Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jeff Leahy]

I didn't make that claim, it was a quote from James Swanson in the unused News of the World article.

It was probably something he said while being interviewed by the NOTW reporter Charles Sandell, who visited Jim at his home.

It's worth bearing in mind that Jim Swanson wasn't born until 1912, nine years after his Grandfather retired. He was 12 when Donald Swanson died, so how much he actually heard about the case directly from Donald is open to question.

Sorry Adam, I was of course referencing the section with a lengthy typed letter.

But the way it reads to me is that Jim Swanson is referencing other family members. This intrigues me because I remember talk of Jack the Ripper at my aunts house about Jack, which is why I stayed up and watched the Barlow and Watts about that same age.

But why its fair to be cautious if elder family members had made this claim to Jim Swanson wouldn't it put a slightly different light on how we might interpret Swansons Marginalia notes?

Trusting you are well on this fine day.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I just find it impossible to believe that some policemen knew who jack the ripper was and kept it quite the police wanted this case solved they would have wanted the reputation of the police force restored .Fame and immortality would have been granted to the policeman who announced this case solved to the public and I think the police force would have even taken the chance on some civil unrest directed at the jews if it meant putting this case to bed.

[AdamNeilWood]

And remember that in Adam Woods feature he makes the claim that Swanson had told family members that he 'Knew the identity of JAck the Ripper but wild horses would not drag it from him'

I didn't make that claim, it was a quote from James Swanson in the unused News of the World article.

It was probably something he said while being interviewed by the NOTW reporter Charles Sandell, who visited Jim at his home.

It's worth bearing in mind that Jim Swanson wasn't born until 1912, nine years after his Grandfather retired. He was 12 when Donald Swanson died, so how much he actually heard about the case directly from Donald is open to question.

[Jeff Leahy]

Suspects become so when information is of a suspicious nature.There is no known information connecting Kosminski with the killing of anyone.There is a claim,by Swanson ,that he was identified at a seaside home,a claim that is disputed,and as yet to be proven.
The latest claim is that Anderson,Swanson and Monroe were present at that ID.The claimant is being asked to prove their presence.If he can,then suspicion can be said to have been established.Kosminski can be accepted as a suspect.Simple as that.
Personnely I do not believe the claim will be proven.
W hat says you Monty?
It is as it is,as you say.

The claim is not that Swanson, Anderson and Monroe were present at the ID.

What is being theorised is an explanation as to why MacNAughten believed Kozminski entered the Asylum in March 1889.

I'm suggesting a very simple explanation, that Aaron Kozminski was firstly placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889. That it was possible to pay a quarter in advance to such Private asylums and we know Kozminski's brother (Who owned a valuable watch) down sized to Yalford Street about this time.

This is supported by Harry Cox who claimed the suspect he followed entered a private asylum in Surrey about March 1889 also.

I'm then connecting a theory first proposed by Rob House that the Crawford letter pertains to Anderson's suspect. ANd that a member of Kozminski's family Matilda, approached Anderson asking for help. Thus the ID was done in secret with only the knowledge of Swanson, Anderson and Monroe. (Although given the unusual letter sent by Anderson to Major Smith I wonder if he was aware the ID had taken place possibly via Sagar)

Hence MacNAughten did not know about the Kozminski ID so he preferred Druitt.

What this theory does is explain many of the contextual problems and apparent contradictions between the MacNaughten Memo and later via Sims. And Andersons claims in TLSOMOL and the Marginalia.

And remember that in Adam Woods feature he makes the claim that Swanson had told family members that he 'Knew the identity of JAck the Ripper but wild horses would not drag it from him'

Surely its reasonable to speculate that the man in charge of the JAck the Ripper investigation not only supports Anderson's claims but goes one further claiming Kozminski was 'Jack the Ripper'.

Yours Jeff

PS Another poster here is proposing something very similar however he's claiming that an attack on a Matilda was an attempt by Kozminski to kill his own sister, who initially refused to testify against him. Hence the witness at the ID relates to that incident not one of the cannon. It throws up a lot of problems but its an interesting new theory.

[harry]

Suspects become so when information is of a suspicious nature.There is no known information connecting Kosminski with the killing of anyone.There is a claim,by Swanson ,that he was identified at a seaside home,a claim that is disputed,and as yet to be proven.
The latest claim is that Anderson,Swanson and Monroe were present at that ID.The claimant is being asked to prove their presence.If he can,then suspicion can be said to have been established.Kosminski can be accepted as a suspect.Simple as that.
Personnely I do not believe the claim will be proven.
W hat says you Monty?
It is as it is,as you say.

