Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[PaulB]

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 ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I suppose if you restricted yourself to pontificating about things you understand, you wouldn't have much to pontificate about, but it is tiresome having to correct your nonsense over and over.

One of the most basic but important responsibilities a historian has is to put the facts into context. In this case the 'fact' is that an informed and intelligent source in a position to know states that the suspect was sent to the seaside home and was there identified by an eye witness. That, Trevor, is what you call 'the reality of the facts'. To you that doesn't make sense, but you weren't there and you have no idea of what circumstances, perhaps extraordinary circumstances, made it necessary for them to do what they did. However, Swanson, a senior policemen, was there and there is every reason to believe was well versed in proper police procedure, was there and he tells us what happened. So, you can argue your nonsense from a position of utter ignorance, or you can accept what the source tells us and try to explain why things happened in the way our informed and intelligent source tells us they did.

Now, if you look back and actually bother to read the exchanges with a view to actually understanding them, you will notice that Harry asked who would have taken the suspect to the seaside home if the police didn't do it. I replied with the perfectly reasonable conjecture that an obvious first choice would be his family.
You will observe that I do not 'keep wanting' to suggest might have beens, I am simply answering a question with a conjecture. I can do nothing else. Nobody can. And Harry must know that. It is a given.

But if you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot so often, please keep making a fool of yourself. At least you are keeping us amused.

Now, if you don't think it adds up for the family to have taken him, state why. As many good reasons as you can muster.

Would the family have wanted to cooperate with the police when doing so could have resulted in their family member being hanged? Probably not, but how did they know that this was an option? Did they believe their family member was Jack the Ripper? Did they know he had been seen? Did they know the police intended to confront him with the witness? Did they know the witness would positively identify him? Did they feel they had much of an alternative but to do what the police wanted? Were they intimidated or threatened?

You are speculating that the family wouldn't have taken their relative to the seaside home, but there are numerous reasons why they might have done so.

[Abby Normal]

There would be a prosecution file created by the police, and passed on to their solicitors, who would review the evidence and decide if the case is sound enough to go to court. They make that call.

If a charge is withdrawn, there would be an entry in the withrawn charges book. However, he may not have been charged at all.

Monty

Hi Monty
Thanks. Yes, to me it seems, if Anderson is to be taken at his word, that it was a fact they had their man, then he would have at least charged kosminski, and as you pointed out, let the Prosecutor make the call to proceed.

[Chris]

I doubt the ID by itself would have been regarded as anything like sufficient, particularly if Lawende was the witness.

I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I suppose if you restricted yourself to pontificating about things you understand, you wouldn't have much to pontificate about, but it is tiresome having to correct your nonsense over and over.

One of the most basic but important responsibilities a historian has is to put the facts into context. In this case the 'fact' is that an informed and intelligent source in a position to know states that the suspect was sent to the seaside home and was there identified by an eye witness. That, Trevor, is what you call 'the reality of the facts'. To you that doesn't make sense, but you weren't there and you have no idea of what circumstances, perhaps extraordinary circumstances, made it necessary for them to do what they did. However, Swanson, a senior policemen, was there and there is every reason to believe was well versed in proper police procedure, was there and he tells us what happened. So, you can argue your nonsense from a position of utter ignorance, or you can accept what the source tells us and try to explain why things happened in the way our informed and intelligent source tells us they did.

Now, if you look back and actually bother to read the exchanges with a view to actually understanding them, you will notice that Harry asked who would have taken the suspect to the seaside home if the police didn't do it. I replied with the perfectly reasonable conjecture that an obvious first choice would be his family.
You will observe that I do not 'keep wanting' to suggest might have beens, I am simply answering a question with a conjecture. I can do nothing else. Nobody can. And Harry must know that. It is a given.

But if you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot so often, please keep making a fool of yourself. At least you are keeping us amused.

Now, if you don't think it adds up for the family to have taken him, state why. As many good reasons as you can muster.

Would the family have wanted to cooperate with the police when doing so could have resulted in their family member being hanged? Probably not, but how did they know that this was an option? Did they believe their family member was Jack the Ripper? Did they know he had been seen? Did they know the police intended to confront him with the witness? Did they know the witness would positively identify him? Did they feel they had much of an alternative but to do what the police wanted? Were they intimidated or threatened?

You are speculating that the family wouldn't have taken their relative to the seaside home, but there are numerous reasons why they might have done so.

You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?

Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?

If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.

https://www.trevormariott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.

Hi Chris
I agree too. Which means it also falls short that it was definitely ascertained fact, according to Anderson, that they got the ripper and therefor Anderson greatly exaggerated when he used those words? no?

[John G]

I agree. Lawende had publicly stated that he doubted whether he would know the man again.

And even if he had been sure, and had cooperated with the police, the identification would have fallen short of proving the man he had identified was the murderer.

