Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Hi Jeff,

Having read the opinion of Dr Biggs, Trevor Marriott's forensic pathologist, I am of the opinion that the time of death estimates given by the Victorian GPs can no longer be relied upon.

Regarding Morris Eagle. The Coroner asked him this question, concerning his return to the club: "Do you think you are able to say that the deceased was not lying there then?" He replied: "I do not know, I am sure, because it was rather dark. There was a light from the upper part of the club, but that would not throw any illumination upon the ground. It was dark near the gates." It is therefore possible that Stride could have been killed prior to Eagle's return to the club, i.e. at around the time of the PC Smith sighting at 12:35.

I think, however, your scenario involving Stride separating from Brown's suspect, and then being seen by Schwartz, is intriguing. I must admit that it's something I hadn't previously considered, assuming instead that Brown's evidence contradicted Schwartz's as to timings. I would agree that in this scenario the suspect would then probably be Pipeman, who may have been following Stride after her apparent rejection of him: "Not tonight, some other night."

I doubt Stride was being strangled as Schwartz heard her screaming. After all, Schwartz mentions BS man calling out Lipski, apparently to Pipeman, after the screaming incident so he was clearly still paying attention; and he doesn't mention BS man strangling Stride.

I'm also not sure how the killer would have pulled Stride "three steps into the Yard." Thus, if she was still on the ground at this stage surely there would have been consequential damage to her clothing, as well as bruising and/or grazing to her skin; but there were no abrasions of any kind.

Mortimer's evidence is interesting, though. Dr Blackwell checked his watch when he arrived at Dutfield's Yard and recorded a time of 1:16. PC Lamb said he'd been there about 10-12 minutes before Dr Blackwell's arrival, say 1:05. Louis D said that the first police officer arrived at the scene was about 7 minutes after his discovery of the body, suggesting a time of 12:58. Mrs Mortimer said sh'd been inside about 4 minutes when she heard Louis arrive, suggesting she'd been outside between 12:44 and 12:54.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Having read the opinion of Dr Biggs, Trevor Marriott's forensic pathologist, I am of the opinion that the time of death estimates given by the Victorian GPs can no longer be relied upon.

I just don't see where this takes us. We simply have to accept the timings could be out, it doesn't mean they were. And actually Blackwells time of death is sort of confirmed by Schwartz in a reverse senario

Regarding Morris Eagle. The Coroner asked him this question, concerning his return to the club: "Do you think you are able to say that the deceased was not lying there then?" He replied: "I do not know, I am sure, because it was rather dark. There was a light from the upper part of the club, but that would not throw any illumination upon the ground. It was dark near the gates."

Yes he said it was dark. Obviously Defintive Story doesn't depict that for obvious reasons. But he didn't trip over a body or see or indeed smell anything for that matter. Surely its more logical to assume she was not there at that time.

I think, however, your scenario involving Stride separating from Brown's suspect, and then being seen by Schwartz, is intriguing. I must admit that it's something I hadn't previously considered, assuming instead that Brown's evidence contradicted Schwartz's as to timings. I would agree that in this scenario the suspect would then probably be Pipeman, who may have been following Stride after her apparent rejection of him: "Not tonight, some other night."

Yes just adding to that that Brown had his back to the couple the whole way home so he would not have seen what happened to them once he passed them unless he looked back. And the timing is just about possible for Stride to cross the road and be in Dutfeild Yard gateway by the time BSM arrives at the gateway…I've paced it out a few times.

I doubt Stride was being strangled as Schwartz heard her screaming. After all, Schwartz mentions BS man calling out Lipski, apparently to Pipeman, after the screaming incident so he was clearly still paying attention; and he doesn't mention BS man strangling Stride.

'She screamed three times but not very loudly' aren't you struck by the apparent contradiction in that sentence, how does someone scream quietly?

I'm also not sure how the killer would have pulled Stride "three steps into the Yard." Thus, if she was still on the ground at this stage surely there would have been consequential damage to her clothing, as well as bruising and/or grazing to her skin; but there were no abrasions of any kind.

