Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

Jonathan H · 05-25-2015, 01:45 AM

Jeff it is you who claimed that it was Macnaghten who burned documents..

That's true about the 1913 press conference reports, but we were not debating those sources but rather the Townsend letter referred to by Anderson in his 1910 memoirs.

You had written that Macnaghten destroyed the Townsend letter when he hadn't -- and Anderson had not claimed he had. You managed to be unfair to both Mac and Sir Bob in one hit.

And graceless about admitting your mistake, but then I guess you still have not realized it -- and will write, again, that Mac said he burned documents in 1913.

Which he said he did and which we are not debating.

It is interesting--up to a point-- to see what cut-glass bias really looks like, and your suffocating obsession with Anderson and Kosminski is quite something.

It blinds you to what material we are even 'discussing'.

It is an obsession because, unlike Paul Begg and many others,you do not concede other interpretations of limited and ambiguous data are possible. The value of said interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

I think Macnaghten knew all there was to know about Aaron Kosminski and Anderson (and Swanson) did not.

The Seaside i.d as a literal event never happened.

Oh, and here, again, is the bit you never cut-and-paste of my posts because it is too terrifying, or do you just not understand it:

The 1908 interview in "The Daily Chronicle", with Anderson proves that the aging, retired chief--who had been sacked in 1901--was capable of the most grotesque, partisan and self-serving conflations and confusions. Perhaps some people have not seen the pertinent quotation as it is not on this site:

''In two cases of that terrible series [the Ripper crmes] there were disticnt clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace, and smashed it beyond recognition. In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated ... I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.'

As the late Philip Sudgen cogently wrote about this primary source:

'Even in the brief allusion to the Ripper case there are two glaring errors. Sir William Harcourt ceased to be Home Secretary in 1885, three years before the murders began. The man with whom Anderson dealt with in 1888 was Henry Matthews. The reference to the pipe is also incorrect. Anderson's mention of a fireplace clearly indicates that he had the murder of Mary Kelly in mind for this was the only one in the series committed indoors. Dr. Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, was called out to the scene of the crime. And a pipe belonging to Joe Barnett, Kelly's lover, was found in Mary's room. But this was not the pipe that was smashed. Anderson was confusing the Kelly murder with that of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley about nine months later. A clay pipe found with Alice's body was thrown to the floor and broken. However, this incident occurred at the mortuary, during the post-mortem examination, not at the crime scene, and the culprit was one of the attendants, not Dr. Phillips. So here, two years before his memoirs appeared, and speaking of investigations for which he bore overall responsibility, Anderson was confounding officials and running quite separate incidents together in his head.'

Jonathan H · 05-25-2015, 01:29 AM

Dear PaulB

I am glad you have cleared that up because I know for a fact that others--mistakenly--thought as I did about your interpretation, in terms of Aaron Kosminski.

You are, likewise, a little off-track about what I think happened in terms of Macnaghten and the Anderson/Swanson i.d. story.

In his memoir Mac's cliche beat cop is Lawende disguised, who saw nothing satisfying. That's a direct stab at Anderson--who in "Days of My Years" is airbrushed from history, along with Kosminski (and Ostrog).

The Chief Constable later Assistant Commissioner knew the i.d. had happened. He knew that it involved a Jewish witness (Lawende) and he knew that it had come to nothing in regards to Tom Sadler and William Grant.

For that was the i.d. Anderson later muddled; a Ripper suspect(s) identified by a Jewish witness, or not. We know this because it appears in other sources--though only two--whereas Schwarz disappears from the extant record.

We know that Anderson was capable of all sorts of confident conflations and confusions due to the shambolic 1908 interview and so it is not a stretch, to me, that the 1910 memoir footnote about a witness is of the same order: sincere but muddled to the point of grotesque distortion, just as he did to Dr Philips.

Major Smith in 1910 denied Anderson's account, and by implication so did Sir Melville Macnaghten in 1914, as he did also through his proxy Sims (very rudely) in 1910.

Mac set in motion the myth of the i.d. of a Jewish suspect and a Jewish witness when in the Aberconway version he turned inside-out the witness, Lawende, and suspect, the Gentile-featured, light-moustachioed young man at the Eddowes murder whom Mac believed--rightly or wrongly--was a sighting of Montague Druitt, whom he believed from 1891--again, rightly or wrongly--was the Ripper.

I subscribe to the theory that due to internal bureaucratic pressures and, later, external public relations reasons Macnaghten, in a sense, created "Kosminski" the deceased suspect in 1895.

I think the reason that Anderson and Swanson believed he was deceased is due to Macnaghten telling them that.

This is what everything I see tells me.

Is the above fact or theory? It is a theory based on trying to make sense of a jumble. For me the above fits together quiet neatly.

Could I be wrong? Sure, I often am.

Here is something you may not have seen.

