Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Wickerman]

The onus, as always, is on the person making the accusation.

I have myself had cause to question assertions made by this same member. Replies like, "I am too busy at the moment", or "I am not sufficiently interested", betray the fact no such justification existed for the assertions being made.
This looks to me like a repeat performance.

[Jeff Leahy]

The onus, as always, is on the person making the accusation.

I have myself had cause to question assertions made by this same member. Replies like, "I am too busy at the moment", or "I am not sufficiently interested", betray the fact no such justification existed for the assertions being made.
This looks to me like a repeat performance.

Hi John

Yes I'm finally getting some information from people who know what they are talking about on Facebook. Apparently there was a recent Psychic investigation specifically into Kozminski. I'll try and see why i can find out..

However and lets make this absolutely clear, its production had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with myself and I've not seen it.

Lets see if the person responsible for this error can admit their mistake and apologise

Yours Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Hi John

Yes I'm finally getting some information from people who know what they are talking about on Facebook. Apparently there was a recent Psychic investigation specifically into Kozminski. I'll try and see why i can find out..

However and lets make this absolutely clear, its production had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with myself and I've not seen it.

Lets see if the person responsible for this error can admit their mistake and apologise

Yours Jeff

There are four people named Jeff Leahy listed at the Internet Movie Database.

http://m.imdb.com/find?q=Jeff+Leahy

Garry apologized in an earlier post if he had mixed you up with another person. Why not have your agent look into this possible copyright violation re your unused interview footage, instead of derailing a very interesting public discussion thread?

[RockySullivan]

Even if it wasn't disturbing a murder, its a disturbance. All one needs add is murder and motive. JtR has a knife on him. If she makes enough noise he might have the club down on him shouting JtR, something which she had been warned about jokingly before according to witness testimony. Any suspect found with a knife, a prostitute screaming and a dark alley is game for JtR in my books. Imagine the craze on here if someone found a new suspect like that in the files/news somewhere.

Richardson was in the yard with Annie's corpse and he had a knife not only in his possession but out in his hand next to her body. He knew the victim. He lied and changed his story numerous times. His leather apron was found freshly washed. He was able to leave work shortly after arriving to go sightsee a body when he had no indication it was in his own yard. A gaiter spring was one of the only things mentioned found at the body and he claimed to be ******* with his shoe on the steps next to the murder site. His timing doesn't match with the doctors time of death. There are a lot of reasons to look at richardson.

Again, it's only an assumption that the witness was there and the suspect was sent to him. And it's an assumption that the Police Seaside Home is the one referred to.

I think a more plausible explanation is that the suspect was sent to a seaside home as a patient, and that the witness was taken to see him there.

Now I'm not very knowledgable about the seaside home idea but here is a theory that is just a theory with no basis in fact. Has anyone ever heard of a Jew refusing to testify against another Jewish murderer? If the seaside home was a home for retired policeman, could He have subsituted "Jew" for policeman? I can see a fellow policeman not wanting to testify against a fellow officer, the blue wall and all...never heard of the Jew wall...possibly in an attempt to protect the name of the police force? The railway policeman theory comes to mind. I don't see why else the id would take place at a police retirement home? And if Lawrence had already identified granger his id would be useless.

[Jeff Leahy]

, instead of derailing a very interesting public discussion thread?

Absolutely unbelievable, Garry derails the thread with aload of irrelevant rubbish he's made up about imaginary programs and semantic references to the definition of a serial killer, and another idiot turns up claiming I've derailed the thread, unbelievable.

OK lets start getting back on course. What we know is that that Aaron enters the Public Asylum in February 1891. Almost two years after MacNaughten claimed he entered an Asylum March 1889. Which begs the question where had Aaron Kozminski been for all that time?

We know Harry Cox follows a suspect following MJK murder for several months using the sweatershop subdefuge. And that the sweater shop committee met between March 1888 and about April 1889 its report being over by July 1889. And by September 1889 Robert Anderson was still claiming they had no clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper. So clearly the ID had not happened by September 1889. And it seems logical that MAcNAughtens memo was accessed from a file created during this period.

If Kozminski first came to the attention of police following the bloody Shirt incident, Batty Street 14th October 1888, and Cox was on his trail it supports the idea that Kozminski indeed enters the asylum where MAcNAughten claims in March 1889 and where Harry Cox claims a private Asylum in Surrey…possibly Bethlem in Southwark.

In July 1890 Anderson and Monroe fallout supposedly over pensions but this has never made any sense. If the argument was indeed over the handling of the Crawford letter that would place the ID between July 1890 and Feb 1891.

The location at a Seaside convalescent Home connected to a Private asylum.