He grabs her by the scarf pulling her backwards. 'He pulled her into the street' She is choaking 'screams three times not loudly' the blood supply is cut off to the brain and she faints. The killer turns and shouts 'lip ski' stride is unconscious…Scwartz and Pipeman run. BSM grabs the scarf around her neck pulling the unconscious woman into the yard by the scarf… Cuts her throat once, deeply and walks off…All happens so quick that she is left holding the cachous

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

Your somewhat missing the point here Garry.

I don’t think so. I’m not the one resorting to histrionics and schoolyard rhetoric.

You claim to have seen a program directed by myself that clearly I've never been involved with.

I saw a programme with your name on the credits. I also apologized unreservedly in the event that I had confused you with someone else. But you don’t read and you don’t absorb.

So you are either inventing something in your mind …

I’m inventing nothing.

… in order to create trouble …

Trouble? Trouble for whom and to what end?

… or you did see something on a TV channel which has broken copyright regulations.

Well, I certainly saw something. As for copyright regulations, I neither know nor care.

Should that be the case like any author whose pictures are used without permission I have the right to take this up with Directors UK.

Then do it. Break the habit of a lifetime and actually do something for yourself. But don’t expect me to do it for you.

Frankly given that you have currently failed to provide any sort of proof to support your claims to the existence of this program …

That’s right. I spent hours trawling the internet for any sign of the programme, failed to find it and gave up. I couldn’t care less if it never turns up. And I care even less about your juvenile tantrums.

… I am given to the former judgement and my original reaction that it never 'existed' and was a total fabrication on your part. Which makes me wonder how much else you've claimed is the product of the same fertile imagination.

If I was going to trust to anything, it certainly wouldn’t be your judgement. You’ve made a career out of alienating others courtesy of unsubstantiated allegations and generally unacceptable posting behaviour. This is just another example of such.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

That’s not the way I recall events. You took a newspaper report, omitted a salient part of it, misconstrued the remainder, and then made claims which were subsequently exposed as having been untrue. Should anyone be in any doubt over the issue here’s a link to the discussion under scrutiny:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=339817#post339817

The fact that you are now questioning my integrity says more about your honesty than it does mine. I would encourage posters to examine the thread in question and draw their own conclusions.

There again, Jon, should you wish to continue this on the appropriate thread, please do so. I’ll follow you there.

[Garry Wroe]

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

Interesting.

Garry apologized in an earlier post if he had mixed you up with another person.

That’s right, Pat. Hence my insistence that a certain poster neither reads nor absorbs the information presented. It’s a recurrent theme in his posting history.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don’t think so. I’m not the one resorting to histrionics and schoolyard rhetoric.]

Garry will you please just shut up and admit you are wrong. I have it on good authority from the honourable Cabal member of Hull, that there was a Psychic Program on Kozminski (Which I knew nothing about) it does not and never did contain the name Jeff Leahy….Only in your imagination did that happen, it is no longer available on the internet according to my source…so give up.

Will you now admit to your error and shut up, so that we can continue discussing the ID, as someone has recently postulated an alternative to Schwartz as a witness that the grown ups might like to discuss, as its an interesting new idea

Yours Jeff

PS take your argument with Jon else where please, as other idiots here are accusing me of being off topic, brilliant.

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely unbelievable, Garry derails the thread with aload of irrelevant rubbish he's made up …

I have made up nothing.

… about imaginary programs …

I saw what I saw.

… and semantic references to the definition of a serial killer …

You can’t even get that right. I referred to the essence of a blitz attack Ripper and thus the reliability of the FBI interpretation which you believe adds weight to your contention that Kosminski and Jack the Ripper were one and the same. The fact that you’d rather bang on about the Crawford letter and suchlike says much about your approach to the case.

… and another idiot turns up claiming I've derailed the thread, unbelievable.

There you go again, insulting a poster who did no more than try to restore a little order on to this thread.

[Jeff Leahy]

In the Kozminski family tree I once saw the name "Davis". That is all I can say about that. Of course there was the company Thomas Davies/ Jacob Cohen/ Woolf Abrahams. But is it important ?

-Brothel 254 Whitechapel Road-

I remember that Inspector Sagar had also been involved in a brothel raid. I think, it took place in Aldgate High Street (Bull Inn Yard) in December 1890 opposite the Butchers Row.

Sagar (everyone knows it):

"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."

I'm still trying to get my head around how this might work. If I get what I think your suggesting here that Kozminski attacked his sister in Bricklane on 22nd Nov 1888 and there was a witness.

