Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jonathan H]

Seaside Home or Seamen's Home?

The recent Brian William scandal in the US is, I think, pertinent to this debate about the fallibility of human memory regarding events that a person claims they were involved in, or witnessed for themselves--or sincerely thought they had.

A popular news anchor is suspended after it turns out a vivid, exciting anecdote he tells is not literally true--a self-serving tale, by the way, that make him look better, or at least braver.

Had he consciously known it was b.s. Williams would hardly have repeated this story in public; on chat shows, at sporting matches and at awards ceremonies, when it could be so easily checked and exposed as fraudulent.

As it eventually was.

Yet, by all accounts, as with the one below from a recent issue of "Vanity Fair", Williams was completely dumbfounded that his memory, of riding in a chopper under fire in a war-zone, was quite mistaken (he was in a follow-up chopper):

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/nbc-news-brian-williams-scandal-comcast

[Trevor Marriott]

No we have a senior Commissioner who was there actively working on the case and a pen pusher. MacNaughten writes a memo based on a file Dated March 1889. He doesn't know what Anderson, Monroe and Swanson know because it was a Hot Potato.

Jeff

What is this 1889 file you refer to?

What you are forgetting is that MM was in charge of Swanson so he would have without a doubt known all about the case and in particular any suspects or any ID parade such as this. In fact it would appear that he was in charge of Swanson right up until 1903 so no hot potato !

The seaside home ID if it did ever take place could not have taken place before 1894 because had it have, then MM would have been aware of it and he would have included such a momentous event in his Memo, and that would have been the time to shut the press up once and for all.

So this brings us onto the marginalia, and the question as to what ID is Swanson referring to, and how does the name Kosminski mysteriously appear at the very end of it? when all the way through Kosminksi is simply referred to as "the suspect"

Swanson if he did write all of it could not have written it before 1910 and it would seem long after MM had all but eliminated the man named Kosminksi via the Aberconway version in any event.

Remember what I said above that MM was in overall charge of Swanson up until 1903.

None of the contents of the marginalia match up with anything we know and there is no positive corroboration to that event having taken place in the way described, or the events that followed thereafter as set out in the MM.

Prove that Swanson didn't write some of it or all of it and Aaron Kosminksi is dead and buried once and for all,and believe me when you lay it all out there is more to suggest he didn't than there is to suggest he did.

However as you say perhaps the senile ramblings of an old man are attributable to the anomalies, but of course if his son is to be believed he stated Donald had full control of all his faculties in later years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Hi Batman.

Sadler did not appear in court, but his statement was read aloud.
If fear of being recognised was the reason Schwartz did not want to be seen in public, then his statement could also have been read to the court.

Lawende's statement is interrupted by Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.


So it's not just the person they don't want to be seen in public, but the exact content of their witness testimony too.

It depends on what was meant by "murder of this kind", the same could be said about Druitt. Swanson could be just echoing what Anderson believed, and it could have been true, but still not an indication of guilt, nor of Swanson concurring.

It means the Whitechapel murders Anderson is talking about.

Swanson says taken by 'us' so it appears he was personally there with Anderson doing this at some time. Why the confusion? Like I said, the witness probably saw many many more people brought before him and Swanson is hindsight thinks it was one of these that got Kozminski to stop murdering. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=235

[Jonathan H]

'Us' could be personal, but it could also be a corporate designation too, as in us the Met, had to hand-ball it to the City Police (no specific names take note) and there was difficulty involved.

I think the hands tied behind the suspect's back is an oblique reference to self-abuse, as suggested by the recent DNA over-reacher.

The constant theme of the suspect knowing he had been identified and showing it by his gestures--a pseudo-confession, not much but, hey, beggars can't be choosers--is likely to be a desperate response to Mentor's scathing criticism, specifically the latter's reference to the Adolf Beck debacle (involving multiple witness identification error).

