Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Colin.
Many have suggested that the PC referred to was either Watkins or Harvey, but there is no rational reason why either of these constables would omit that testimony from the inquest.
Secondly, that even if it were another PC entirely, that such a witness would not be summoned to the inquest, nor mentioned in any subsequent reports by McWilliam, is also questionable.
The suggestion fails at the first hurdle.

If the statement reflects any truth at all, it must be an indirect association which only surfaced later, after the inquest had terminated, perhaps some time after.

I believe it is possible that this PC only came forward after Kozminski was brought up as a suspect, and he was recognised by a beat constable who patrolled the streets near Mitre Square.
Sadly, we have no idea when Kozminski was first suspected.

But how would a beat constable be aware that Kosminski had been identified as a suspect? And surely any of the local beat constables must have seen a great many individuals around the Mitre Square area, but if wasn't near to the time that Eddowes was murdered what reason would they have for suspecting any of them, i.e. to the extent that they felt obliged to report the sightings?

[Errata]

What I take as significant is, that the reference to the PC as a witness is associated to Kozminski as No.2 Suspect.

no 2. [Kos]minski, a Polish Jew, who lived in [... ...] heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great 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 individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.

The reference here reads like it is referring to another report which has not survived. It merely connects Kozminski with the area around Mitre Square.

Therefore, in the preamble he makes mention of the PC as an aside, in brackets:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) and no proof could..."

Which suggests to me he is making reference to the mention of this witness in the paragraph on Kozminski.

There is nothing here to suggest he meant specifically, on the night of the murder. Only that one beat constable had recognised a similar looking man in the vicinity of Mitre Square. When this sighting took place is not given.

Yeah, but I have Homeless Frank near my house, and I see him every three days or so within a two mile radius dancing down the street singing about being Homeless Frank (he gave himself the name, I'm not that big of an ass). So how unusual is it to see the same homeless man somewhere in Whitechapel around the murders? Homeless Frank has been here for years.

[Scott Nelson]

Let's believe kosminski is the murderer, which therefor proves the evidence against him exists!!

The many "circs" against Kosminski as described by Macnaghten and additional "factoids" provided by Sims and Griffiths suggest there was a file on Kosminski containing additional information, which has not survived.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Why would this be significant if it wasn't on the night of the Eddowes murder? Kosminski was a local man who presumably could, like any other, be seen in the vicinity of Mitre Square on a pretty regular basis. There would be nothing of significance, surely, in Kosminski (or a man fitting his description) being seen there on any other occasion?

Colin.
Many have suggested that the PC referred to was either Watkins or Harvey, but there is no rational reason why either of these constables would omit that testimony from the inquest.
Secondly, that even if it were another PC entirely, that such a witness would not be summoned to the inquest, nor mentioned in any subsequent reports by McWilliam, is also questionable.
The suggestion fails at the first hurdle.

If the statement reflects any truth at all, it must be an indirect association which only surfaced later, after the inquest had terminated, perhaps some time after.

I believe it is possible that this PC only came forward after Kozminski was brought up as a suspect, and he was recognised by a beat constable who patrolled the streets near Mitre Square.
Sadly, we have no idea when Kozminski was first suspected.

[Monty]

By what yardstick do we determine how much importance to ascribe to it?

I'm talking about as an isolated incident Colin,

However, when you throw Andersons and Swansons words into the mix, the yardstick becomes digitised.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The now world famous trip to the seaside hinges on one thing and one thing only that those pencil written notes in that book are genuine no more no less.If you had to try and think of a harder way to organize an identification you couldn't really beat the seaside story it would have been easier and SAFER to have the witness taken to the asylum and that is what would have happened.

