Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

But doesn't the evidence suggest that Anderson, at least, believed the murderer had been discovered, and the Whitechapel murders were therefore solved? I mean, consider what he's quoted as saying in Blackwood's: "Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer..."

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

[Admin]

Please be advised that due to the ongoing problems with server generated emails, it took us a while to address the problems occurring on this thread. We are addressing the issue now but we wanted to apologize for the lateness. Please for the time being if an issue arises on the board, send an email, not a report post or a PM. Thank you.

Please continue with the on topic discussion that has begun again as we don't wish to further derail this thread, so please do not respond to this post. All responses that are not on topic from this point on will be deleted.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
The ID was done in secret by Anderson,Swanson and Monroe.

Hi Harry, I've just clarified this statement and apologised for the wording. I never believed that Monroe attended only that he was aware of its existence.

I believe that Swanson knew "was taken by us with difficulty' and that Anderson might have attended "reduced to a level lower than a brute"

That was your one line claim.Nothing ambiguous in the meaning.

I was recapping my position and worded the sentence badly, I think I've clarified my position

Of course the possibility exists.Nothing to stop you or anyone else for thinking or believing an ID took place,but thinking,believing or expressing a possibility does not constitute a provenence,and that is what is needed if Kosminski is to be considered suspect.

I'm not certain that your using the word provenance in its correct form here.

What I'm doing is looking at the 'sources', and listening to what they actually say. I don't believe anyone would have lied, become forgetful or miss-remembered. There is no requirement for anyone to do so as both MacNAughten and cox say Kozminski went into the Asylum in March 1889

So thats what happened. Cox says a Private Asylum in Surrey. So thats what happened. Anderson said the ID happened in an Asylum, so thats what happened. Swanson called it a Seaside Home, so thats what it was called.

Now I believe Anderson lied,as did Swanson,if he wrote the marginella,and I have as much chance of proving that,as you have of proving the ID,but that is what I believe.You may think that unfair,perhaps it is,but isn't thinking Kosminski a murderer also unfair

Yes but your argument requires bending twisting and re-interpreting what people say..

My theory requires no such problems it simply says that all the experts to date have made the incorrect assumption that MacNaughten and Anderson are describing the same event and one or 'tuther' must be incorrect.

I'm simply saying they are describing different events. One in March 1889 the other between July 1890 and Feb 1891

I hope that clarify's further

Yours Jeff

PS All 'sources' have Provinance. Sometimes the provenance is good sometimes not so good. But the 'source' says what it says.

[S.Brett]

Can anbody tell me where the Model Lodging house was?
Thanks
Pat.............

Hi Pat,

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street...

We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected, and, disguised, of course, we frequently stopped across in the role of customers...

I watched him from the house opposite one night... I saw him come forth from the door of his little shop...I followed him to Lehman Street, and there I saw him enter a shop... He made his way down to St George's in the East End, and there to my astonishment I saw him stop and speak to a drunken woman...

As I passed the woman she laughed and shouted something after me, which, however, I did not catch... I had the greatest difficulty in keeping behind him.

I had to work my way along, now with my back to the wall, now pausing and making little runs for a sheltering doorway. Not far from where the model lodging house stands he met another woman, and for a considerable distance he walked along with her... he pushed her away from him and set off at a rapid pace...

In the end he brought me, tired, weary, and nerve-strung, back to the street he had left where he disappeared into his own house...

For me, it seems that the suspect crossed the Whitechapel High Street near George Yard and went into the Leman Street and after he left the shop in Leman Street he made his way down to St. George´s in the East End. There he met the first woman. From that point on, it seems to me, that the suspect went faster (I had the greatest difficulty... I had to work my way along) and back to the street where he came from, and then (on his way back), after he met the second woman he set off at a rapid pace... In my opinion not far from his place of business, the shop of the man, his little shop, his own house...

I can well imagine that the model lodging house was the George Yard Building in George Yard.

And this is near Brick Lane. Was there, near Brick Lane, a street with many tailors and capmakers (Cox)?

[harry]

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.

[John G]

I see humour is wasted here Harry.

Im glad that you aren't worried, for that makes two of us. However, you asked my opinion...

...you seek providence, beyond doubt? Anyone who has studied the case knows that, as this moment, is beyond reach. However, the event was possible logistically, and within the known workings of unofficial procedure.

I wount say it makes Kosminski a laughable, best suspect, he is a contender, however best suspect, I agree, he is not. He is a mere suspect.

To be honest, neither Swanson, Anderson nor Macnaghten makes that claim....only Jeff.

Monty

Hi Monty,

But doesn't the evidence suggest that Anderson, at least, believed the murderer had been discovered, and the Whitechapel murders were therefore solved? I mean, consider what he's quoted as saying in Blackwood's: "Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer..."

