Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Trevor Marriott]

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
I have looked at it in the correct perspective. I don't have any hidden agenda with regards to its contents. I have looked at it in unbiased fashion and nothing about it makes any sense. and Nothing contained in it can be corroborated.

Now considering such a momentous event as it was so described do you honestly not think that someone somewhere over the ensuing years would not have made mention of it taking place. The silence is deafening !

I also note that you didn't make any answer as to why Swanson would be signing his initials at the end of something he wrote in a book that already belonged to him.

I would hurry up and eat that hot potato before it goes cold.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff
I have looked at it in the correct perspective. I don't have any hidden agenda with regards to its contents. I have looked at it in unbiased fashion and nothing about it makes any sense. and Nothing contained in it can be corroborated.

Now considering such a momentous event as it was so described do you honestly not think that someone somewhere over the ensuing years would not have made mention of it taking place. The silence is deafening !

I also note that you didn't make any answer as to why Swanson would be signing his initials at the end of something he wrote in a book that already belonged to him.

I would hurry up and eat that hot potato before it goes cold.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I've already answer these points in detail. That Anderson was approached by a member of Kozminski's family and to prevent harm coming to them or indeed potential riots the whole affair was carried out as quietly as possible.

My understand is that Swanson signed his encials as due procedure but its possibly something you should take up with Adam Wood who has done a lot of work on Swanson..

Re: our earlier conversation about missing files, I noted this morning that on page 350 of the A to Z there is almost half a page devoted to the subject including suspect files known to have existed and having disappeared.. This list files on the following Theophil Mary, Charles Ludwig, Dick Austen, Antononi Pricha, Edwin Burrows, Douglas Cow, James Connell, Alfred Parent, Joseph Denny, John Avery, John Murphy, WVAn Burst and Dr Roslyn Donston Stephenson…it goes on to say: " It is note worthy that the files on the suspects named in the MacNaughten Memoranda are missing, as are the accompanying files that must have described the remaining 'several persons' referred to by Major Griffiths (Mysteries of Police Crimes)

One can't help but wonder if the files found there way to Griffiths?

However where ever they went they clearly existed at some point, and the anomalies to me suggest that MacNaughten is working from a file..

Where as Swanson is working from his first hand experience, note that he spells Kozminski correctly.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I'm going to wrap my contribution to this thread up now the original question was " did the seaside I'D happen " so my answer is no.take care enjoy your exchange of views and don't fall out like I said before the seaside is a lovely place to be i live there but I think poor old Kosminski never visited it.

[Jonathan H]

Jeff, you picked the wrong topic to be fascinated by because it is inherently a matter of opinion as to the reliability of the primary sources and even what they mean.

And not all opinions are of the same weight and quality--like yours.

Instead what you do is you claim that everybody else has opinions but only you deal in the cold, hard facts.

Only a person with a closed mind and who harbors a very brittle, defensive and fragile opinion would act in such a manner, because you fear that if you concede that you have an opinion too you will fall apart like a house of cards.

For example, the 1892 source is nothing like proof that Anderson had Aaron Kosminski in mind, and you do this line of argument no service by writing such balderdash that it is proof. Not because it is a fact that you are wrong, but because you think it is a definitely ascertained fact that you are right.

It is an interpretation Which. Might. Be. Right.

But might be right, frightens the hell out of you because that means you might be wrong too ...

To Trevor

Not only is the silence deafening, so are the loud and dismissive 1910 Ripper comments by Major Smith, Inspector Reid and George Sims (on Macnaghten's behalf) as you can see below:

“It was only the other day that the late esteemed head of the C.I.D. caused a storm of indignation among the King’s Jewish subjects by stating that JACK THE RIPPER was a Jew, and that the Jews knew who he was and assisted him to evade capture. The statement went beyond ascertained facts. … ANDERSON’S FAIRY TALES. ... There is no truth to the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn … The name of the eminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest.’

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, you picked the wrong topic to be fascinated by because it is inherently a matter of opinion as to the reliability of the primary sources and even what they mean.

And not all opinions are of the same weight and quality--like yours.

Instead what you do is you claim that everybody else has opinions but only you deal in the cold, hard facts.’

No jonathon , I'm saying that everyone else keeps twisting the facts to knock round pegs into square holes…I'm saying lets go back to basics and assume everyone told the truth to the best of there ability….and then try and understand why there 'appears to be' factual errors or differences..

