Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[pinkmoon]

Wouldn't someone who knew little about police work attribute the I.D. to some more obvious police related location like Scotland Yard, Leman St. or Commercial St.?

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.

[Wickerman]

Surely if kosminski was in the habit of wondering round in the early hours would not he and many others be attracted to a murder scene by all the commotion.

Assuming he was out that night?

[Wickerman]

Wouldn't someone who knew little about police work attribute the I.D. to some more obvious police related location like Scotland Yard, Leman St. or Commercial St.?

[pinkmoon]

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.

Surely if kosminski was in the habit of wondering round in the early hours would not he and many others be attracted to a murder scene by all the commotion.

[pinkmoon]

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.

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 organise 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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell!

Watkins found the body! Mitre Street (Mitre Court) was his beat.

[I]"and just before her body was discovered a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court."

"A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body"

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.

[Mr Lucky]

No, there is no known information connecting Kosminski killing anyone, whoever just because we cannot locate it does not mean it did not exist.

Seriously ? Kosminski (the Polish Jew surely?) is innocent until proven guilty just like everyone else, this is a very fine example of the 'dark arts of suspectology' ;-

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

Ripperology at it's finest

[Mr Lucky]

Ah, so unknown location + unknown suspect ÷ unknown date = fiction.

The legal processes, I suspect, would not have been a priority at that stage. I cite Harding, Dilnott, Booth etc.

Monty

The legal process never stops protecting anyone , under any normal circumstances whatsoever (except under Marshall law) the defendant must have a fair trial, this is the criminal justice systems primary concern and will override all other consideration. It is always the priority.

I cite Harding, Dilnott, Booth etc.

Who ? You haven't cited anyone ?

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky,
Yes it is strange,that when one asks for provenance,in the Ripper case,and the questions become a little too inquisitive,legal considerations cease to be a concern.
I always believed that guilt by accusation alone,ended with the death of Charles the First,or was it the second.It seems not.
Kosminski has been accused of being JTR.No provenence tendered.On the word of one person,Swanson,and on that word alone,he has been condemned.No need to prove anything.

Hello Harry.

Surprisingly it wasn't until the early 1820's that the last of the old procedure was removed by statute, but nevertheless, guilt by accusation was indeed long gone by the time of the ripper murders.

Kosminski 'evidence' - like I said it's a ripperology versus reality issue.

[S.Brett]

MacNaghten, Sims and Sagar all refer either to a PC, a policeman, a police officer or a police constable, yet the only candidates to being Anderson's witness are adjudged to be Schwartz and Lawende. I realise that Sims' source is likely to be MacNaghten but I would still include Harvey in the list of candidates.

Hello Bridewell!

Watkins found the body! Mitre Street (Mitre Court) was his beat.

"and just before her body was discovered a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court."

"A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body"

"A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body."

See here:

Comparison between four reports of Robert Sagar's retirement

http://cgp100.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SagarReports.htm

At least for the moment I do not believe in Schwartz or Lawende anymore. I think it might be possible that there was (Jewish) witness all the time (end of 1888) who could not be used. A kind of "stand-by witness". It seems to me that someone changed his mind after a certain time and the witness came into play.

Macnaghten and Sagar stated that there was a witness in Mitre Square. So, they talked about Catherine Eddowes. But Anderson and Swanson did not refer to a victim or crime scene.

Most of us assume that the (Jewish) witness saw the suspect in connection with a C5 murder, and that is absolutely logical. But what about Goulston Street? Also a kind of crime scene, a extended crime scene (and Eddowes again). And what about victims who were not obliged to give evidence as witnesses?

[Bridewell]

Have just seen this:

http://hharp.org/library/gosh/general/convalescent-homes.html

about the Royal Sea Bathing Hospital at Margate to which:

"Patients travelled by ferry (the Margate Hoy) to the hospital, a journey which could take two rough and noisy days."

i.e. with difficulty.

[Bridewell]

Macnaghten:

"This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

Sims:

"'The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder."

Sagar:

"a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court."

"A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square"

"A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court"

MacNaghten, Sims and Sagar all refer either to a PC, a policeman, a police officer or a police constable, yet the only candidates to being Anderson's witness are adjudged to be Schwartz and Lawende. I realise that Sims' source is likely to be MacNaghten but I would still include Harvey in the list of candidates.

[John G]

Hey John,

Anderson had books to sell. As a Barrister, Anderson would know how the power of words could influence, in this case, sales. His bluff is called by Smith.

Swanson, to me, remains focused on the incident itself.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Yes, and Anderson, of course, could be pretty intransigent once his mind was made up: he was still insisting, in The Lighter Side of My Official Life, that Rose Mylett's death was not one of murder, despite the fact that four doctors, Bond dissenting, thought that it was; coupled with an inquest verdict of wilful murder.

[Monty]

Monty,
I think the whole idea of Kosminski being suspect slightly hilarious,but didn't S wanson in the marginella, write of him as such.(suspect I mean,not hilarious)Sure unofficial procedures probably happened,but the idea of Anderson and Swanson and Monro( to give him his proper spelling)tugging and pulling a naughty difficult Kosminski to a seaside home for someone to have a look at him,amuses me.As does the suggestion they then let the murderous fellow free.
Rather like my mother trying to get me to school on the first day,all of 83 years ago.They let me go back home too,But I hadn't murdered anyone.
Regards,
Harry.
Who never was an author.

I agree.

Anderson and Monro had no reason to be there due to Swansons remit,, Swanson did, obviously for the same reason. Doesn't mean he was, however out of the three, his attendance wouldn't surprise me.

Kosminski's name it out there, and put out there by senior and experienced members, one a front line constable.

Monty