If the marginalia isn't authentic and someone did invent it, they have probably invented the perfect scenario. They take the name Kosminski from the MM which was in the public domain from the 1960`s. Add Andersons story of an ID already in the public domain in the 1960`s and build a fictitious story around it. A story that they knew would be accepted by Ripperologists and would never likely be totally disproved because of the limited information contained in it and likely to be believed because of the aforementioned documents supposedly corroborating each other and the Marginalia

Of course if anyone did do this, then they could not have foreseen the emergence of the Aberconway version in the 1960`s and the names therein effectively ruling out Kosminski and thus throwing the proverbial spanner in the works for those who have favoured Kosminski.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) and no proof could..."

Which suggests to me he is making reference to the mention of this witness in the paragraph on Kozminski.

There is nothing here to suggest he meant specifically, on the night of the murder. Only that one beat constable had recognised a similar looking man in the vicinity of Mitre Square. When this sighting took place is not given.

Jon,

Why would this be significant if it wasn't on the night of the Eddowes murder? Kosminski was a local man who presumably could, like any other, be seen in the vicinity of Mitre Square on a pretty regular basis. There would be nothing of significance, surely, in Kosminski (or a man fitting his description) being seen there on any other occasion?

[Wickerman]

The context being the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten Memoranda and the reference being to nobody having ever seen the killer "unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square", I think it's reasonable to conclude that it relates to the Eddowes murder and the night thereof.

What I take as significant is, that the reference to the PC as a witness is associated to Kozminski as No.2 Suspect.

no 2. [Kos]minski, a Polish Jew, who lived in [... ...] heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great 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 individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.

The reference here reads like it is referring to another report which has not survived. It merely connects Kozminski with the area around Mitre Square.

Therefore, in the preamble he makes mention of the PC as an aside, in brackets:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was on a beat near Mitre Square) and no proof could..."

Which suggests to me he is making reference to the mention of this witness in the paragraph on Kozminski.

There is nothing here to suggest he meant specifically, on the night of the murder. Only that one beat constable had recognised a similar looking man in the vicinity of Mitre Square. When this sighting took place is not given.

[Bridewell]

However, yeah, I feel to many are, in itself, giving the seaside home incident too much importance.

By what yardstick do we determine how much importance to ascribe to it?

[Bridewell]

Quite apart from anything else, a sighting of Kosminski (or whoever) in that area on any other occasion would be evidentially insignificant.

[pinkmoon]

Assuming he was out that night?

Very true but it's quite possible that if he was the local lunatic (every town has one) then he might have wondered about every night especially if he was on a quest to find bread to eat from the gutters.

[Bridewell]

The context where Macnaghten mentions this PC does not exclusively mean, on the night of the murder.
It could have been a PC who's beat was near Mitre Sq. who saw Kozminski in the area more than once.

The context being the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten Memoranda and the reference being to nobody having ever seen the killer "unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square", I think it's reasonable to conclude that it relates to the Eddowes murder and the night thereof.

[pinkmoon]

Go look at the Tabram muder, and the parades held at Tower Barracks.

There were no hard and fast rules re location. However, yeah, I feel to many are, in itself, giving the seaside home incident too much importance.

Monty

Thank you

[S.Brett]

I'm aware that Watkins found the body, but the reference by MacNaghten was to a City PC that was "on a beat near Mitre Square". Watkins' beat passed through the square, whereas Harvey's went close but not into the square. I just think there's something about the Seaside Home ID (assuming there was one) that we're not getting - although I haven't the faintest idea what that might be.

As I said: Sagar -out of the court but 1x "near the square"- and Sims -in Mitre Court- not "near Mitre Square". If Mitre Court was Mitre Street (formerly known as Mitre Court) then the PC saw the suspect in Mitre Street or coming out of the Mitre Street and Macnaghten was right: near Mitre Square.

[Monty]

Very good point but our person who knew nothing about police work attribute might have to run the risk of the visit been recorded the seaside I.D gives us an air of mystery and a whiff or something unofficial.

Go look at the Tabram muder, and the parades held at Tower Barracks.

There were no hard and fast rules re location. However, yeah, I feel to many are, in itself, giving the seaside home incident too much importance.

Monty