And the simplest conclusion is the MacNaughten and Swanson are describing two different events..

MacNaughten working from the now missing file unto March 1889

And Swanson from Memory…but a sharp good memory able to spell Kozminski correctly…

So what does MacNaughten actually Say?

(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'.

Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in (the very) heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a strong hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies, He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individualseen by a city PC near Mitre square.

The important info is as follows: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889

or

He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889.

In other words MacNaughten is talking clearly about events unto March 1889…and he is somewhat vague, doesn't actually know, what happened to Kozminski once placed in an asylum in March 1889..


Its absolutely clear that MacNaughten does not know about anything Swanson writes not a jot….

Thats simply going back to basics and actually reading what they say and taking them at their word

And check out what this actually says: This man in appearance strongly resembled the individualseen by a city PC near Mitre square.

This to me sounds like PC Harvey saw someone leaving the square and gave a description of a man, and that dsicription fitted Kozminski, which is why they followed him….It does NOT sound like Swansons ID..

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Re: our earlier conversation about missing files, I noted this morning that on page 350 of the A to Z there is almost half a page devoted to the subject including suspect files known to have existed and having disappeared.. This list files on the following Theophil Mary, Charles Ludwig, Dick Austen, Antononi Pricha, Edwin Burrows, Douglas Cow, James Connell, Alfred Parent, Joseph Denny, John Avery, John Murphy, WVAn Burst and Dr Roslyn Donston Stephenson…it goes on to say: " It is note worthy that the files on the suspects named in the MacNaughten Memoranda are missing, as are the accompanying files that must have described the remaining 'several persons' referred to by Major Griffiths (Mysteries of Police Crimes)

One can't help but wonder if the files found there way to Griffiths?

One cant help wondering if they were simply persons of interest as MM infers and that they never ever made their way to the suspect file ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

One cant help wondering if they were simply persons of interest as MM infers and that they never ever made their way to the suspect file ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The A to Z says that the files were placed in the Arhive and were viewed by people…but have subsequently been lost or gone missing..

In other words they could still be there, they just got mixed up..

But I think we can conclude files existed.

However if you actually read what MacNaughten says in both versions, if he is working from the file then I believe his words are 100% accurate.(even if he spells Kosminski incorrectly) His info on Druit is not so good, i believe because he is largely working from Memory..the private info...

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Swanson stated: "...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification..."

Now doesn't this all sound like something out of a spy novel? And why the "difficulty"? And why all the secrecy, and complexity, just to obtain a straightforward identification, particularly if the intention wasn't to prosecute? I mean, perhaps the suspect, and his family, just fancied a free holiday by the seaside!

It's been suggested that the suspect's family may have suspected him. But surely the police would have been overwhelmed, during the investigation, with relatives, neighbours, friends, work colleagues coming forward with information on people they suspected. Surely they weren't all treated to a trip to the seaside!

No, I cannot see any reason for all this cloak and dagger nonsense, or for there being any "difficulty" with obtaining the identification unless, of course, the suspect happened to be the Duke of Clarence!

If a simple identification was all the police wanted, without, say, the formality of an ID parade, there would have been no "difficulty". The witness could have been asked to identify the suspect anywhere: home residence, local tavern, whilst walking down the street, whilst leaving or returning home...

[Jeff Leahy]

Swanson stated: "...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification..."

Now doesn't this all sound like something out of a spy novel? And why the "difficulty"? And why all the secrecy, and complexity, just to obtain a straightforward identification, particularly if the intention wasn't to prosecute? I mean, perhaps the suspect, and his family, just fancied a free holiday by the seaside!

It's been suggested that the suspect's family may have suspected him. But surely the police would have been overwhelmed, during the investigation, with relatives, neighbours, friends, work colleagues coming forward with information on people they suspected. Surely they weren't all treated to a trip to the seaside!

No, I cannot see any reason for all this cloak and dagger nonsense, or for there being any "difficulty" with obtaining the identification unless, of course, the suspect happened to be the Duke of Clarence!

If a simple identification was all the police wanted, without, say, the formality of an ID parade, there would have been no "difficulty". The witness could have been asked to identify the suspect anywhere: home residence, local tavern, whilst walking down the street, whilst leaving or returning home...