This is from Macnaghten's 1914 memoirs about the Beck case and is also, I think, a kick in the shins to Anderson for his pompous nonsense of four years previous, about the alleged positive identification of the Ripper:

'An intelligent police officer will learn in every case something new, and the object lesson in this lamentable business was unquestionably the extreme unreliability of personal identification. All these women witnesses honestly believed they had picked out the right man …'

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

What is this 1889 file you refer to?

Well I think it safe to make the 'presumption' that the police created files on suspects? That is standard procedure.

And we know lots of material relating to the Ripper case was either lost or destroyed (Indeed Don Rumplow relates a story about throwing away old case Papers) But what we have is the tip of an iceberg. Foreinstance in his Home Office report Swanson refers to Schwartz Statement and a news Paper prints that account however the original stamens no longer exists. Thats not to say it never existed simply that its lost or destroyed.

MacNaughten is asked to write a memo suggesting suspect more likely than Cutbush to be the ripper and it seems logical that he did so by going into an archive and pulling out files on other suspects.

Thats where I believe MacNaughten got his information on Kozminski. From a file.. I'm speculating that that file firstly starts when Kozminski came to police attention 14th October 1888. And that following the MJK murder he was watched for some time by police, however never caught Red Handed.

In March 1889 Kozminski was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey, the boundaries being at tat time just across the river in Southwark, and several asylums took short term stay private patients within the finical scope of the Kozminski family.

Thus all the subsequent information Given by MacNaughten (Asimulated to Griffiths and Simms) is only based on what was know about Kozminski up until that date…

This explains why MacNaughten dismisses Kozminski. He doesn't now about the ID carrier out at a convalescent Asylum almost two years later.

However as you say perhaps the senile ramblings of an old man are attributable to the anomalies, but of course if his son is to be believed he stated Donald had full control of all his faculties in later years.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Having spoken to Nevill Swanson on the matter, I think it highly unlikely Swanson was senile. He was a brilliant career policeman, as sharp as a button..

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

'

I think the hands tied behind the suspect's back is an oblique reference to self-abuse, as suggested by the recent DNA over-reacher.

I am a biologist and this is boggling my mind. What does this mean?

[Jeff Leahy]

I think our positions are clearly stated and obviously irreconcilable, being diametrical interpretations of limited and contradictory data.

Yes diametrically opposite. I will however try and keep my responses as cordial as possible, its not personal, I just think you are wrong and making to many leaps of faith not support by evidence.

You made some errors of fact, however, that you need to be alerted to. I am happy to be of service.

I find that difficult to believe , but I am happy to repond. It may take longer than usual however as rather foolishly I managed to slip with the loch key, while winding, and knock my two left front teeth out yesterday.

You had written that in 1892 Anderson had claimed the maniac was Jewish. I think -- I write 'think', because you have used the 1892 quote as if it backs your original claim, which obviously it doesn't?-- you have discovered that you are mistaken. The suspect being Jewish does not appear, from Anderson, until 1910.

I was simply working from my head and I don't have a photographic memory. I clearly provided the exact quote when I had access to my notes. However my thrust, which is correct, that Anderson had no clue in Sept 1889 and a theory in 1892. This theory was slowly expanded upon up until 1910, but is the same theory for which he simply gives greater detail.

You keep writing that Macnaghten was not sure in 1894 (or was it 1898?) that Kosminski was still alive when he wrote the version that was disseminated to the public by Major Griffiths. That this proves that he did not realize he was supposed to be deceased, when he, eh, wasn't (and you call me complicated?) What Mac actually meant was that the last time he checked-- he checked, not Anderson--this man was still alive in the madhouse. In 1907 Sims writes an article implying that this same man was still alive--and he was. Meaning that, Macnaghten had, you know, checked again.

I think I'm very clear. MacNaughten produced a report referencing Cutbush. In doing so he accessed files on other suspects to write that report. The file on Kozminski contained information unto March 1889. It did not contain information on the ID which happened much later 1890-91, and was a separate event relating to the Crawford letter event.