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply. What do you think of Stewart Evans' hypothesis concerning the reasoning underpinning Anderson's opinion of Kosminski as prime suspect? He suggests that, in addition to the witness ID, Kosminski's name would have been on the list of local individuals who were deemed to have the ability to remove blood stains in secret: this was as a result of the police's house-to-house inquiries in October, 1888.

[Chris]

Hi Chris
I agree too. Which means it also falls short that it was definitely ascertained fact, according to Anderson, that they got the ripper and therefor Anderson greatly exaggerated when he used those words? no?

Yes - I don't think there are many people, if any, who take Anderson's claim at face value.

[Abby Normal]

You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?

Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?

If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.

www.trevormariott.co.uk

Trevor
Those are not ridiculous scenarios-theyre actually good questions.

How the heck do we know what the family thought at the time?

Maybe they felt they had a moral obligation to work with the police, if they though he was the ripper?
Maybe they were the ones who originally brought him to the polices attention when he threatened his sister with a knife?
Maybe he scared the **** out of them and they wanted him gone?
Maybe the police were pressuring them to assist in the ID?
Maybe they did not know that an ID was going to take place?
Etc.
Etc.

There is any number of reasons the family could have worked with the police.

[Chris]

Thanks for the reply. What do you think of Stewart Evans' hypothesis concerning the reasoning underpinning Anderson's opinion of Kosminski as prime suspect? He suggests that, in addition to the witness ID, Kosminski's name would have been on the list of local individuals who were deemed to have the ability to remove blood stains in secret: this was as a result of the police's house-to-house inquiries in October, 1888.

I don't agree with that. I think the sense (such as it is) of Anderson's argument is that:
(1) during the house-to-house inquiry the police had eliminated all the men who lived alone and could therefore get rid of blood stains in secret,
(2) therefore the killer was being protected by the people he lived with,
(3) only low-class Jews would shield a killer, so the killer must have been a low-class Jew.

The homes of Aaron Kozminski's siblings lay outside the area covered by the house-to-house inquiry.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

To spare you the bother of further patronising Trevor, let us put a few facts about the marginalia into context.

If you read Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 letter and subsequent unpublished report sent to the News of the World you will find that it is riddled with errors. The date of publication of TLSOMOL is five years too early and Donald Swanson was not in possession of a copy signed by SRA. But most noticeable about Sandell's reporting of the marginalia is the absence of the name Kosminski. He is not mentioned once. The closing line—surely the consummate historical clincher "Kosminski was the suspect"—is conspicuous by its absence.

It was to make its first appearance in 1987 when the story was successfully sold to the Daily Telegraph.

Jim Swanson had to tell Charles Sandell that in referring to 'the suspect' his grandfather meant Kosminski. This is fascinating, for earlier in the article Jim Swanson was reported as saying that after his grandfather "had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses would not drag the name out of him . . . He thought he would take the name to the grave with him."

So in 1981 how, in the absence of "Kosminski was the suspect" on the endpaper of TLSOMOL, did Jim Swanson know to whom his grandfather was referring?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Maybe the police were pressuring them to assist in the ID?

Exactly. Perhaps the police said "We'll give you the opportunity of helping us to carry out an identification discreetly, or else we'll have to arrest the suspect in order to do it, and if that happens it will be difficult to guarantee the safety of his family or their property."

[Batman]

Conspiracy?

No matter how minor the idea of inside secrets are, if deployed during taking up a position here, must fall under the rubric of being a "Conspiracy Theory" given the gravity of the subject matter.

[PaulB]

You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?

Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?

If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.

www.trevormariott.co.uk

As a matter of fact I have a very good understanding of the reality of life. Your track records suggests that you don't. I did t least think you did your own reading even if you don't do your own research, but clearly you don't even bother with little bits of that. Have a try. Go on, Just go back a couple of posts and you'll see where I respond to your point about hanging. Read it. Stop repeating the same tiresome nonsense.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

To spare you the bother of further patronising Trevor, let us put a few facts about the marginalia into context.

If you read Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 letter and subsequent unpublished report sent to the News of the World you will find that it is riddled with errors. The date of publication of TLSOMOL is five years too early and Donald Swanson was not in possession of a copy signed by SRA. But most noticeable about Sandell's reporting of the marginalia is the absence of the name Kosminski. He is not mentioned once. The closing line—surely the consummate historical clincher "Kosminski was the suspect"—is conspicuous by its absence.

It was to make its first appearance in 1987 when the story was successfully sold to the Daily Telegraph.

Jim Swanson had to tell Charles Sandell that in referring to 'the suspect' his grandfather meant Kosminski. This is fascinating, for earlier in the article Jim Swanson was reported as saying that after his grandfather "had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses would not drag the name out of him . . . He thought he would take the name to the grave with him."

So in 1981 how, in the absence of "Kosminski was the suspect" on the endpaper of TLSOMOL, did Jim Swanson know to whom his grandfather was referring?

Regards,

Simon

Those points have already been answered.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

When, by whom, and how?

Regards,

Simon