Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Well, as I said, maybe the family just fancied a trip to the seaside! But seriously, I see no reason why the identification couldn't have been carried out at the private asylum. In fact, wouldn't inveigling the suspect away to the Seaside Home be even more likely to attract his suspicion? And if the police really believed the suspect to be JtR would there actions be driven by concern for the family? Surely the priority would be securing an arrest, and if there was insufficient evidence for that, then why go to such immense trouble just to obtain an identification that would have been of such limited value?

Just to pick up quickly on a couple of points, to be fair Swanson does say with difficulty…

If the family had been able to take the suspect in and out of a private asylum at will, or at least when Kozminski showed periods of recovery, then getting the suspect in Broadmoore must have been the intension…it simply went wrong and a compromised reached.

Yours jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

This is because Mac knows that Kosminski is alive, and he knows that he threatened his sister and he knows that it was self-abuse that got him locked up.

(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.
Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in (the very) heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a strong hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies, He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individualseen by a city PC near Mitre square.

If you read it in context: He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum

It is more than clear that he doesn't really know, hence the brackets and the tensing..

MacNaughten doesn't know what happened to Kozminski

As for the knife there is no direct confoirmation although I personally believe the knife is a reference to an incident that happened in Brick lane, before March 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The A to Z says that the files were placed in the Arhive and were viewed by people…but have subsequently been lost or gone missing..

In other words they could still be there, they just got mixed up..

But I think we can conclude files existed.

However if you actually read what MacNaughten says in both versions, if he is working from the file then I believe his words are 100% accurate.(even if he spells Kosminski incorrectly) His info on Druit is not so good, i believe because he is largely working from Memory..the private info...

Yours Jeff

and its pure coincidence that "files" that according to you and others are "purportedly" missing, just happen to be the names mentioned by MM. It could be more believable if at least one the known names from the suspect file appeared in his memo but not one, isn't that to much of a coincidence. Or are you going to say that all the MM names were in a separate file? perhaps titled "Non Runners" maybe a search in the archives under that name might prove fortuitous

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Just to pick up quickly on a couple of points, to be fair Swanson does say with difficulty…

If the family had been able to take the suspect in and out of a private asylum at will, or at least when Kozminski showed periods of recovery, then getting the suspect in Broadmoore must have been the intension…it simply went wrong and a compromised reached.

Yours jeff

Hi Jeff,

But it's the "with difficulty" bit that I'm struggling with. I mean, if the suspect wasn't institutionalized at the time, and as the identification appears to have been an informal process, why take him anywhere? Surely it would have been simpler, and less risky, to arrange for the witness to have a good look at him whilst he was, say, leaving or returning home. Or there surely would have been other opportunities for an informal identification, I.e whilst the suspect was out and about in a public place somewhere. But there's no evidence that they even tried.

[Garry Wroe]

I seem to recall that these same arguments were doing the rounds a couple of years ago. Here’s an example of what I said back then:-

My feeling … is that the Pizer affair and the negative publicity that ensued from it may have influenced police thinking where Kosminski was concerned. I also think that Anderson’s remarks make it pretty clear that Kosminski’s immediate family were becoming protective where Aaron was concerned, perhaps fearing that Aaron would be fitted up or that his identification as a Ripper suspect could have serious ramifications for Aaron personally and the local Jewish community generally. Thus the Seaside Home venue might have been a compromise aimed to facilitate the identification at a safe location and reassure the Kosminski family that Aaron wouldn’t become the object of a witch-hunt at the hands of the London newspapers. This would explain Anderson’s claim that the murderer was being shielded by his family as well as Swanson’s assertion that Kosminski was sent to the Seaside Home with difficulty. Once more, though, this is no more than speculation on my part, and I'd be happy to evolve my thinking if anyone could come up with a better argument.

And again:-

Investigators would have sought to avoid a repetition of the Pizer debacle, and the Kosminski family wouldn’t have welcomed the prospect of facing the same lynch mob that had threatened to tear Pizer to pieces. Given such a situation it would have made perfect sense to conduct the identification in secret and at a venue well out of the orbit of the same journalists whose lurid stories had fanned the flames of the Pizer affair.

And finally:-

Well, Jason, Abberline reportedly stated that ‘we’ have never believed the story that the killer had been caged in an asylum. And Macnaghten, a man who certainly appears to have assessed the case files, was of the opinion that Druitt was a far likelier Jack the Ripper than Kosminski, and this despite the fact that his case against Druitt was gossamer thin. Let us not forget either that, according to Swanson, Kosminski became the object of a round the clock undercover City investigation, an operation that demonstrably uncovered little or nothing to convince Major Smith of Kosminski’s guilt.

The issue here is that if Anderson alone was convinced that Kosminski and Jack the Ripper were one and the same, there is every reason to suppose that Aaron’s family would have defended him from what they perceived as unfounded and possibly even malicious suspicion. This would explain both Anderson’s accusation that the murderer’s family shielded him and Swanson’s observation that the suspect was sent to the Seaside Home ‘with difficulty’.