Another error is to dismiss Macnaghten as a pen-pusher. This is a lazy, modern notion of Macnaghten debunked the moment you read any of the primary sources about him, and by him; whether he was actually much of a sleuth, or not, he was certainly hands-on and on the streets--including in the East End. In 1898, for example, Major Griffiths confirms that the Chief Constable insinuated himself into the most sensational crime scenes.

Well I may do this a little tingue in cheek as you use the super cop term which I don't think he was. However I personally have nothing against acNaughten I think he simply did his job.

I dont believe there was any love lost between Anderson and MacNaughten.

You also write that Anderson did not think much of Macnaghten because he was a blabber-mouth. Really? Can you cite the source for that slander? Certainly Anderson in his memoir tosses off a despicable doozy of put-down of [the un-named] Macnaghten for allegedly having nerves of jelly, and that this flagrant cowardice nearly caused Gladstone's assassination. Quite a contrast with Griffiths' "man of action".

Um I have an idea where this is going...

This is a blabber mouth?

Not Parnell please..

Whereas in 1910 Anderson was eviscerated by all side--Tories, Liberals, Hebrews, Dagonet--for his, according to them, boastful, indiscreet and inaccurate memoirs.

For being, um, dare I say it, a blabber mouth?

Also you keep repeating that Macnaghten did not know about the I.D. In fact, he inadvertently set the whole thing in motion by swapping Jew and Gentile, suspect and beat cop, in the 'Aberconway Papers' (repeated by Griffiths in 1898 and Sims in 1907) to place "Kosminski" prominently inside the 1888 investigation (because the evidence, e.g. masturbation, was, eh, a touch thin). In a sense he invented the myth of the i.d., one Mac pointedly retracted in his anti-Anderson memoir chapter IV of 1914.

Its been gone over many times before. Anderson LSOMOL was criticised in Parliament but not for anything write about Jack the Ripper… If you want me to find the quotes I will but basically the faraw was over Anderson spy a ligations and it seems most probable that Anderson was telling the truth, very embracing to the government and church hill who sort to deny them by calling him names, note however they didn't take his pension away, probably because Anderson knew a lot more..

Another error you made is to claim that I claim that Swanson was suffering geriatric delusions. That was a sub-theory championed by the late and brilliant Mr. Sudgen (and Evans and Rumeblow also argue, cogently as usual, that the desk-bound Anderson was overly reliant on a probably mistaken Swanson) but I am not arguing any of that.

I am saying that Donald Swanson in 1910 was so perplexed by Anderson's memoir that he sought clarification from his beloved ex-chief. The latter, an old man, with a fading memory and a very high opinion of himself--and excruciatingly under siege--told the self-serving, error-riddled tale we call the Swanson Marginalia.

No I said its an argument often used and is clearly incorrect.

Your interpretation of the Marginalia is another example of you tying yourself in knots.. Swanson simply says what he says

He's elaborating on Anderson as was his habit of writing.

I argue that Swanson felt he had to record these annotations or else he would never recall them himself--as he had no personal recollection of a Jewish witness affirming to a Jewish suspect. That is why he had to record it right next to Anderson's words. The reason he had no such recollection, and had to put pencil to paper, was not because it had been handled by the City Police--as Anderson told the tale--but because it was not a literal event.

You also claim it is "preposterous" that George Sims could know more than Anderson about the Polish suspect. Well, not really. Not if Sims' source is Macnaghten who can be shown to know more about the Polish suspect than does Anderson. Like that he is still alive in 1907.

Swanson descibes an event clearly. It simply happened well after the original police investigation into Kozminsk.. an event around 1890-91, when he was approached by Anderson following the Crawford letter.

The weakest link of your two incarcerations theory is that a hands-on super-cop like Macnaghten could not know about it, and supposedly could not find out about the secret Seaside Home identification. Ever?! That the City Police could have effected all these shenanigans and not only does it not leak to the Chief Constable, later the Assistant Commissioner, but nor to Major Henry Smith! He is none the wiser either, about an extraordinary event on his own turf? Nor for that matter do Edmund Reid, or Frederic Abberline, or Jack Littlechild ever know?

You want to see what preposterous looks like, mate, then look no further.

Well thats your opinion. And I certainly don't think Anderson considered Mac a super cop..

The ID was kept quiet at the time because kozminskis family were involved and they wanted names kept secret…A hot potato

Because if it had of gotten out there would have been riots and Kozminskis family would have been torn apart

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

Lawende's statement is interrupted by Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.


So it's not just the person they don't want to be seen in public, but the exact content of their witness testimony too.

Right, but you had suggested that Schwartz may have been sequestered away from the press & public, I was merely showing it wasn't necessary to do that. The police could have read his statement, or only the relative portions, to the court, as they did with Sadler.

It means the Whitechapel murders Anderson is talking about.

Not everyone agreed that Mylett, McKenzie & Coles were by the same hand as the previous murders.
So, does "this kind" mean, mutilation, throat slicing, murder of unfortunates?, what did he mean?

Swanson says taken by 'us' so it appears he was personally there with Anderson doing this at some time. Why the confusion? Like I said, the witness probably saw many many more people brought before him and Swanson is hindsight thinks it was one of these that got Kozminski to stop murdering. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=235

I would think the "us" means the authorities, not him personally.
Besides, he was "sent", not "taken", so this could mean the prisoner was not under their control.
If he had been admitted to the Asylum he would be under the care and control of the Asylum, so the police may then instruct the Asylum to take him to the location of the I.D.
That would be consistent with him being "sent by us" (the authorities).

The "difficulty", may only refer to bureaucracy involved, not a physical difficulty.

[Jonathan H]

The repeating of what I wrote, line by line, and then writing beneath it comments that do not match each of the same points is not much of a counter-argument, but certainly your prerogative.

To name but one example:

Anderson was considered a blabber mouth in 1910 by many different people. Blabbing does not mean what you are saying is inaccurate, just indiscreet. There is nothing I have read that Mac was such a person or such a professional--quite the opposite.

In my opinion Anderson's and Swanson's 1895 source for "Kosminski" as a major and deceased Ripper suspect (actually he was a fictional variant of a real person named Aaron Kosminski) was entirely Macnaghten. Textual evdience for this can be seen in the lack of any other names scribbled by Swanson, exactly like the Mac Report(s). The Seaside Home identification is a much later, legendary addition, one pointedly debunked by both Macnaghten and Sims, and dismissed by Major Smith.

There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was in care twice, or that Anderson recalled these events happening as late as 1891 (or 1895).

To the Batman

What don't you get? I would have expected the unmentionable vices to raise their head in the Marginalia and, arguably, they do with the suspect having his hands tied, you know, to prevent further chronic self-abuse.


Again I urge people to read that fascinating and arguably pertinent article linked earlier about US broadcaster Brian Williams and his self-serving memory malfunction--which has left this popular TV figure vilified and suspended. Sound familiar?

[Batman]

The problem with a global 'us' is that there are two jurisdictions operating. He specifically mentions them so I think he would have used 'us' there also. He didn't so likely he meant Anderson.

[Batman]

To the Batman

What don't you get? I would have expected the unmentionable vices to raise their head in the Marginalia and, arguably, they do with the suspect having his hands tied, you know, to prevent further chronic self-abuse.

What's that got to do with DNA?

[John G]

Right, but you had suggested that Schwartz may have been sequestered away from the press & public, I was merely showing it wasn't necessary to do that. The police could have read his statement, or only the relative portions, to the court, as they did with Sadler.





Not everyone agreed that Mylett, McKenzie & Coles were by the same hand as the previous murders.
So, does "this kind" mean, mutilation, throat slicing, murder of unfortunates?, what did he mean?