It is the only account of the Lawende sighting outside the 1888 sources (and Major Smith, who has the wrong hat) that places the Druitt figure in the frame, albeit disguised--literally so in this case. It is from Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper"(1905) and it matches the 1888 primary sources: a Gentile murderer being seen by a Jewish man:

"... with a few deft touches effected an almost total change in his outward appearance. A fair wig and a light moustache completely transformed him ..." p. 144

"Shortly after 1:30 a man and woman were seen talking at the corner of Church Street, one of whom stated his opinion that the clothing he had seen at the station was like that warn by the woman he saw." p. 152

I can't tell you what it meant to me to see [part of] my theory confirmed.

Jeff Leahy · 05-25-2015, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by S.Brett View Post

Hi at all!

Why not a witness who saw Aaron Kozminski "took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister"?

Let us think about that:

22 November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London)

“Great excitement was caused in the East-end, and throughout the metropolis generally, yesterday by the attempted murder of a woman in the district of the tragedie… is known as Annie, or Matilda, Farmer. She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age.”

“Almost immediately the woman ran downstairs bleeding from a wound in the throat. She asserted that the man attempted to cut her throat, that a struggle had taken place, and that her assailant then fled.”

"Wanted, for attempted murder on the 21st inst., a man aged 36, height 5 feet 6 inches, complexion dark, no whiskers, dark moustache, black jacket, vest, and trousers, round black felt hat. Respectable appearance. Can be identified."

Farmer was 40 years old in 1888.

“She is stated to be a married woman of good appearance and about 34 years of age”?

I know a photograph of Matilda Lubnowski. She was 34 years old in 1888.

“A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning (? 22. November ?) under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly. At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace. He was pursued through several streets by the police and detectives who have lately been concentrated in considerable numbers in the neighbourhood, and was captured near Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton’s brewery. The man is reported to have drawn a knife, and made a desperate resistance, but he was eventually overpowered, and conveyed to the Commercial-street station.”

Was there confusion between Annie Farmer and a woman called “Matilda” in the press? Shortly before: The press confused Charles Ludwig with the “Batty Street Lodger Story”! (Rob House)

Farmer is Indoor! Matilda is Outdoor!

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Morning Advertiser - 22 November 1888

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881122.html

See also post 423 Paddy, Huddersfield Daily Chronicle 19 February 1894 in this thread:

“He seized a relative by the throat”

Did the Seaside Home ID happen? - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=341071

For any suspect discussion not pertaintaining to a particular or listed suspect.

I remember Rob House “Prime suspect:

December 1888

“The Dublin Express London correspondent on Thursday gave as the latest police theory concerning the Whitechapel murderer, that he has fallen under the strong suspicion of his near relatives, who to avert a terribly family disgrace, may have placed him out of harm's way in safe keeping. As showing that there is a certain amount of credence attached to this story, detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums, and made full inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted.”

Crawford Letter:

“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“

We all think that the witness in Seaside Home saw a man in the company with Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, Chapman, Nichols. Perhaps, he saw Aaron Kozminski with Matilda Lubnowski near Brick Lane in the morning of 22 November 1888. You know: Once, Aaron Kozminski "threatened his sister with a knife".

Maybe, Matilda refused to cooperate with the police in November 1888. Maybe, Matilda was looking for help in December 1888 (Crawford/ Anderson) and maybe, she gave up in the second half of the year 1890 or at the beginning of the year 1891 and the Seaside Home took place. All the time before; without any assistance of Matilda, an ID cannot take place (“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer”).

Remember what Cox, Sagar, Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten said…

Cox:

“The murderer was a misogynist, who at some time or another had been wronged by a woman. And the fact that his victims were of the lowest class proves, I think, that he was not, as has been stated, an educated man who had suddenly gone mad. He belonged to their own class.”

“Had he been wronged by a woman occupying a higher stage in society the murders would in all probability have taken place in the West End, the victims have been members of the fashionable demi-monde.”

“but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes”.

Cox observation took nearly three months… “Matilda” took place on 22. November 1888… Macnaghten said about Kosminski “about March 1889”… December, January, and February = three months…

Sagar: “Identification being impossible”

Swanson:

“And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London”
22 November 1888 or Seaside Home 1890/91?

Cox:

“It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased…”

Anderson:

“It sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but evidence is wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and built up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interrogations.”

On Swanson�s list (Scotland Yard Investigates Evans/Rumbelow page 224) in the upper line -Alleged Attempted Murder- is Annie Farmer and underneath the line is blank.

21.11. 1888 9.30 AM Annie Farmer 19 George St.
22.11. 1888 1.30 AM Matilda Lubnowski thoroughfare near Brick Lane (but no complaint)???

In this case a possible witness had a good view of the murderer then the suspect was captured… and conveyed to the Commercial-street station…

There was a witness: At the moment the man was seen making off at a rapid pace

Anderson:

"I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Hi Brett

A most interesting theory.

I've only ever stated that it is unlikely that Lawende is Andersons and Swansons ID witness. I've always preferred Schwartz because if your correct about the Crawford letter it seems logical they would have know where Kozminski lived.

While I find your theory about Matilda most interesting, my concerns would be whether a non ripper victim would give Anderson the moral certainty he almost certainly entertained.

Great post Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy · 05-25-2015, 01:14 AM