This latter point is important. Had there been any kind of case against Kosminski he could have been arrested and subjected to identification with no difficulty whatsoever. Yet we learn from Swanson that Kosminski was returned to his brother’s home immediately after the Seaside Home identification. In other words Kosminski wasn’t under arrest at the time. This is not only curious, it is suggestive that the identification was an elective procedure conducted with the consent of Kosminski and almost certainly his family. Under such circumstances it would have been natural for what was a clearly close and loving family to have looked out for Aaron’s best interests, insisting that Aaron’s participation in the identification be conducted either in absolute secrecy or not at all. So could this situation, one which necessitated the need to find an appropriate out of the way identificational location as a means of appeasing a protective family, be the ‘difficulty’ to which Swanson referred in his margin notations? Might it also explain Anderson’s assertion that the murderer’s family refused to hand him over to Gentile justice?

[Jeff Leahy]

and its pure coincidence that "files" that according to you and others are "purportedly" missing, just happen to be the names mentioned by MM. It could be more believable if at least one the known names from the suspect file appeared in his memo but not one, isn't that to much of a coincidence. Or are you going to say that all the MM names were in a separate file? perhaps titled "Non Runners" maybe a search in the archives under that name might prove fortuitous

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It always amazes me that when people don't like the facts they are faced with they start shouting conspiracy or foul..

I again reference you back to Page 350 in the AtoZ. There were a number of files known to have existed that no longer do so…Fact.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I seem to recall that these same arguments were doing the rounds a couple of years ago. Here’s an example of what I said back then:-

Yes a number of good points…If the Crawford letter relates to Kozminski's family it seems logical that they were working with…in some capacity.. the police at this time….

This would explain the need for secrecy as you suggest

Yours Jeff

[John G]

If the extraordinary actions of the police in obtaining the Seaside Home identification were largely motivated by a wish to appease a suspects family, rather than a desire to bring someone, who they considered to be a possible multiple murderer, to justice, doesn't that totally undermine the credibility of the upper echelons of the Metropolitan Police force?

[Garry Wroe]

How so, John?

[John G]

Hi Garry,

Surely their priority should have been bringing a murderer to justice, not appeasing his family. What is extraordinary is that, in the case of Sadder, charges were brought in respect of Frances Coles' murder. That is despite the fact that numerous witnesses were able to testify that he was incapably drunk and had been involved in several brawls at the time of the murder.

Of course, there may have been questions as to whether the suspect was insane at the time, but that is surely something that could have been left to a judge and jury. As should any questions concerning the suspects fitness to plead: see R v Pritchard (1836).

I would also note that, unless the contrary is proved, every person is considered sane and accountable for their actions: see R v Layton (1849).

[Trevor Marriott]

It always amazes me that when people don't like the facts they are faced with they start shouting conspiracy or foul..

I again reference you back to Page 350 in the AtoZ. There were a number of files known to have existed that no longer do so…Fact.

Yours Jeff

But thats conjecture on the part of the authors, because if they knew they existed, they would have known what they contained would they not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

But thats conjecture on the part of the authors, because if they knew they existed, they would have known what they contained would they not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You'd have to take that up with the authors. My understanding is that files did exist were known to exist and went missing.

Don't shoot the messenger

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You'd have to take that up with the authors. My understanding is that files did exist were known to exist and went missing.

Don't shoot the messenger

Yours Jeff

But you are using them to further your argument !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Garry,

Surely their priority should have been bringing a murderer to justice, not appeasing his family. What is extraordinary is that, in the case of Sadder, charges were brought in respect of Frances Coles' murder. That is despite the fact that numerous witnesses were able to testify that he was incapably drunk and had been involved in several brawls at the time of the murder.

Of course, there may have been questions as to whether the suspect was insane at the time, but that is surely something that could have been left to a judge and jury. As should any questions concerning the suspects fitness to plead: see R v Pritchard (1836).

I would also note that, unless the contrary is proved, every person is considered sane and accountable for their actions: see R v Layton (1849).

Hi Garry

We are here in areas of speculation. But as background context we have an unpopular police force since in 1887 Warren turns the groups on crowds in Trafalgar square. There are genuine concerns about recession and the rise of radical anti establishment politics. And Anderson and many of his fellows believed in a radical prodestant religeon (They believed in the second coming in their life time) Whitechapel was a hot bed of unrest..

The wiping of the Graffiti surely demonstrating feelings on the street..

If you view it in terms of protecting communities and property rather than helping the family perhaps we can get closer to the motivations.

However as I said this is highly 'speculative' we don't know when the Crawford letter was sent…I'm just pointing out that it would make sense why MacNAughten and Swanson appear to say different things..

The simple explanation is two different events

Yours jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

But you are using them to further your argument !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Further? No I use experts in support of my argument by quoting them.

The A to Z is created by three of the worlds experts

Yours Jeff