[harry]

Jeff,
The ID was done in secret by Anderson,Swanson and Monroe.
That was your one line claim.Nothing ambiguous in the meaning.Of course the possibility exists.Nothing to stop you or anyone else for thinking or believing an ID took place,but thinking,believing or expressing a possibility does not constitute a provenence,and that is what is needed if Kosminski is to be considered suspect.
Now I believe Anderson lied,as did Swanson,if he wrote the marginella,and I have as much chance of proving that,as you have of proving the ID,but that is what I believe.You may think that unfair,perhaps it is,but isn't thinking Kosminski a murderer also unfair

[Monty]

Monty,
Monroe it was.Check Jeff's post 821.
So lets leave aside the terminology,and get back to the heading of the thread.Did the seaside home ID happen.Were Anderson,Swanson and Monroe present at that ID as claimed by Jeff.Now I do not worry if you care not to answer,it is after all not your claim,but your intervention suggests you might have an opinion.
Jeff doesn't seem inclined to further add anything,the provenence of which would put beyond doubt Swanson's claim of an ID at a seaside home.A pity,because it is the only information that connects Kosminski to the murders.
Makes the claim of Kosminski being the best suspect laughable.

I see humour is wasted here Harry.

Im glad that you aren't worried, for that makes two of us. However, you asked my opinion...

...you seek providence, beyond doubt? Anyone who has studied the case knows that, as this moment, is beyond reach. However, the event was possible logistically, and within the known workings of unofficial procedure.

I wount say it makes Kosminski a laughable, best suspect, he is a contender, however best suspect, I agree, he is not. He is a mere suspect.

To be honest, neither Swanson, Anderson nor Macnaghten makes that claim....only Jeff.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Monty,
Monroe it was.Check Jeff's post 821.
So lets leave aside the terminology,and get back to the heading of the thread.Did the seaside home ID happen.Were Anderson,Swanson and Monroe present at that ID as claimed by Jeff.Now I do not worry if you care not to answer,it is after all not your claim,but your intervention suggests you might have an opinion.
Jeff doesn't seem inclined to further add anything,the provenence of which would put beyond doubt Swanson's claim of an ID at a seaside home.A pity,because it is the only information that connects Kosminski to the murders.
Makes the claim of Kosminski being the best suspect laughable.

I've checked the post. And I was giving a simple brake down. I believe that Swanson Anderson and Monroe were the only people who 'knew' about the ID following the Crawford letter. I don't think Monroe attended. My apologises if the wording is unclear.

I think it quiet possible that Swanson did possibly even Anderson, largely because it seems likely Anderson witnessed Kozminski first hand given his comments 'levels lower than a brute'

I also think it possible Smith at least learned something of the ID, although I don't believe he was directly involved or that Anderson would have fully briefed him. But Smith may have learned or been privie to something via Sagar.

As Monty has pointed out, if it was done in secret it would still have left a paper trial as this sort of opporation would have cost money.

Yours Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Anderson, Swanson and Monro were likely not present at the Seaside Home Identification event, wherever and whenever it was. It was conducted reluctantly by the City Police (Smith and others) with no expected positive outcome.

[harry]

Monty,
Monroe it was.Check Jeff's post 821.
So lets leave aside the terminology,and get back to the heading of the thread.Did the seaside home ID happen.Were Anderson,Swanson and Monroe present at that ID as claimed by Jeff.Now I do not worry if you care not to answer,it is after all not your claim,but your intervention suggests you might have an opinion.
Jeff doesn't seem inclined to further add anything,the provenence of which would put beyond doubt Swanson's claim of an ID at a seaside home.A pity,because it is the only information that connects Kosminski to the murders.
Makes the claim of Kosminski being the best suspect laughable.

[RockySullivan]

Why would the indenting action taken place at a police home unless the witness or suspect was a former policeman? Could this have been the case? Perhaps both?

[Paddy]

"the model lodging-house"

Can anbody tell me where the Model Lodging house was?
Thanks
Pat.............

[S.Brett]

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"

(Btw.: I think that Mitre Street was formerly known as Mitre Court)

Imagine that there was an incident with Aaron and Matilda on 22. November 1888 and afterwards the City PC did recognise Aaron in "height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder" ("in appearance strongly resembled") then the Kozminski family had a problem.

[S.Brett]

Its a really interesting thread I've not seen before, I hope Chris George won't mind my reposting his item on Jewish law. (Ah! to big for casebook sorry)

Its again interesting that Anderson might be referencing something specific when he talks about 'not giving up one of there own'

I wonder if anyone knows more about the Rabi brother? I'd be most interested if this guy could be connected to Montegue or Crawford

Lets face it if they were dealing with a problem it seems reasonable they would turn to the family Rabi, I wonder if he is connected to the synagog in the ally behind Issac's workshops?

Yours Jeff

Btw.:

The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook Evans/Skinner, Chapter 22, page 422, 21 November 1888 - A Second Outrage?

The Times, November 22 1888 carried a report of the incident:

(There followed "Murderous Outrage in Whitechapel" - "Farmer")

Remember:

21 November, 7:30 AM - 9:30 AM Farmer
22 November, 1:00 AM - 2:00 AM "Brick Lane incident"

East Anglian Daily Times of Monday, 26 November 1888:

"...and the police are inclined to believe that the affair was only an ordinary brawl, and that the woman is acquainted with the man who assailed her, but will not give information which will lead to his detection."

Imagine that Aaron was in a private asylum after the incident near Brick Lane and his family did not give whereabouts information, then the police would have visited all the private asylums:

December 1888

“The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

Remember what Cox said:

"Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."

"...and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey."

Maybe, the City PC near Mitre Square did recognize "Kosminski" in December 1888, "sometime afterwards", and that is why the City Police had watched the suspect (and not the MET police, no "witness" so far).