I would think the "us" means the authorities, not him personally.
Besides, he was "sent", not "taken", so this could mean the prisoner was not under their control.
If he had been admitted to the Asylum he would be under the care and control of the Asylum, so the police may then instruct the Asylum to take him to the location of the I.D.
That would be consistent with him being "sent by us" (the authorities).

The "difficulty", may only refer to bureaucracy involved, not a physical difficulty.

Hi Jon,

I would just note the Anderson didn't believe Mylett had been murdered arguing, somewhat controversially, that it was a case of death my natural causes. He thought Mackenzie had been killed by " another hand", I.e not JtR, disagreeing with both Monro and Dr Bond on this point.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff

Well I think it safe to make the 'presumption' that the police created files on suspects? That is standard procedure.

I don't think that is a presumption that can be confirmed. What we do know is there was a suspect file which contained details, of as you would imagine suspects.

And we know lots of material relating to the Ripper case was either lost or destroyed (Indeed Don Rumplow relates a story about throwing away old case Papers) But what we have is the tip of an iceberg. Foreinstance in his Home Office report Swanson refers to Schwartz Statement and a news Paper prints that account however the original stamens no longer exists. Thats not to say it never existed simply that its lost or destroyed.

Ah yes we get back to this old chestnut where it is suggested the answers to all the modern day questions now being asked were thrown out or destroyed. This suggestion is a modern day researchers dream to use, because it keeps the mystery alive.

But what if that were not the case that the police had very little to go on, and there were no significant major files on the case. The comments made by senior officers in later years tend to support this belief.

MacNaughten is asked to write a memo suggesting suspect more likely than Cutbush to be the ripper and it seems logical that he did so by going into an archive and pulling out files on other suspects.

But there was no need for him to do that because in 1894 as I said he had Swanson to turn to. But of course if Swanson had nothing to tell him because between 1888-1894 nothing significant had happened with the case then yes he would have had to consult the main ripper file, and if he did and thats all he could come up with that tells us that as I said the police had not made any significant progress

Thats where I believe MacNaughten got his information on Kozminski. From a file.. I'm speculating that that file firstly starts when Kozminski came to police attention 14th October 1888. And that following the MJK murder he was watched for some time by police, however never caught Red Handed.

You are right its speculation based on what you want to believe happened

In March 1889 Kozminski was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey, the boundaries being at tat time just across the river in Southwark, and several asylums took short term stay private patients within the finical scope of the Kozminski family.

Again nothing more than wild speculation on your part

Thus all the subsequent information Given by MacNaughten (Asimulated to Griffiths and Simms) is only based on what was know about Kozminski up until that date…

This explains why MacNaughten dismisses Kozminski. He doesn't now about the ID carrier out at a convalescent Asylum almost two years later.

But he must have because if Swanson purportedly knew about it then so must is boss have and that boss was Macnaghten.

Having spoken to Nevill Swanson on the matter, I think it highly unlikely Swanson was senile. He was a brilliant career policeman, as sharp as a button..

Well if he wasn't senile then that points us back to asking the same question again. Did Swanson write all or only sum of the marginalia?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I do like to be beside the seaside

I live by the seaside it's great really love it would recommend it to anyone getting back to the point now all this seaside identification hinges on one thing and that is can we be sure what was written in that margin was genuine If it was genuine sir Melville had never heard of it and he was a lot better informed then us lot on here.

[Jonathan H]

Oh, I see what you mean now.

Nothing at all. I was simply acknowleding who came up with the idea.

Russell Edwards' entertaining and chatty tome theorizes that the hands tied behind the back referred to self-abuse, and I think that could be true--if the Marginalia is a record of the pious, repressed Anderson, who had a horror of the human body, explaining the tale to Swanson.

Edwards' rubbery figures was driven by, I think, the notion of human material left on the artefact and that, inevitably, led to Kosminski as he 'qualifies' in that regard based on what Macnaghten (solitary) and Anderson (unmentionable) had written about certain vices--along with, perhaps, that cryptic bit in the annotation.