The problem is the witness. All we can say for certain is it could not have been Lawende as we know he is involved in other ID attempts and it does not make sense that he would positively ID someone and then be asked to ID someone else…

The question is…Is schwartz the only possibility or are there others including Levy and even possibly members of Kozminski's own family?

"He threatened the life of his sister"

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

My understanding is that Lawende identified Grainger in 1895, i.e. possibly several years after Kosminski's supposed identification. Could it therefore be possible that Lawende initially identified Kosminski but then started to have doubts?

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

In fact, is it possible that some senior police officers could have accepted that Kosminski may have murdered Stride, especially considering his connections to the local area, but that the other C5 victims were possibly murdered by someone else?

[RockySullivan]

Hello Jeff,

My understanding is that Lawende identified Grainger in 1895, i.e. possibly several years after Kosminski's supposed identification. Could it therefore be possible that Lawende initially identified Kosminski but then started to have doubts?

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

In fact, is it possible that some senior police officers could have accepted that Kosminski may have murdered Stride, especially considering his connections to the local area, but that the other C5 victims were possibly murdered by someone else?

That's an interesting hypotenuse john...why isn't possible that the men with Lawemde couldn't have been used. Despite their claims they may have seen the same man as him

[Jon Guy]

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

Hi John

I know you keep repeating it but there were no issues regarding Schwartz`s statement. The police believed him.

[John G]

Hi Rocky,

Harris stated that he only saw the back of the suspect. Levy I believe did give a description, but it was very vague. The Evening News, 9 October, also interviewed Levy and Harris and made this comment:"Mr Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but he is afraid to be called on the inquest. He assumes a knowing air."

Of course, some writers have suggested that Levy recognized the suspect but didn't want to implicate him. I believe it is also the case that he new a Martin Kosminski, however, no link has been shown with Aaron Kosminksi.


Nonetheless, Evans and Rumbellow (2006), suggest that Levy's "knowing air", and refusal to communicate with the press, was simply indicative of "self importance".

I think that's probably right. In fact, I've also speculated that Lawende may have seen even less than he claimed, and simply got carried away when interviewed by the police: that could explain Levy's reluctance to speak to the press, especially if he'd also exaggerated his own evidence. In fact, in the same Evening News interview Harris implies as much: " He [Harris] is of the opinion that neither Mr Levander nor Mr Leve saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." I think wonder if Harris was trying to did dig his friends out of a very big hole!

[John G]

Hi John

I know you keep repeating it but there were no issues regarding Schwartz`s statement. The police believed him.

Hello Jon,

Yes, but they also believed Violena, who gave a very similar statement, and Hutchinson, at least initially. In fact, wasn't Violena utilized to identity Pizer? That said, I'm certainly not convinced that Schwartz lied, although it is possible that his timings were inaccurate, just as Spooner's and several club members obviously were. In that context, he could have witnessed a simple domestic squabble involving Stride but earlier in the evening, say around 12:15. It's also possible that he misidentified Stride, and the assault that he witnessed was an unrelated domestic dispute. It's worth noting that he failed to recall the flower she was wearing, as did Marshall and Brown, who may also have wrongly identified Stride. In this context, it's possible that his timing was accurate, but that Stride was already dead, or died later, i.e closer to 1:00am or before 12:45pm.

The possibilities seem endless!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

My understanding is that Lawende identified Grainger in 1895, i.e. possibly several years after Kosminski's supposed identification. Could it therefore be possible that Lawende initially identified Kosminski but then started to have doubts?

Its possible John, as these things always are. I just think it unlikely that having ID Kozminski that he would later be asked to ID another suspect. Anderson was pretty clear that it was a positive ID and the suspect knew he had been recognised.

Then there is the question of the Sadler ID that some believe is the source of a confusion: "James Sadler was arrested on Sunday 15th February 1891 for the murder of Frances Coles and charged the following day. The notion that he was also being suspected of the other Whitechapel Murders is borne out by the fact that he appeared in a line-up in which a witness to a previous case (possibly Joseph Lawende[10])was used, although after confronting Sadler, the witness failed to identify him."

The only viable alternative as a witness would seem to be Schwartz. However, there are major issues over the reliability of his evidence regarding Stride's murder and, of course, the possibility that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

Schwartz is my preferred suspect for many reasons. Mainly because of all the witnesses schwartz had the best and clearest view. He was of a similar age to Kozminski at the time and may also have worked as a Taylor.

From what little we know the refusal to testify seems to fit better with Schwartz than Lawende.

But of course if I understood correctly someone has also muted a member of Kozminski's own family following the Brickane incident on 22Nd November.

