss her tend to be in err, and I tend to quote Tom Wescott when claims like a different knife was used are raised.
    I made no mention of a different knife. None whatsoever. I stated that the throat wound was different in character to the neck incisions inflicted upon Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Unlike those women Stride’s death was not instantaneous. Her skirts were not lifted to the waist. There was no abdominal mutilation. No sign of strangulation or suffocation. She was also found lying on her side rather than on her back as was the case with all of the known victims. On top of this she was almost certainly killed by Broad Shoulders, the aggressive drunk who assaulted her in full view of two onlookers. Not content with this he also verbally abused one or both of these witnesses.

    So not only did the Berner Street murder deviate entirely from the Ripper’s established crime scene signature, but the assault of a victim in the presence of witnesses was unique to the Stride murder.

    Even more damning for the Stride-as-Ripper-victim argument is the near-certainty that Eddowes was seen with her killer a short time later. Lawende and party were not racially abused by Eddowes’ companion, and nor did they observe anything in the way of drunken or menacing behaviour. In fact the conduct of this man was so markedly different from that exhibited by Stride’s assailant that it becomes difficult to imagine that they were one and the same individual.

    All of which raises some interesting questions if Kosminski really was identified by Schwartz at the Seaside Home.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Well that's what I want to get to the bottom of. When it comes to Macnaghten's "City PC" people are putting PC Harvey's name forward when he didn't include any sighting in his report. That means that Macnaghten was mistaken about the PC in question, or he was wrong altogether about any sighting, or that PC Harvey did see something but didn't reveal it at the time. What if PC Harvey had bumped into a man leaving Mitre Square, and after he found out about the murder realized that it was probably the killer he encountered and let get away? I don't think that's something many coppers would want to fess up to.
    Harvey was a very experienced copper Harry, I think he knew the seriousness of what he witnessed if that was the case.

    I fear we won't get to the bottom of what Macnaghten states.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    McWilliam's report as late as 19 October said no officer saw or heard anything prior to the discovery of the body. But what if Harvey relented sometime later and admitted he did see a man near the square (on Little Duke Street?), but not being accompanied by a woman, attached no significance to it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    I see your point Harry, apologies.

    I don't think that's an error, more a downright lie as you say.

    However, I don't see why he would lie about such a thing.

    Monty
    Well that's what I want to get to the bottom of. When it comes to Macnaghten's "City PC" people are putting PC Harvey's name forward when he didn't include any sighting in his report. That means that Macnaghten was mistaken about the PC in question, or he was wrong altogether about any sighting, or that PC Harvey did see something but didn't reveal it at the time. What if PC Harvey had bumped into a man leaving Mitre Square, and after he found out about the murder realized that it was probably the killer he encountered and let get away? I don't think that's something many coppers would want to fess up to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Hello, Monty.

    PC Harvey is on record as saying he didn't witness anyone or anything suspicious that night. What if it came out later on that he did in fact see something but lied about it?
    I see your point Harry, apologies.

    I don't think that's an error, more a downright lie as you say.

    However, I don't see why he would lie about such a thing.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    What error?

    If Harvey did see something, he hadn't erred. Smith saw Stride with a man, yet he was not disciplined, and his testimony was released to all stations and newspapers.

    Macnaghten, as a Met man, would have found it difficult, though not impossible, to have seen the Citys file on Eddowes. One would have expected him, for the purpose of a mere article, to solely stick with the Met files.

    The sighting mirrors that of Smith I mention earlier.

    Monty
    Hello, Monty.

    PC Harvey is on record as saying he didn't witness anyone or anything suspicious that night. What if it came out later on that he did in fact see something but lied about it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Harvey was a Sussex man born.

    I saw no signs of him being born into that faith Scott, nor any signs of conversion.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Was Harvey Jewish?