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

[John G]

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. But surely the police must have received lots of similar letters from members of the public. And why the need to embark on such a complex, and secretive process, which seems to have been executed with military precision? If all they wanted was a quick identification, without arousing the suspects suspicion, surely all they had to do was determine where the suspect would be at a particular time. I see no reason why it couldn't have been arranged for the witness to identify him in any number of local locations, without the suspect's knowledge, and without the need for a trip to the seaside.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. But surely the police must have received lots of similar letters from members of the public. And why the need to embark on such a complex, and secretive process, which seems to have been executed with military precision? If all they wanted was a quick identification, without arousing the suspects suspicion, surely all they had to do was determine where the suspect would be at a particular time. I see no reason why it couldn't have been arranged for the witness to identify him in any number of local locations, without the suspect's knowledge, and without the need for a trip to the seaside.

Yes , but they had all proved deadends… Imagine the conversation?

Anderson: I had a woman in my office today saying she believes her brother jack the Ripper…do you know anything about a Kozminski

Swanson: Well actually sir we did have a suspect clalled Kozminski he lived near Berner street

Anderson: So did this woman!

Etc Etc

But the woman comes forward and her story confirmed as true. The suspect is again in a Private Asylum, and with difficult it is arranged for the ID to happen well away from Whitechapel where the family are in fear..

This info is never given to MacNaughten who has his own pet theory about Druit anyway… You can imagine how popular MacNaughten would be if he stuck his nose in on an investigation that had been going on for years and suddenly started talking about a drowned Doctor he believed to be the ripper.. Hence many of Andersons comments…'Here is my answer to ' etc

But I think the location was determined by the family not Swanson

Yours jef

[John G]

Yes , but they had all proved deadends… Imagine the conversation?

Anderson: I had a woman in my office today saying she believes her brother jack the Ripper…do you know anything about a Kozminski

Swanson: Well actually sir we did have a suspect clalled Kozminski he lived near Berner street

Anderson: So did this woman!

Etc Etc

But the woman comes forward and her story confirmed as true. The suspect is again in a Private Asylum, and with difficult it is arranged for the ID to happen well away from Whitechapel where the family are in fear..

This info is never given to MacNaughten who has his own pet theory about Druit anyway… You can imagine how popular MacNaughten would be if he stuck his nose in on an investigation that had been going on for years and suddenly started talking about a drowned Doctor he believed to be the ripper.. Hence many of Andersons comments…'Here is my answer to ' etc

But I think the location was determined by the family not Swanson

Yours jef

Hi Jeff,

Well, as I said, maybe the family just fancied a trip to the seaside! But seriously, I see no reason why the identification couldn't have been carried out at the private asylum. In fact, wouldn't inveigling the suspect away to the Seaside Home be even more likely to attract his suspicion? And if the police really believed the suspect to be JtR would there actions be driven by concern for the family? Surely the priority would be securing an arrest, and if there was insufficient evidence for that, then why go to such immense trouble just to obtain an identification that would have been of such limited value?

[Jonathan H]

As R. J. Plamer wondered several years ago, on a thread of this site, why does Macnaghten backdate the Kosminski incarceration to before he had joined the Force. It happened after he had been there for nearly two two years.

The theory--claimed to be fact of course--that it involves two identical incarcerations and Mac knows about one and not other other is fanciful, even absurd.

This is because Mac knows that Kosminski is alive, and he knows that he threatened his sister and he knows that it was self-abuse that got him locked up.

And this all happened twice?

The Marginalia has a number of glaring errors, if you can read it objectively. The Seaside Home location makes no logistical sense, but does make sense as a mis-recall of the Seaman's Home. There was a Ripper murder right after Aaron was sectioned. Kosminski was alive, not dead for years, and had never been seen by a Jewish witness, and Anderson had not initially claimed any such thing until in a footnote in 1910. Via Sims in 1907 we can see that he knows that even by that late date the Polish suspect is still alive.

That is what is actually in front of us, but not to those sentimentally attached to the old, discredited paradigm about Anderson as the most reliable police source and the only chief who claimed to have known the fiend's identity. This malarkey really has to be retired, having reached it's nadir long ago--e.g. since the discovery of other primary sources that show that the English gent and the American con man were far more important police suspects.

[Hunter]

Objectivity?
Where?

[Trevor Marriott]

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

So what makes this so different from all the other plethora of similar letters the police officials received?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk