Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It won't fly, Jeff, the word "were" can simply mean he was being emphatic that the murderer was a maniac, not that he had somebody in particular in mind.

Because if Anderson had a suspect in mind he would have said so, as he did from 1895 onwards--without ever providing enough data that his suspect could be outed.

To F. Mac

I find it bizarre that you think people do not make mistakes of recall, especially ones that make themselves look better--or feel better--regarding a mistake, or a failure, or a professional humiliation. It is a symptom of old age to the point of being a long-standing comedic cliche.

Anderson in 1908 confused the pipes found at the MacKenzie and Kelly murders (and falsely blamed ther wrong people) and confused the Liberal Homer Sec. of 1886--a Liberal, the party he despised--with the Tory Henry Matthews of 1888. He rubbished a Liberal administration for putting him unde pressure.

Do you think he was lying?

The other telling aspect of Anderson's errors are that he proves he had a capacity to telescope events and people over several years into the autumn of terror. Just like the Swanson Marginalia.

Getting a few small details the wrong way round, such as what clothes someone was wearing or the small details of a conversation, twenty years back, yes.

A monumental part of the most significant case in someone's career, such as the murderer was identified at the Seaside Home, definitely not.

A fabrication? Possibly. The memory playing tricks? It's like you forgetting where your son or daughter was born.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem is that general ripperology wisdom has always inclined to believe that it is a reference to the Police Seaside Home in Brighton.

This conclusion was not held by all the top experts. Martin Fido for one has always rejected it..

What it says is Seaside Home. It seems far more probable that it refers to a convalescent Seaside Home, which were common in 1891. Most private Asylums were connected to them Holloway having a number of Seaside Homes in Poole.

Yours Jeff

As there is no descriptive element to 'the Seaside Home', then it could be any Seaside Home, whatever it means to them.

[Jeff Leahy]

It might be that Abbey is making an interesting observation so lets look at what Swanson says and What Macnaughten say, my belief is that they are describing very different events:

(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

Here we have the most import piece of information about MacNaughten. He is clearly saying removed to a Lunatic asylum about March 1889

This is nowhere near the actual date of Feb 1891…

Hopefully everyone can agree on that…I'll let that stew and pick it up with more observations tomorrow

Yours Jef

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wonder if the witness was an employee of the seaside home and not just a general resident. That he was offered a job while held up there as a secret suspect. Could that be overlooked in the historical research?

I would say unlikely.

The fact that it was termed 'the seaside home' would suggest familiarity.

This in turn may suggest a policeman, as a place familiar to the police, or somewhere that was in regular use for this sort of thing and therefore the natural place to go no matter the identity of the witness.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is hugely misrepresenting a much more plausible situation.

They had the most wanted man in the world on their hands, which meant if anyone got wind of it there was a fair chance it would have descended into chaos with every idiot and his dog making their way to the local nick to vent their fury; had the ID taken place at the local nick.

So, they arranged for it to happen off the beaten track, being the sensible people they were, and of course 'with difficulty' could mean many things, for all we know the suspect could have thought: "I don't really fancy hanging by a noose" and proceeded to run off down the street, and so they had to find him - there are at least a few possible explanations as to what 'with difficulty' could mean.

The witness refused to testify, and so without such testimony they were unable to make a case against him and so had no choice but to take him back whence he came.

None of this is remotely a stretch. In fact, it's pretty standard. Lack of evidence for presentation in a court of law; no case to answer.

I would have thought as an ex-policemen you'd understand what a pain in the arse it must be to have the local community coming down to the nick and banging on police vans with a suspect in? Magnify that by a million, with the most wanted man in the world in tow, no van to bus him in for protection, and a local area full to the brim of head bangers.

[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

Was he supposed to?

Was that the objective?

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Was he supposed to?

Was that the objective? Monty

His objective was to dismiss Cutbush as a potential Ripper suspect..

However his tools were the files and information on the other suspects…He could only give the information he had available

And I don't believe he had the information on the ID accounted by Swanson in the Marginalia.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

His objective was to dismiss Cutbush as a potential Ripper suspect..

However his tools were the files and information on the other suspects…He could only give the information he had available

And I don't believe he had the information on the ID accounted by Swanson in the Marginalia.

Yours Jeff

I find it impossible to think that senior policeman would not share the indenity of a suspect who they were convinced was guilty of these very very very serious crimes I wonder at what stage they would have jumped in and told people not to waste their time investigating these crimes because the murderer was now locked up .

[Trevor Marriott]

I find it impossible to think that senior policeman would not share the indenity of a suspect who they were convinced was guilty of these very very very serious crimes I wonder at what stage they would have jumped in and told people not to waste their time investigating these crimes because the murderer was now locked up .

I have been saying the same for years but no one wants to listen they all seem to want to accept the content of the marginalia as being factually correct and was all written by Donald Swanson's in his own hand. Thats why we keep getting all the wacky ID parade scenarios from those who want to believe in it as being authentic, but cant and wont accept the anomalies contained in it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is hugely misrepresenting a much more plausible situation.

They had the most wanted man in the world on their hands, which meant if anyone got wind of it there was a fair chance it would have descended into chaos with every idiot and his dog making their way to the local nick to vent their fury; had the ID taken place at the local nick.

Wouldn't their objectives have been to try to get the suspect identified and then to bring him to justice?

The police it would seem arrested many people during these murders are there any instances recorded where police stations were besieged after an arrest?

The only difficulty which arises is how and when they came upon the suspect and how and when they managed to get him to a seaside home.

He wasn't taken from an asylum and there is no record of any arrest.

And to suggest the suspect went of his own free will doesn't bear thinking about.

So, they arranged for it to happen off the beaten track, being the sensible people they were, and of course 'with difficulty' could mean many things, for all we know the suspect could have thought: "I don't really fancy hanging by a noose" and proceeded to run off down the street, and so they had to find him - there are at least a few possible explanations as to what 'with difficulty' could mean.

The only difficulty is you and others believing in the marginalia

The witness refused to testify, and so without such testimony they were unable to make a case against him and so had no choice but to take him back whence he came.

And where did he come from ?

None of this is remotely a stretch. In fact, it's pretty standard. Lack of evidence for presentation in a court of law; no case to answer.

I would have thought as an ex-policemen you'd understand what a pain in the arse it must be to have the local community coming down to the nick and banging on police vans with a suspect in? Magnify that by a million, with the most wanted man in the world in tow, no van to bus him in for protection, and a local area full to the brim of head bangers.

You have been watching to much televison !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

I was saying that you have been a real detective, gathering and assesing evidence about real crimes.

I did not mean it ironically, but as a flat statement of fact. It is not a job I would ever jabe neen capable of doing.

My book is not about Druitt, or trying to prove that he was Jack as that is impossible. It is trying to show that Macnaghten is a reliable primary source and that if he was certain that this man was the Ripper, in all probability as there was never going to be a trial, then that is probably true. It is very unlikely that he woudl have accused a deceased fellow gent if he was not as sure as humanly possible. furtehrmore he projected thos solution onto the public, albeit veiled. An incredible thing to do. Remnants of this solution lie behind the top hat toff with medical bag (e.g. the wrong bits)

What you call hearsay evdience, as in no evdience at all, is fine from your point of view; e.g. to build a legal case for a suspect's guilt there has to be stronger stuff than that.

Whereas to me a, historical, that is provisional solution is good enough. To me, the family, or certain members of Druitt's family--the brother and his cousin--believing he was the killer is quite extraordinary.

I understand that to you it is less than ordinary, especially as no document has survived proving as an absolute fact that they harboured such a belief.

To answer your direct question, yes, I think that had Montage Druitt lived he would have been identified as the Ripper. Whether he would have been considered fit for trial is another matter--maybe yes and maybe no. A student once asked me if he had gone to trial, would he have defended himself?

What I lacked was evidence that Macnaghten would conceal his solution from the rest of Scotland Yard, would risk his career, but I have that too now--or so I claim.

To Jeff

The conflict with Anderson can be shown to be a very minor sideshow because Macnaghten knew more about "Kosminski" than did is former chief, or Swanson.

The Swanson Marginalia is textual evidence of the flimsiness of this suspect's vaibility, because the primary, police advocates of this suspect are basing their opinion on datan that is demonstably wrong. The real question is why it is wrong. In my opinion they were misled in 1895, and then a failing memory did the rest by 1910.

For example, Macnaghten knew that there was no sighting of a Jewish suspect at the Eddowes crime scene. It was a Jewish witness of a Gentile-featured suspect. Confirmation of this opinion--that a shell game was bing played about suspects and witnesses--can arguably be found in Guy Logan's 1905 serial, discovered by Jan Bondeson in 2013.

For the only time in all of the Victorian and Edwardian sources is Montague Druitt, albeit disguised (literally so, as Mortemer Slade is wearing a false moustache), seen by the Lawende figure: a Hebrew witness seeing a Gentile murderer.

[harry]

On top of lost records as an answer,we also have fear of riots.Yes, I suppose there could have been demonstrations of a sort,but was that ever a reason for British police to abstain from carrying out their duty.Outside of the Ripper investigations,I can find no information that suggests police failed to act on that fear,in any situation, whatever the perceived outcome.
Police would act to minimise the reasons for such disturbance,by rubbing out the GSG for instance,but that is all.

[Jeff Leahy]

I find it impossible to think that senior policeman would not share the indenity of a suspect who they were convinced was guilty of these very very very serious crimes I wonder at what stage they would have jumped in and told people not to waste their time investigating these crimes because the murderer was now locked up .

I've already created a senario where the ID had become a Hot Potato.

The Kozminski family protect Aaron and place him out of harms way from the Police.. Anderson is clear what he thinks about this certain low class jews etc etc Thats because Anderson isn't talking about jews but specifically the Kozminski family.

However when they approach him in fear of there lives a deal is done to get the suspect in Broardmoore, which must have been there original in tension, and for the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

The problem of course is that they had a large number of very different murders… Even today people like Trevor MArriot claim they are so different that they must be don't by different hands…and even the most inclusive of ripperologist like myself accept some of these murders , like the pinching street murder, Mylett and Coles, were by different hands.

So the ID was done in secret. It failed. And the suspect was placed out of harms way in Comney Hatch where Anderson kept an eye on him but believed him dead when he transferred.

As time passed and no more murders occurred ANderson became increasingly confident in his theory and that the real culprit to all the murders had been caught. But his motive for speaking out was to change the procedures of conviction and arrest.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

, but cant and wont accept the anomalies contained in it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats because we don't know if there are any anomalies within it..

Actually the entire thing could be correct from start to finish and probably is…you just need to look at it correctly and the correct perspective..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

The conflict with Anderson can be shown to be a very minor sideshow because Macnaghten knew more about "Kosminski" than did is former chief, or Swanson..

This is your opinion. I have shown this to be incorrect as Anderson theory clearly started in 1892.

The Swanson Marginalia is textual evidence of the flimsiness of this suspect's vaibility, because the primary, police advocates of this suspect are basing their opinion on datan that is demonstably wrong. The real question is why it is wrong. In my opinion they were misled in 1895, and then a failing memory did the rest by 1910.
.

Again that it is wrong is your opinion. Actually the only curious piece of information is that the suspect died shortly afterwards when intact he was transferred to Leavesdon…ANd there are two reasonable explanation why Swanson may have thought this the truth.

For example, Macnaghten knew that there was no sighting of a Jewish suspect at the Eddowes crime scene. It was a Jewish witness of a Gentile-featured suspect. Confirmation of this opinion--that a shell game was bing played about suspects and witnesses--can arguably be found in Guy Logan's 1905 serial, discovered by Jan Bondeson in 2013.

Again this is your opinion. There is no record of a jewish suspect at the endows crime scene but it is possible.

For the only time in all of the Victorian and Edwardian sources is Montague Druitt, albeit disguised (literally so, as Mortemer Slade is wearing a false moustache), seen by the Lawende figure: a Hebrew witness seeing a Gentile murderer.

Unforetunately we don't know why Macnaughten suspected Druit. However given that he lives in Blackheath and was playing cricket shortly after the Chapman murder, its unlikely what ever MAcNaughten (Wh was far from being a super cop) thought that he was the ripper.

Yours Jeff