[Monty]

Kosminski has never officially been accused of any criminal act, that needs to be made clear.

He is a suspect.

Is what it Harry?

Monty

[harry]

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.
Swanson,Monroe,and Anderson were there at the seaside home,and witnessed an identification.Jeff tells us so,and we shouldn't question Jeff's claim,or asks how he knows.Is that it Monty?

[Bridewell]

Finally no one ever saw the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Unless possibly it was the City PC that was (on) a beat near Mitre Square".

[S.Brett]

Hi Karsten

Is it possible to re-post the information and times on the Matilda knife incident?

This thread post # 515

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8856&page=52

"he took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister"

How often did it happen? Once, and again, then a third time?

What did Jacob Cohen actually know about this incident?

What exactly did happen? A dispute out of control? An attempted murder without prior warning? An overstatement?

We do not know...

Just as a quick reminder, for a number of reasons I'm more interested in Bethlam than Holloway. However I think I've pretty much established from the Ladies admissions book that they did take Jewish patients and people from Eastend…remember one woman admitted in Sept 1889 was actually given as cause of madness 'Whitechapel Murders' unfortunately I could discover no more about this woman.

The question with Holloway is could Rees-Philips have had some connection to Jewish communities in the Eastend and so far we've drawn a blank. Will keep searching.

Yours jeff

I guess; for this man -suspected to be Jack the Ripper- it was harder to find a good hiding place.

Yours Karsten.

[S.Brett]

I noted with interest that there was a small synagog connected to the back ally in Greenfeild street not far from Issac's premises and wonder if its possible to find out who was the rabbie there at the time?Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff!

I have already written to you that there was a Rabbi in 6 Yalford Street, Israel Lubnowski-Cohen. Yalford Street was next to Greenfield Street where Morris & Matilda Lubnowski and Isaac & Bertha Abrahams were living at the time. Before Woolf and Betsy Abrahams moved to Providence Street they had also lived in Greenfield Street and you know; "34 Yalford St. from before March 1889 to after May 1889 (exact dates are unclear)" -Rob House, Prime suspect-.

I did not know much more...

But then Rob House again:

"Morris Lubnowski's older brother was a rabbi, living at 6 Yalford Street in the 1891 census:

1891 census (5 April) - Israel [Lubnowsky] Cohen at 6 Yalford St

Rabbi Minister (37), b. Poland Carlish [Kalisz], with wife Leah (30), b. Poland [?]Kutnor [Kutno], children [?]Lilly [or Tilly] (7), Rachael (4), Joseph (2), all b. Poland, and Kitty (7 months), b. London Mile End."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17414

Joseph (2) born in Poland? 1888 or 1889?

[Monty]

Enough to cast a doubt, but then again seeing as this article in my book has been in the public domain for several years now it just goes to show how many so called ripper experts take the trouble to actually purchase some of the books published by authors.

Yet they still seem to want to pass judgment when issue are raised from then on here, funny that is

I pass no judgement.

Your record on the subject is questionable, and also in the public domain. Which is why I sought clarification.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you have the need to cast doubt?

I assume you hold precise knowledge on the process of document testing, yes?

Monty

Enough to cast a doubt, but then again seeing as this article in my book has been in the public domain for several years now it just goes to show how many so called ripper experts take the trouble to actually purchase some of the books published by authors.

Yet they still seem to want to pass judgment when issue are raised from then on here, funny that is

[Monty]

No need to, just need to cast a doubt about the tests that were conducted and how they were conducted. I am happy to suggest that there is not just a doubt but a major doubt about relying on them as conclusive proof.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do you have the need to cast doubt?

I assume you hold precise knowledge on the process of document testing, yes?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

So youve conducted tests, or rather had tests conducted, upon the marginalia Trevor?

Monty

No need to, just need to cast a doubt about the tests that were conducted and how they were conducted. I am happy to suggest that there is not just a doubt but a major doubt about relying on them as conclusive proof.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Hello Harry,

This is a ripperology versus reality situation.

The location is unknown, there are no witnesses that fit the description, there is no one in the records who matches the 'Polish Jew' suspect and what Anderson states is in direct contrast to the known workings of the law.

So clearly according to the principles of ripperology there is no need for you or any one else to do anything other than blindly accept what Anderson states as gospel, and there is no need to starting asking awkward questions or encouraging any sort of honest inquiry here at all - it's not like we're trying to solve a mystery or anything!

Just remember the motto of the UK ripperology industry - 'Don't think'

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