Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Did they regard the witness identification as a determining factor? Anderson clearly implies the witness's refusal to testify was the reason why the police didn't prosecute (it gave the family the opportunity to have Kosminski certified), but he doesn't say or even really allow us to infer that it was a deciding piece of evidence. So, yes, one is indeed left to assume that there was a 'substantial additional factor' involved.

Hello Paul,

Thanks for the reply. Do you think that the additional factor could have been the suspect's mental illness? Therefore he fitted the stereotype of the sort of person the police considered JtR to be, whereas Grainger, for example, didn't? After all, it's what appears to have influenced Macnaughton's thinking in respect of Druitt.

[PaulB]

If the police didn't take Kosminski to the seaside home,who did.Who else had the power to do so,and why should anyone other than the police do so.If an identification was intended as part of the police investigation,then Kosminski must have been subject to suspicion before the seaside home identification.It doesn't make sense that,the identification being positive,Kosminski was not placed under arrest at the seaside home,and no one has yet come forward with a better answer than Trevor.That is ,that an identification never took place as described.

Harry,
One or more members of his family could have taken Kosminski to the seaside home, for example, and one can think of several reasons why they would have done that. And obviously the police must have been suspected before the ID at the seaside home; the police wouldn't have had him sent there without a very good reason for doing so. As for why he wasn't placed under arrest at the seaside home, Anderson all but tells you that it was because the eye-witness refused to give evidence. We don't know why that led the police to return Kosminski home and to maintain round the clock surveillance, although I have suggested that it was to enable them to firm up their evidence and persuade the witness, but obviously something did.

Sorry, but the police have a suspect, they send him to be identified, the witness refuses to give evidence, the police return the suspect to his home and keep him under surveillance whilst they firm up their case and put pressure on the witness. I don't know why you (or Trevor) have trouble with this scenario which stays well withing what the sources tell us and is perfectly plausible. Some of the details are a bit odd, such as the suspect being identified at the seaside home, but maybe everything would be as clear as crystal if we knew more of the facts.

[Batman]

What is a witness doing there?

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Thanks for the reply. Do you think that the additional factor could have been the suspect's mental illness? Therefore he fitted the stereotype of the sort of person the police considered JtR to be, whereas Grainger, for example, didn't? After all, it's what appears to have influenced Macnaughton's thinking in respect of Druitt.

John,
I don't know and don't really have an opinion on that. My gut feeling is that the police didn't have a stereotype in mind, or they had several stereotypes, various officers throwing all sorts of suggestions into the pot. As for Anderson personally, he was late to the party, only joining it after the Double Event, so it is likely that he didn't contribute to most of the theorising, not even the one following the house-to-house which suggested the murderer was a Polish Jew.

[martin wilson]

Hi Trevor

It depends how you interpret 'After the suspect returned to his brothers house in Whitechapel.'
Where does Swanson say he was returned by the police?
You ask a very good question, why would the police let Jack the Ripper go?
Because he was already incarcerated?
Perhaps he returned to Whitechapel after discharge? Macnaghten has him in from March 1889, somewhere. He could be mistaken. July 1890 and February 1891 he was in Mile End Workhouse. before Colney Hatch and Leavesden.
To me this suggests he was admitted and discharged at least once, If it had happened before it would give credibility to the surveillance perhaps?
All the best.

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry,
One or more members of his family could have taken Kosminski to the seaside home, for example, and one can think of several reasons why they would have done that. And obviously the police must have been suspected before the ID at the seaside home; the police wouldn't have had him sent there without a very good reason for doing so. As for why he wasn't placed under arrest at the seaside home, Anderson all but tells you that it was because the eye-witness refused to give evidence. We don't know why that led the police to return Kosminski home and to maintain round the clock surveillance, although I have suggested that it was to enable them to firm up their evidence and persuade the witness, but obviously something did.

Sorry, but the police have a suspect, they send him to be identified, the witness refuses to give evidence, the police return the suspect to his home and keep him under surveillance whilst they firm up their case and put pressure on the witness. I don't know why you (or Trevor) have trouble with this scenario which stays well withing what the sources tell us and is perfectly plausible. Some of the details are a bit odd, such as the suspect being identified at the seaside home, but maybe everything would be as clear as crystal if we knew more of the facts.

But the reality is that we can only comment on the facts we do know about and those facts do not make sense. This is a fault of yours whereby you keep wanting to refer to something that might have been, or something that might have been written to negate the reality of the facts that are known. Based on that every event in history could be viewed differently.

