Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Monty

Thanks Monty, that's very high praise from a proven writer who has contributed some of the finest research and writing on this subject.

My hope and ambition--and that's what it is, a hope, perhaps a forlorn one--is that whilst proving Druitt was the killer is impossible, readers will nonetheless see new evidence that explains how Macnaghten learned, posthumously, about Druitt, and why he had to disguise his identity for public consumption. I think I will have proven those aspects; that at least Macnaghten knew his suspect was a lawyer and not a surgeon.

Plus three new photos of Druitt never before published.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think your following what I'm saying…

There were two separate events the first unto March 1889…is the one everyone is referencing..including Cox sagar, abberline Reid etc etc

The ID is done in secret thus only Monroe, Anderson and Swanson are aware it took place…it was kept quiet because kozminski own family were involved.

So you are suggesting that Monroe,Anderson and Swanson collected Kosmisnki from some unknown establishment and took him secretly to stand on some form of an ID parade which would appear to have been a direct confrontation, got the result they wanted in part, and then took him back home and swore to silence all family members and all the staff and other residents of that seaside home

You see all of this is what makes the content of the marginalia questionable. There are so many ambiguities with it for a start, and no direct corroboration for what is contained in it.

You see you cannot even link it to Graingers ID because nothing fits, whereas with what Anderson wrote you can consider he was talking about Graingers ID. So the marginalia is a stand alone documents.

Another one of the issues with the marginalia, and this may have been answered already is why would Swanson put his initials at the end of something he wrote in a book that he already owned? Do you sign you initials at the end of everything you write at home? I don't and I suspect no one else does.

e.g If I wrote and left a message for my wife in the kitchen would I need to sign it? She would read it and know it was from me because she would know my handwriting.

Those letters DSS at the end if written by a faker would give more credibility to the content would they not? and adding the word Kosminski at the end would increase the value of the book with regards to any future press contact

As Simon Wood has pointed out several times on here the name Kosminski was not present in the press negoitations in 1981. Hence the reason the News of the World did not publish the article. But it manifested itself in 1987 so what inferences can be drawn from that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

I find it hard to believe Anderson could have kept such knowledge out of Macnaghten's reach. As the latters remit was both logistical and investigational, the expense sheet alone would have raised interest if noted.

Monty

Agreed. But the fact remains that Macnaughten doesn't appear to know about the ID clearly laid out by Swanson.

And its fairly well known their was little love lost between Anderson and MacNaughten. I believe around this time Anderson wanted MacNaughten back in uniform.

So while I agree it might seem surprising, thats far from saying its impossible surely if the money was agreed before MacNaughtens promotion?

Again I refer you back to Monroes possible Hot Potato

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Monty, that's very high praise from a proven writer who has contributed some of the finest research and writing on this subject.

My hope and ambition--and that's what it is, a hope, perhaps a forlorn one--is that whilst proving Druitt was the killer is impossible, readers will nonetheless see new evidence that explains how Macnaghten learned, posthumously, about Druitt, and why he had to disguise his identity for public consumption. I think I will have proven those aspects; that at least Macnaghten knew his suspect was a lawyer and not a surgeon.

Plus three new photos of Druitt never before published.

Jonathan
I am sorry for being blunt but anything MM learned was nothing more than hearsay, which you have embellished in your forlorn quest to prove Druitt to be the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott

[Jeff Leahy]

So you are suggesting that Monroe,Anderson and Swanson collected Kosmisnki from some unknown establishment and took him secretly to stand on some form of an ID parade which would appear to have been a direct confrontation, got the result they wanted in part, and then took him back home and swore to silence all family members and all the staff and other residents of that seaside home
]

No I'm not saying that..

I'm saying Anderson was approached by a member of Kozminski's family in fear of her life..

A deal was stuck to give up the suspect..

Anderson called in Swanson who confirmed the womans story that there had been a suspect called Kozminski and arrangements where made as Swanson tells them…with difficulty..to investigate the Stride murder.

The ID went wrong and the suspect placed out of harms way with agreement between Anderson and the Family to keep it quiet

Which is what they did and what happened..

As time passed Anderson who had been informed by Kozminskis sister he was JTR became ever bolder as no more murders occurred

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Fair enough, Trevor, you have every right to your opinion--the opinion of a professional person who has actually investigated real crimes, heinous crimes at that, and accumulated evidence against living criminals.

[Batman]

Once Kozminski was placed in an asylum Swanson had no reason to keep tabs. And we know that Anderson did write and keep tabs on suspects.

All is required is for Anderson to inform Swanson that Kozminski was dead for Swanson to believe that to be true…

Colney Hatch was a train journey out of London in those days, what reason would he have for making it?

Yours Jeff

Okay lets say that's true. If there was a conspiracy to keep things silent what is Anderson doing blabbing about it in a major book publication?

[Jeff Leahy]

Okay lets say that's true. If there was a conspiracy to keep things silent what is Anderson doing blabbing about it in a major book publication?