Sagar gets back on Kozminski's trail following the Alice McKenzie murder (Not Cox?)

When the sister changes her mind about her brother the original witness for that attack comes into play?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I saw what I saw.]

No Garry you saw a psychic program on Kozminski. You googled my name and noted I had made psychic programs many years ago(Although not on JtR)

And you made a story up trying to score some cheap points, putting incorrect information together.

your now digging yourself an even bigger hole trying to get yourself out of the one you dug in the first place..pathetic

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

I have it on good authority from the honourable Cabal member of Hull, that there was a Psychic Program on Kozminski (Which I knew nothing about) it does not and never did contain the name Jeff Leahy

Oh, so of course, this must be the programme that I saw. It must be because you say so.

PS take your argument with Jon else where please, as other idiots here are accusing me of being off topic, brilliant.

‘Other idiots’. You, of course, being an intellectual colossus.

Back to the Crawford letter …

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh, so of course, this must

Back to the Crawford letter …

It is a letter written by the Earl of Crawford. It is not dated but its context suggests it was written around the time of the Jack the Ripper scare.

Although Anderson kept many correspondence during his life time, only one relating to Jack the Ripper remains in existence suggesting it had some importance to Anderson.

The content of the letter is an introduction of a woman nearly related to a person she believes to be the Whitechapel Murderer. While encially suggested the letter was connected to Druit it has since been discovered that Farqharsen was probably the source of private info and it simpy makes more sense that the Crawford letter relates to Anderson's suspect.

Its also significant to the claim being made by a poster here, that Matilda was threatened with a knife in brick lane 22 nd Nov 1888 and there may have been a witness to this event. Speculation of course.

Yours Jeff

[Harry D]

Am I the only one baffled at how Lawende could've positively identified someone, who he admitted he probably wouldn't recognize again, some seven years after the fact? I'm, of course, referring to Grainger here.

[Jeff Leahy]

Am I the only one baffled at how Lawende could've positively identified someone, who he admitted he probably wouldn't recognize again, some seven years after the fact? I'm, of course, referring to Grainger here.

Agreed. I wonder how many people here could. But I guess without modern forensics the police need to take a chance on such sitings.

It might also explain Anderson's insistence that more police powers were required to gain confessions.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

Could you imagine trying to use lawende as a witness in court he would have been slaughterd by the defence.

[S.Brett]

I'm still trying to get my head around how this might work. If I get what I think your suggesting here that Kozminski attacked his sister in Bricklane on 22nd Nov 1888 and there was a witness.

When the sister changes her mind about her brother the original witness for that attack comes into play?

Yours Jeff

It is just a crazy idea...

Hi Jeff,

"had strong homicidal tendencies" (macnaghten)/ "afterwards… such undoubted signs of homicidal mania" (Sims)/ "afterwards… developed homicidal tendencies" (Griffiths)

Does not sound like a murder/murders. Sounds more like an attack/ attacks.

"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" (Anderson)

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" (Macnaghten)

This does not sound like much.

Aaron Kozminski “threatening his sister with a knife” (Is it an attack?)

In a case of an attempted murder; Matilda was a victim (she survived) and a witness.

About schizophrenics:

"When identities of victims were analyzed based on a British study, it was reported that 55% of murder actions were towards a family member, 22% were towards someone known and 14% were towards someone not known (8)"

Richard Trenton Chase:

"Two weeks later, he attempted to enter the home of another woman but, finding that her doors were locked, went into her backyard and walked away; Chase later told detectives that he took locked doors as a sign that he was not welcome, but that unlocked doors were an invitation to come inside. While wandering around, he encountered a girl named Nancy Holden, with whom he attended high school. He attempted to get a ride from her, but frightened by his appearance, she refused."

Nancy Holden… someone known…

My problem is: Matilda before the court as a member of the Kozminski family… against her brother Jack the Ripper… or just the witness who saw Aaron Kozminski threatening his sister?

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.”

Perhaps, the Seaside Home identification has been the last link of a chain (together with the bloody laundry in Batty Street and the PC near Mitre Square…) and was enough to convict Aaron Kozminski.

I like what Rob House said: “Moral proof“and “moral certainty“ instead of “legal proof“.

Yours Karsten.