It still doesn't add up for the family to have taken him. And there is nothing anywhere to suggest that Kosminski was ever ensconced in any other establishment other that the two we know about.

After all would the family want to co operate with the police in an event which may have resulted in their relative being hanged ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

It depends how you interpret 'After the suspect returned to his brothers house in Whitechapel.'
Where does Swanson say he was returned by the police?
You ask a very good question, why would the police let Jack the Ripper go?
Because he was already incarcerated?
Perhaps he returned to Whitechapel after discharge? Macnaghten has him in from March 1889, somewhere. He could be mistaken. July 1890 and February 1891 he was in Mile End Workhouse. before Colney Hatch and Leavesden.
To me this suggests he was admitted and discharged at least once, If it had happened before it would give credibility to the surveillance perhaps?
All the best.

The Ripper mystery has now come down to a catalogue of mistakes, simply because almost everything original that is challenged has now been answered by the statement "Perhaps they were mistaken" what about "No they were definitely wrong"

The trouble is researchers are reluctant to accept that much of this so called evidential material from 1888 has now proved to be unsafe and un reliable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

But the reality is that we can only comment on the facts we do know about and those facts do not make sense.

Obviously, our task is to try to make sense of the facts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously, our task is to try to make sense of the facts.

I totally agree that is why modern day experts are required, and for them to be listened to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Why do you find it unbelievable? Given what had happened in Pizer's case, it's quite believable that both the police and (particularly) the family should have wanted to avoid public knowledge of the identification. Why not arrange for this mentally ill man to go to a convalescent home for a few weeks, where he could be shown to the witness informally, rather than arresting him and leaving him and his family vulnerable to the kind of near-riots that had taken place in Mulberry Street?

Agree Chris
But after the positive ID had been made, according to Anderson, why was he not arrested/charged then?

[Monty]

Define modern day experts, what, exactly, is their expertise?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Define modern day experts, what, exactly, is their expertise?

Monty

Medical and police experts for a start !

[Phil Carter]

"with difficulty"

Hello all,

"With difficulty".

Perhaps I am just stating the "bleedin' obvious" here...but umm... would not the whole episode have been easier to arrange if the witness were taken/sent/accompanied to the suspect. .and not the other way around?

Seems to me..naive that I am.. "with difficulty" would have been avoided.
"Can you help us out please sir on an identification matter? It will only take a few minutes. Thank you".


Phil

[John G]

Agree Chris
But after the positive ID had been made, according to Anderson, why was he not arrested/charged then?

Hello Abby,

My understanding is that, today, the CPS apply both an evidential test and a public interest test in deciding on whether to bring a prosecution. I would have thought that in Victorian times the police would have applied a similar approach. In other words, they may have believed the suspect was the Whitechapel murder, i.e. on balance of probabilities, but that there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. In fact, if the suspect was diagnosed as being insane he may have been deemed unfit to plead anyway.

I doubt the ID by itself would have been regarded as anything like sufficient, particularly if Lawende was the witness. In an earlier post I referred to a witness, probably Lawende, positively identifying Grainger. However, despite the additional factor of the serious assault on Alice Graham, he wasn't charged with any of the Whitechapel murders, either.

As the Pall Mall Gazette, possibly reflecting police reasoning, pointed out at the time:"...There is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a women a few minutes before that women's dissected body was found in the street. That person is said to have identified Grainger as the man he saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable; and the enquiries were at length pulled up in a cul-de-sac."

[Abby Normal]

Did they regard the witness identification as a determining factor? Anderson clearly implies the witness's refusal to testify was the reason why the police didn't prosecute (it gave the family the opportunity to have Kosminski certified), but he doesn't say or even really allow us to infer that it was a deciding piece of evidence. So, yes, one is indeed left to assume that there was a 'substantial additional factor' involved.

Why? according to Anderson and McNaughton he:
fit the profile of being crazy
was a sexual deviant
homicidal
fit Andersons prejudice of being a certain low class jew
his name came up during the search
Was local

More than enough IMHO to warrant an ID. Just look at Piggot, McKenna and Issenschmidt for what dearth of actual evidence against could lead the police into wanting to do an ID.

The question is HOW did he come to the police's attention.
My guess is the threatening his sister with a knife was the final straw for the family and they reported him.