    Leave a comment:


  • S.Brett
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    I find the following article on Feb 19th 1894 in the Huddersfield Daily Chronicle very interesting as the "Jack The Ripper Story" has elements of Kosminski about it......Pat
    I think it is about Cutbush:

    London, 1891. Less than three weeks after the last Whitechapel murder, 25-year-old Thomas Cutbush is committed to Broadmoor for savage knife attacks on two girls. The arresting officer, Inspector William Race, intrigued by the wealth of connections with the infamous unsolved murders in the East End, starts to wonder whether he has, in fact, arrested Jack the Ripper himself. Ignored by his superiors, and in despair, the detective eventually decides to take his story to the press. Race’s actions unleash the biggest journalistic investigation of the time. The Sun puts its star reporters on the trail of Thomas Cutbush, and the startling new evidence and compelling eyewitness testimonies they gather set up a sensational scoop. The Man Who Would Be Jack introduces the truly incredible story of the investigation conducted by The Sun and Inspector Race. With unprecedented access to long-hidden records, David Bullock brings to light findings that would, at last, expose the truth of one of the world’s most tantalising mysteries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Hello, Monty.

    If it was something related to the Ripper case, would it have conceivably taken until July the next year for him to be dismissed?

    But Macnaghten was getting the "P.C near Mitre Square" sighting from some source. It's one thing to speculate that a copper should've seen him, but he quite expressly states that the PC got a look at the killer.

    As for why PC Harvey didn't sell his story to the press, would you like the world to know that it was your blunder that let the most notorious killer in England get away?
    What error?

    If Harvey did see something, he hadn't erred. Smith saw Stride with a man, yet he was not disciplined, and his testimony was released to all stations and newspapers.

    Macnaghten, as a Met man, would have found it difficult, though not impossible, to have seen the Citys file on Eddowes. One would have expected him, for the purpose of a mere article, to solely stick with the Met files.

    The sighting mirrors that of Smith I mention earlier.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    Yes you can see why Swanson or Anderson wanted to be cautious because they had pensions at stake.. But I presume low ranking or dismissed policemen had no pension to consider?

    Yours Jeff
    The all had pensions to consider, and parchments.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    PC Harvey

    Hi Jeff it may be that Harvey did not want to talk of his memories as it might bring up the reason for his sacking? Does anyone know why he was dismissed?
    Pat........

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    My experience with such records is that its rarely kept off the record. We have Hutt dismissed for assaulting a prisoner whilst in the dock of Moor Lane court, little is known about that, yet it is there on his record, and the hearing is mentioned in Police Orders.

    One question, which I think is pertinent, is if such a scenario occurred, why didn't Harvey cash is on a newspaper expose in later life?

    Harvey mentions no sighting at inquest. Such a sighting would be deemed relevant (see PC Smith and Stride).

    Monty
    Hello, Monty.

    If it was something related to the Ripper case, would it have conceivably taken until July the next year for him to be dismissed?

    But Macnaghten was getting the "P.C near Mitre Square" sighting from some source. It's one thing to speculate that a copper should've seen him, but he quite expressly states that the PC got a look at the killer.

    As for why PC Harvey didn't sell his story to the press, would you like the world to know that it was your blunder that let the most notorious killer in England get away?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    One question, which I think is pertinent, is if such a scenario occurred, why didn't Harvey cash is on a newspaper expose in later life?

    Harvey mentions no sighting at inquest. Such a sighting would be deemed relevant (see PC Smith and Stride).

    Monty
    Yes you can see why Swanson or Anderson wanted to be cautious because they had pensions at stake.. But I presume low ranking or dismissed policemen had no pension to consider?

    Yours Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    The thing that I can't get my head round is if Kosminski was such a sure bet why didn't we hear anything about him till sir Melvilles memo surfaced decades later and it appears he was just left to rot in an asylum till his death makes no sense if he was such a good suspect.
    Thats not true. Anderson started his story in 1892. Two years before MacNaughten wrote the memo.

    He then was consistent updating and expanding ion that story until 1910 when he published his book… He told you the story and simply said it would serve no purpose to reveal the name…so it was not

    It was only by complete accident that the name was discovered many years later in an Marganalia probable written around that time.

    McNughtens memo was written in 1894 and he did not know about Andersons and Swansons ID… That explains everything

    Yours Jeff

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X