I don't think it was a conspiracy. Simply a deal struck with a lady. And in 1888 a gentleman kept his word to a Lady…so Gentleman's honour.

I believe their was some sort of disagreement about it between Anderson and Monroe around July 1890.. They had been great friends up until this point and it seems likely that the official story that it was about pensions wasn't the whole story.. But Monroe kept stom all his life, not even telling his wife or sons, only hinting at a hot potato

And Swanson Kept stun also never thinking his scribbles would come to light.

Which leaves Anderson

Well Anderson actually was careful never to release the name or the 'people' so from a point of view he also kept his word..

However he felt it his moral duty to complain about police procedure which he felt required changing to make this sort of thing easier to deal with.. That was the reason for his words in TLSOMOL

His 'moral duty to do so'

However the ID was kept quiet none but Anderson ever spoke out of school.. And MacNaughten based his own theory on the file he accessed in 1894 to write the Memo… But it didn't contain updated info about the aborted ID, which went wrong..It was the original file dated March 1889.

Hence MacNaughten prefers Druit because of the private info presumably Farqharson, and the fact that at that time no proof was gained on Kozminski.

Yours Jef

[Jonathan H]

The reason none of that works is because Macnaghten, and not Anderson, knew that Kosminski was alive (in 1907), he knew that he himself had inadvertently set in motion the erroneous myth of a witness to Kosminski (it was a sighting of Druitt, or at least of a Gentile) and he knew that the investigation was a protracted affair covering years and years.

This is not a modern view.

Macnaghten, via Sims, debunked Anderson in 1910 specifically for blaming any Jews for having derailed the 1888 investigation. In his own memoirs of 1914 he also quashed, virtually point by point, what his former chief had written four years before.

I can't help it if nobody has ever noticed these things before.

[Jeff Leahy]

The reason none of that works is because Macnaghten, and not Anderson, knew that Kosminski was alive (in 1907), he knew that he himself had inadvertently set in motion the erroneous myth of a witness to Kosminski (it was a sighting of Druitt, or at least of a Gentile) and he knew that the investigation was a protracted affair covering years and years.

This is not a modern view.

Macnaghten, via Sims, debunked Anderson in 1910 specifically for blaming any Jews for having derailed the 1888 investigation. In his own memoirs of 1914 he also quashed, virtually point by point, what his former chief had written four years before.

I can't help it if nobody has ever noticed these things before.

As I've pointed out repeatedly thats not because MacNaughten was wrong, based on what he knew, which was very little, and his Private info he reached a reasonable conclusion..

However he knows nothing about the ID undertaken by Swanson and Anderson, so obviously he's going to be a little confused by Andersons bold Claims..

He doesn't know what happened to Kosminski after he is placed in an Asylum in March 1889… as he says 'And I believe still is'

MacNaughten and Simmis either don't know or they are guessing (Bearing in mind by this time they must be aware of Andersons claims) but they are so vague that its impossible to believe they actually know about the ID or Colney Hatch

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Fair enough, Trevor, you have every right to your opinion--the opinion of a professional person who has actually investigated real crimes, heinous crimes at that, and accumulated evidence against living criminals.

Jonathan
No matter how good an investigator anyone is they can only work with the facts that are available to him at the time. Each case is different, no one can live on past glories. Just because you solve one case it doesnt mean to say that you will solve every case.

MM had no investigative experience before joining the police and that something you cant buy in the world of policing

You have hit the nail on the head an opinion. Taking all that you now believe you know about Druitt and his likely involvement based on the hearsay evidence you have accrued, would there be enough to have put him before a court? had he been investigated at the time of the murders, and before his death, or would he remained simply a person of interest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Agreed. But the fact remains that Macnaughten doesn't appear to know about the ID clearly laid out by Swanson.

And its fairly well known their was little love lost between Anderson and MacNaughten. I believe around this time Anderson wanted MacNaughten back in uniform.

So while I agree it might seem surprising, thats far from saying its impossible surely if the money was agreed before MacNaughtens promotion?

Again I refer you back to Monroes possible Hot Potato

Yours Jeff

Doesn't he? How do you figure that out Jeff?

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Doesn't he? How do you figure that out Jeff?

Monty

MacNaughten never mentions an ID or anything that relates to Swansons marginalia notes..

Thats what makes me wonder if the original file did have a police witness, which was the reason for the original suspicion unto March 1889

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

MacNaughten never mentions an ID or anything that relates to Swansons marginalia notes..

Thats what makes me wonder if the original file did have a police witness, which was the reason for the original suspicion unto March 1889

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
the part of McNaughten's statement on Kosminski where he says "...strongly resembles..." seems to indicate the ID.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
the part of McNaughten's statement on Kosminski where he says "...strongly resembles..." seems to indicate the ID.

Thats very different from 'immediately recognised'..

Which is why I'm suggesting was there a Police PC witness, which gave rise to the original investigation unto March 1889?

It would make much more sense of both the MM & SM

The ID being a separate event around 1890-91

Yours Jeff