Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Wickerman]

A major problem that I have with Robert Anderson is that he seems such an intransigent character. In other, words, once his mind was made up he seemed reluctant to change it, whatever the evidence.

Thus, in the case of Rose Mylett, he convinced himself that it was a case of accidental death. However, four doctors, including Dr Phillips and the Senior Police Surgeon, disagreed concluding she'd been murdered. Anderson still wasn't satisfied and insisted that Dr Bond take another look. Eventually Dr Bond agreed that her death was accidental, although he only saw the body five days after she'd been killed.

Wynne Baxter was having none of it. He stated that a conclusion of death by natural cause was "nonsense", and the jury sided with the coroner returning a verdict of wilful murder.

Nonetheless, Anderson was still insisting several years later, in The Lighter Side of My Official Life, that it was a case of death by natural causes, and that homicide had only been suggested because of the "Ripper scare."

I think it also demonstrates how much Anderson was influenced by the opinion of Dr. Bond, and that directly impacts the Millers Court case.

[Batman]

I think it also demonstrates how much Anderson was influenced by the opinion of Dr. Bond, and that directly impacts the Millers Court case.

Dr.Bond is an interesting person. Just his life and suicide in general. I think to understand Dr.Bond one needs to look to Nick Warren who suggested that Bond's deliberate refutation of any medical skill or butcher skill in Miller's Court is based upon his experience with the Torso murders where he clearly saw the work of a skilled medical person in the way the amputations where done. In comparison to the Whitechapel murders he likely assumed that the deep neck gashes where failed attempts at decapitation. Therefore, no medical skill.

JtR did amputate though. He removed breasts for example. Also he was transporting the body parts, he was harvesting sexual organs. Connections between Chapman, Kelly and Jackson's tri-abdominal wall sectioning and removal aside, Dr.Bond would likely have been keen to undermine the medical ripper hypothesis anyway just on the basis of what that entailed for the establishment so went into a head-on collision with Dr.Phillips at the Kelly inquest who ended up not even finishing his autopsy report. Dr.Phillips thumbed his nose at Bond when he said he only could base his findings on what came under his own eyes. Bond of course had based a lot of reasoning on reading the medical reports of the other victims. As we know from the MJK photograph, Bond has omitted a lot and described some things not quite true (she is not literally naked for example). Still this doesn't make Bond a dunce, far from it, he was a medical expert and there is no reason to doubt his overall skill at pathology.

So, did Anderson influence Bond? I think Bond would not need influencing by Anderson to reduce a certain interpretation as within his own medical community that would have been present as well as the possibility that Phillips had overstated the facts. Then we have Warren's explanation concerning the Torso murder experiences. So basically needing Anderson to dabble in something there is superfluous don't you think?

Nick Warren himself indicates that he agrees with Dr. Phillips. So do I for that matter. Another thread exists on that one though.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

No, it is not a fact that in 1892 Anderson knew anything of significance about any suspect. It just is not a fact. It is an interpretation of a limited and ambiguous source. It might be a correct interpretation, or it might not be.

It is absolutely clear that they are talking about the same thing read it again:

" There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a MANIAC revelling in blood"

Major Aurther Griffiths (and friend of Andersons) says in 1895:

"Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homocidal MANIAC temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an Asylum"

However in 1892 the possibility of riots was still high. So Anderson was very fearful about what he said. Never the less Griffiths is referencing a theory put forward by Anderson NOT the other way around.

Anderson's story was singular in theory and purpose from 1892. FACT.

I think, as do many, that Anderson is talking broadly in the interview about the killer being a maniac, not that he has anybody in particular in kind.

Whereas in 1895, in the wake of the Grant fizzer, now Anderson has his sectioned madman. He says that the killer was "temporarily at large" and his reign was "cut short" by committal to an asylum. Two of the bits of data do not match Aaron Kosminski, who was out and about for years after the Kelly murder. His being on the streets was not cut short by being sent to Colney Hatch.

It would match Kozminski if he was indeed placed in an asylum in March 1889…infact what he says is a very good match. The ID being a separate incident that Anderson did not wish to reveal because at this time saying the killer was a 'jew' might well have started the riots they were trying to avoid..Hot Potato.

Of course that does, broadly, match David Cohen.

I'm prepared to accept confusion might have happened at the time David Cohen was arrested. They do indeed share many similarities in Name, age, profession and yes Dr Seward?

However its not relevant to my theory.

This is why your two incarcerations will not fly. Your sources, Anderson and Swanson, both talk and write about a man who was off the streets much, much earlier than 1891--to about when Macnaghten dates the incarceration, in early 1889.

But thats exactly what my theory says… On the streets up to March 1889

Then in a Private asylum not a public Asylum…

THe ID is a separate incident following the Crawford letter. An event that happened in secret.

And they refer to a man who is dead, a detail they are humiliatingly and self-servingly wrong about. To be fair, that means there is a cut-out between them and the facts about this suspect.

Anderson wrote and kept watch on people at Colbey Hatch. This is known. He was either told Kozminski died when he was transferred to Leavesdon (Possibly by Dr Seward) or Anderson simply decided to protect the kozminski family by telling everyone Kozminski was dead.

How is that the most famous writer of true crime of the day (1907) knows that the Polish suspect is still alive and the retired Assistant Commissioner--and the retired Swanson--do not know this?

Well Simm's relied on MacNaughten who only had information up to March 1889… and MacNaughten didn't really know what happened to the suspect it was guess work.. by 1907 there must have been a lot of confusion, because what Anderson claimed didn't seem to fit what MacNaughten claimed.

But the reality is either there was a mix-up when Koz was transferred or nderson thought it safer (Given what he would later reveal) that Kozminski was dead… Personally I prefer the **** up theory as in my experience it explains most things..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

One expert has given an opinion, that opinion and how he arrived at that opinion has not been tested. For those who want to read my assessment and evaluation of everything connected to the marginalia there is a full chapter dedicated to this in my book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://amzn.to/1Ldknjr

Finally Lets deal with facts and not logic on the point of MM and Swanson. As stated MM was Swanson's boss to suggest he did not have his finger on the pulse and that Anderson recruited Swanson behind his back is in comprehensible.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor please I'm well aware of the tests and history of the Marginalia (Grandmothers and Eggs)

MacNaughten was not involved in the Ripper investigation he was bought in far later on. Where as Swanson was in charge and still in charge of the investigation in July 1890. Thats when I believe the ID started following the introduction of an informant by the Earl of Crawford..

Its here that a fall out happened between Anderson and Monroe on how to proceed…. Presumably MacNaughten not being involved may have had something to do with that… What ever it was a Hot Potato and kept quiet..

Hence why only Swanson and Anderson are in fall view of all the facts.. everyone else has only info on kozminski during the short tie he was at large in Whitechapel 1888-March 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

No, Jeff, you're wrong.

It is not a fact.

Yours is an interpretation of a limited and ambiguous source. It might be right, and it might be wrong.

Your refusal to concede the obvious will not make it a fact.

The line by Anderson :

"There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a MANIAC revelling in blood".

It does not say Jewish, as you first wrote on this thread (funny how human memory conflates things, hey?) and it does not say Polish, or local, or sectioned into an asylum, or identified by a witness, or deceased.

And it certainly is not a good match for Aaron Kosminski who seems to have been very high functioning until his final breakdown in 1891.

I have some sympathy--not much, but some--for you because if my interpretation of the interview is correct you are stuffed, mate, because it indicates that Anderson knew bugger all about Kosminski several months after he had been safely caged--and he also seems to have had no idea about Druitt, though by that date Macnaghten likely did know all about that genuinely deceased suspect, or so he claimed in 1914.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor please I'm well aware of the tests and history of the Marginalia (Grandmothers and Eggs)

MacNaughten was not involved in the Ripper investigation he was bought in far later on. Where as Swanson was in charge and still in charge of the investigation in July 1890. Thats when I believe the ID started following the introduction of an informant by the Earl of Crawford..

Its here that a fall out happened between Anderson and Monroe on how to proceed…. Presumably MacNaughten not being involved may have had something to do with that… What ever it was a Hot Potato and kept quiet

Hence why only Swanson and Anderson are in fall view of all the facts.. everyone else has only info on kozminski during the short tie he was at large in Whitechapel 1888-March 1889.

Jeff

When MM was brought into the police service the Ripper file was gathering dust, and Kosminski was locked safely away and had been for almost three years. Enter the Sun newspaper in 1894 and the ripper is re invented.

At that time MM is Swansons boss, and so as MM was not in service when the crimes took place he would have naturally consulted with Swanson on the case before preparing his Memo because Swanson had been in charge of that investigation

Now anyone who cannot believe that if such an important event as the ID parade had taken place as has been described before 1894 was not relayed to MM in some way needs a reality check.

So that to me shows that no ID parade had taken place before 1894.Simply because MM in his memo only names what can only be described as persons of interest, and had Kosminski been the subject of such a positive ID parade before that then he would have put more emphasis on him in the Memo. In any event the Aberconway version in as many words eliminates him from any further suspicion.

All this talk about Hot potatoes, and keeping secrets is nothing more than a cop out explanation to keep a suspect alive and kicking, when the truth is he should be dead and buried.

As to Anderson, he is wrongly linked to Kosminski via the marginalia by reason of researchers using him, and what he stated to corroborate what the marginalia says or vice versa. There is nothing to negate the fact that Anderson could have been referring to The Grainger ID parade in what he wrote.

So we get back to the question marks that hang over the Marginalia !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Jeff

When MM was brought into the police service the Ripper file was gathering dust, and Kosminski was locked safely away and had been for almost three years. Enter the Sun newspaper in 1894 and the ripper is re invented.

At that time MM is Swansons boss, and so as MM was not in service when the crimes took place he would have naturally consulted with Swanson on the case before preparing his Memo because Swanson had been in charge of that investigation

Now anyone who cannot believe that if such an important event as the ID parade had taken place as has been described before 1894 was not relayed to MM in some way needs a reality check.

So that to me shows that no ID parade had taken place before 1894.Simply because MM in his memo only names what can only be described as persons of interest, and had Kosminski been the subject of such a positive ID parade before that then he would have put more emphasis on him in the Memo. In any event the Aberconway version in as many words eliminates him from any further suspicion.

All this talk about Hot potatoes, and keeping secrets is nothing more than a cop out explanation to keep a suspect alive and kicking, when the truth is he should be dead and buried.

As to Anderson, he is wrongly linked to Kosminski via the marginalia by reason of researchers using him, and what he stated to corroborate what the marginalia says or vice versa. There is nothing to negate the fact that Anderson could have been referring to The Grainger ID parade in what he wrote.

So we get back to the question marks that hang over the Marginalia !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi TM

When MM was brought into the police service the Ripper file was gathering dust, and Kosminski was locked safely away and had been for almost three years.

Kosminski had been incarcerated for three years already, when Mcnaughten joined? really?

Enter the Sun newspaper in 1894 and the ripper is re invented.

The 1896 "winters coming" letter proves the ripper investigation was still open, let alone the ripper being "reinvented" in 1894.

So that to me shows that no ID parade had taken place before 1894.Simply because MM in his memo only names what can only be described as persons of interest, and had Kosminski been the subject of such a positive ID parade before that then he would have put more emphasis on him in the Memo. In any event the Aberconway version in as many words eliminates him from any further suspicion.

In the MM, the "...strongly resembled.." part seems to corroborate a possible witness/suspect ID of some sort.

[Monty]

"At that time MM is Swansons boss, and so as MM was not in service when the crimes took place he would have naturally consulted with Swanson on the case before preparing his Memo because Swanson had been in charge of that investigation"

It is most likely he reviewed the case files, and possibly sought Swansons take.

The case is still open Abby, as are all unsolved criminal cases.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

No, Jeff, you're wrong.

It is not a fact.

Yours is an interpretation of a limited and ambiguous source. It might be right, and it might be wrong.

Your refusal to concede the obvious will not make it a fact.

" There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a MANIAC revelling in blood"

They 'WERE' this clearly implies it was something that happened.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

When MM was brought into the police service the Ripper file was gathering dust, and Kosminski was locked safely away and had been for almost three years. Enter the Sun newspaper in 1894 and the ripper is re invented.

At that time MM is Swansons boss, and so as MM was not in service when the crimes took place he would have naturally consulted with Swanson on the case before preparing his Memo because Swanson had been in charge of that investigation

Now anyone who cannot believe that if such an important event as the ID parade had taken place as has been described before 1894 was not relayed to MM in some way needs a reality check.

So that to me shows that no ID parade had taken place before 1894.Simply because MM in his memo only names what can only be described as persons of interest, and had Kosminski been the subject of such a positive ID parade before that then he would have put more emphasis on him in the Memo. In any event the Aberconway version in as many words eliminates him from any further suspicion.

All this talk about Hot potatoes, and keeping secrets is nothing more than a cop out explanation to keep a suspect alive and kicking, when the truth is he should be dead and buried.

As to Anderson, he is wrongly linked to Kosminski via the marginalia by reason of researchers using him, and what he stated to corroborate what the marginalia says or vice versa. There is nothing to negate the fact that Anderson could have been referring to The Grainger ID parade in what he wrote.

So we get back to the question marks that hang over the Marginalia !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps your not getting what I'm arguing. It is quite new and different from any other kozminskite or theory.