In fact, is it possible that some senior police officers could have accepted that Kosminski may have murdered Stride, especially considering his connections to the local area, but that the other C5 victims were possibly murdered by someone else?

Yes, its always seemed logical that if the Crawford letter relates to inside information then the location of Dutfield Yard is extremely important even personal.

I'd add that Swanson and most of the senior police officers included Stride as a ripper victim. The MO is similar to Jacks and simply looks like an incomplete attack to me.

However I'm aware a number of eminent authors have muted Aaron Kozminski killed Stride but not the other four. I've simply never been convinced by this argument since reconstructing Sally Anne Bowmans murder I see the double event as very plausible, the two containing similarities.

MAny thanks
Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jon,

It's worth noting that he failed to recall the flower she was wearing, as did Marshall and Brown, who may also have wrongly identified Stride. In this context, it's possible that his timing was accurate, but that Stride was already dead, or died later, i.e closer to 1:00am or before 12:45pm.

The possibilities seem endless!

Even if Stride was wearing the flower Brown could not have seen it from his POV, the man she was with stood between them.

And while its possible that Schwartz timings were out there is actually no requirement to assume so, as everyones accounts including Mortimers fit a 12.45 window.

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Even if Stride was wearing the flower Brown could not have seen it from his POV, the man she was with stood between them.

And while its possible that Schwartz timings were out there is actually no requirement to assume so, as everyones accounts including Mortimers fit a 12.45 window.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think there are numerous scenarios that could be considered. For instance, Stride could have been killed by PC Smith's suspect at, say, 12:35, and Schwartz witnessed a completely separate incident, involving a different victim, at 12:45. Or Schwartz could have witnessed an assault on Stride between 11:45-Mortmer's sighting- and 12:35, Smith's sighting. Or Schwartz, like Violena, could be lying. This would be explain the lack of injuries, after being thrown to the ground, Stride holding on to the cachous, and nobody but Schwartz hearing her scream-including Fanny Mortimer who, apparently, could hear the tread of a police officer passing and the approach of Louis's pony and cart.

I also agree that the double event is plausible. However, it seems to me that BS man's MO is very different from that of the other C5 murders, i.e. attacking a victim in front of witnesses; trying to pull Stride into the street (away from the darkness of the Yard, and towards a public area); launching a clumsy direct assault after a very brief conversation.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I think there are numerous scenarios that could be considered.

For instance, Stride could have been killed by PC Smith's suspect at, say, 12:35, and Schwartz witnessed a completely separate incident, involving a different victim, at 12:45. .

Its possible, but this wouldn't match Blackwells time of death, And woulnt Morris Eagle have seen the body?

I just think it unlikely that Stride was attacked twice or that Schwartz witnessed another couple. These things are always possible but just unlikely

Or Schwartz could have witnessed an assault on Stride between 11:45-Mortmer's sighting- and 12:35, Smith's sighting. .

Schwartz was fairly certain he turned into Berneer Street at 12.45, the same time Brown left the shop. Although Brown looking ahead at the couple would not have seen Schwartz.

Its always been possible that Brown did see Stride and that she split from her man and crossed the road to Dutfield yard. That would leave the man she was with as a possible Pipeman on the board school side of the road rather than the pub side.

Or Schwartz, like Violena, could be lying. This would be explain the lack of injuries, after being thrown to the ground, .

I just think its simpler to assume everyone tells the truth to the best of their ability. We have no reason to suspect Schwartz is lying. Also if he did make it up he got lucky as has timings actually fit the other witnesses.

Stride holding on to the cachous, and nobody but Schwartz hearing her scream-including Fanny Mortimer who, apparently, could hear the tread of a police officer passing and the approach of Louis's pony and cart.

If schwartz witnessed the attack 'she screamed three times but not very loudly" this could be a translation of someone being strangled and passing out, consistent with her colour pale white. This would explain the reflex action holding onto the Cachous.

The killer simply pulls her three steps into the yard cuts her throat and leaves passing Fannys door…the measured sound of a policeman or a measured Killer?

Stride is only feet from fanny when she comes to the door but out of sight by a 90 degree angle, she may even have regained consciousness for a while or she simply slowly bleed to death 12.50/55

Fanny goes back inside (10 minutes at door) and hears the pony and cart around 1am

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

PS Morris Eagle: He returned at 12.35am and as the front door was shut, he went through the open gates of Dutfield's Yard in order to enter the club via the back door. It was very dark, too dark to see if anybody was lying there and he did not remember seeing anybody in Berner Street.

Morris Eagle suggests that Stride was not laying 'dead' at 12.35. So it seems probable that she was killed between this time and 1 am

Yours Jeff