And I'd agree that the file was gathering dust when MacNaughten got hold of it to write his Memo…that is what I am arguing…It had been gathering dust sine March 1889. Almost five years. (Unless Swanson took it out of mouth balls briefly to refresh his memory in 1890)

Thats because the ID relates to a later separate non connected event to that file…And separate event triggered in July (isn) 1890 by a letter of introduction by the Earl of Crawford.

McNaughten had nothing to do with the Ripper investigation. He was assistant Constable in June 1889, so his seat wasn't warm by the time of the McKanzie murder.

Anderson and Swanson however had been in the forefront. So if Anderson had someone claiming a family member was the Whitechapel murderer who else would he ask to fix it? And of course he'd be acting on specific information that the suspect lived a few hundred yards from the Stride murder scene… To Kozminski was ID'd for the Stride murder.

Without a conviction Swanson would be obligate to check out the rest, should any new suspects come forward

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

"At that time MM is Swansons boss, and so as MM was not in service when the crimes took place he would have naturally consulted with Swanson on the case before preparing his Memo because Swanson had been in charge of that investigation"

It is most likely he reviewed the case files, and possibly sought Swansons take.

The case is still open Abby, as are all unsolved criminal cases.

Monty

Hi Monty

MacNaughten starts as an assistant constable June 1888. He doesn't take over as constable until 1890.

The frackar between Anderson and Monroe is around July 1890.

What if, Anderson and Monroe decided to keep a new informant secret because they were 'nearly related' to the suspect and were in fear of backlash or Riots…..those involved being sworn to secrecy.

The file given to Macnaughten only containing the original information gathered on the suspect up to March 1889.

Would Swanson obey orders given to him by a senior officer, not to tell anyone of the failed ID at that time?

Yours Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on the Seaside Home Identification of the Jewish suspect. I know there are some who speculate that Robert Anderson was suffering from bad recall and had confused the event with the identification of James Sadler in the Frances Coles murder. Granted, I'm not quite sure how Anderson can confuse an unsuccessful identification of a non-Jewish suspect with the successful ID of a Jewish suspect at a seaside home where the witness refused to testify. There's bad memory and then there's just making things up.

I think it's very unlikely that when someone says: "the seaside home" they mean something else, or people's minds have unravelled over time. I find these to be bizarre suggestions.

I think it more likely that the marginalia has been doctored. I'm not saying that's the case because I know nothing of the testing of its provenance.

I simply find the odds that someone became confused to be extremely long, and less likely than a document which turned up 100 years after the event being created.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Trevor,

But might not this suggest that the police had additional evidence that didn't rely on the ID? As I've noted before, Grainger represents a clear precedent in respect of this issue; he was also clearly identified, probably by Lawende but, despite the additional factor of the Alice Graham murder, the police clearly considered such an identification as being insufficient, by itself, to warrant bringing charges.

As the Pall Mall Gazette pointed out at the time, in respect of the Grainger ID: "there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that women's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man she 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."

Can someone present the evidence as to how Grainger was 'clearly identified'?

[Fleetwood Mac]

A major problem that I have with Robert Anderson is that he seems such an intransigent character. In other words, once his mind was made up he seemed reluctant to change it, whatever the evidence.

Except that's not what is presented to us.

He clearly states, but not exactly in these words, that they had a gut feel; and evidence which came to light at a later date supported that gut feel. In other words, the opinion came before the evidence.

What I do find contradictory is his comment that in his opinion Coles was not the work of JTR because it was not in his style. I took from that that JTR was not off the streets at that point. He didn't rule JTR out due to being incarcerated; he ruled him out due to MO. Or, perhaps the Polish Jew was someone other than Kosminski. Hardly incomprehensible considering there were more than a few Polish Jews doing the rounds.

My gut feel is that were we to have all of the bits of the jigsaw it would all slot into place, and we would find that none of these statements are contradictory nor difficult to believe.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think it's very unlikely that when someone says: "the seaside home" they mean something else, or people's minds have unravelled over time. I find these to be bizarre suggestions.

I think it more likely that the marginalia has been doctored.

Yes but three people have examined it and concluded otherwise..

So all the logical conclusions say…it was written by Swanson..

Thus what he said was what happened…Its that simple

And there is only one simple explanation as to what happened

There were two separate incidents,one relating to the early file up to March 1889…and given by MacNaughten

And another separate event recorded by Swanson and Anderson, which relates to the crawford letter almost two years after the first

Separate events…but the same suspect..

Once you understand the simplicity of this conclusion you understand the meaning of everything..

Yours Jef