A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, of course Paul, but the point I am making is Trevor says Kosminski could not have forwarded for any sort of ID unless he was arrested on suspicion of being Jack. But Sadler was not arrested nor charged with Eddowes murder [only Coles], yet he was subject to some form of Id by Lawende.
Regards Darryl

As long as a suspect is arrested then an ID parade could take place, who the victim was that the ID is subject to was academic. Nowadays a suspect has to be arrested for each offence he is suspected off, then interviews and other procedures can take place lawfully.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Yes, of course Paul, but the point I am making is Trevor says Kosminski could not have forwarded for any sort of ID unless he was arrested on suspicion of being Jack. But Sadler was not arrested nor charged with Eddowes murder [only Coles], yet he was subject to some form of Id by Lawende.
Regards Darryl

You'll have to see how Trevor responds to that, of course, although Sadler was already under arrest when allegedly confronted by Lawende, so maybe that makes a difference. Trevor ignores the statement that Kosminski was sent for identification with 'great difficulty'. Unlike Trevor, Don Rumbelow, who was also a policeman and a police historian, has said that the police would have had no difficulty whatsoever in sending a suspect in such a high profile case for identification. However, it is interesting that Kosminski was apparently sent and not taken to where he was identified, so maybe this suggests that the Met found a work-around to getting Kosminski identified without having to arrest him. Either way, whether the police would have had no difficulty in sending Kosminski for identification, or whether they used a ruse to have him identified, there is no real reason to doubt that he was identified.

[Trevor Marriott]

You'll have to see how Trevor responds to that, of course, although Sadler was already under arrest when allegedly confronted by Lawende, so maybe that makes a difference. Trevor ignores the statement that Kosminski was sent for identification with 'great difficulty'. Unlike Trevor, Don Rumbelow, who was also a policeman and a police historian, has said that the police would have had no difficulty whatsoever in sending a suspect in such a high profile case for identification. However, it is interesting that Kosminski was apparently sent and not taken to where he was identified, so maybe this suggests that the Met found a work-around to getting Kosminski identified without having to arrest him. Either way, whether the police would have had no difficulty in sending Kosminski for identification, or whether they used a ruse to have him identified, there is no real reason to doubt that he was identified.

Don Rumbellow was wrong he simply gave an opinion.
As I keep saying there are rules and guidelines that have to be followed.
if the police had such a good suspect why would they risk jeopardising their case by not following protocol?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Hi Monty
You know as well as I do that the police back then could not drag someone off the street, or out of their house to take part in any ID procedure. The only way it could have happened, and I doubt this very much because I dont believe it ever happened in the way described, was for Kosminski to have been arrested on suspicion, but that falls flat on its face, because there is no evidence to show that he was ever arrested, and all the rest that followed this so called positive ID is to far fetched to even consider.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet it did happen.

I cite Arthur Harding, East End career criminal, who stated that two CID men once entered his lodgings, and his room, ordered him to dress and marched him to Commercial Street Station. Once there he was told he wasn’t there to be charged but to take part in a number of ID parades to “see if they could pick me out”*.

They didn’t.

whilst it wasn’t procedure, you know as well as I do that procedure wasn’t always adhered to.

Monty

*’My Apprenticeship into Crime (1904)- Arthur Harding, Ch8 P125.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet it did happen.

I cite Arthur Harding, East End career criminal, who stated that two CID men once entered his lodgings, and his room, ordered him to dress and marched him to Commercial Street Station. Once there he was told he wasn’t there to be charged but to take part in a number of ID parades to “see if they could pick me out”*.

They didn’t.

whilst it wasn’t procedure, you know as well as I do that procedure wasn’t always adhered to.

Monty

*’My Apprenticeship into Crime (1904)- Arthur Harding, Ch8 P125.

I question the reliability of the example you quote from a notorious criminal. "A number of ID parades", only one would be needed ! Does he mention being arrested ?

Also not following procedures resulted in cases being thrown out of court

It didnt happen with regards to the mythical Id parade of Kosminski as I said before. There are ID rules and guidelines as set out in the Victorian Codes of practice that have to be followed. if the police had such a good suspect why would they risk jeopardizing their case by not following the protocol as laid down in those codes?

The swanson marginalia is unsafe to rely on for many different reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Don Rumbellow was wrong he simply gave an opinion.
As I keep saying there are rules and guidelines that have to be followed.
if the police had such a good suspect why would they risk jeopardising their case by not following protocol?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not good enough just to say 'Don Rumbelow was wrong'. Do you know why he thought what he did? Have you discussed it with him? You can say there were rules and guidelines, but what were they? Did they apply in 1888? Were they rigidly adhered to? You know as well as I do that rules and guidelines were broken and maybe still are.

Maybe Don was wrong, but why should anyone believe you over him? After all, Don Rumbelow understands history, he was a police historian and author, a curator of the City of London Police museum, and a serving policeman himself. I would suspect that he had a fairly good grasp of what the police could and couldn't do back in 1888. Your qualifications for talking about what the police could do and did over a century ago are... what? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm not suggesting that your understanding of current police practices is wrong, and I'm not saying that Don wasn't wrong, I'm just asking why your opinion about what the police could have done in 1888 be preferred over Don's?

Even if Don is wrong, it doesn't make a lot of difference to the statement that the suspect was sent for identification with great difficulty. The 'great difficulty' could suggest that the police were circumventing any rules and guidelines that may have existed. The suspect being 'sent' rather than 'taken' also suggests that this was off the record. As does the suspect being returned to his brother's house.

[Monty]

I question the reliability of the example you quote from a notorious criminal. "A number of ID parades", only one would be needed ! Does he mention being arrested ?

Also not following procedures resulted in cases being thrown out of court

It didnt happen with regards to the mythical Id parade of Kosminski as I said before. There are ID rules and guidelines as set out in the Victorian Codes of practice that have to be followed. if the police had such a good suspect why would they risk jeopardizing their case by not following the protocol as laid down in those codes?

The swanson marginalia is unsafe to rely on for many different reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“I question the reliability of the example you quote...”.

Well to quote another notorious high profile case witness, “well he would wouldn’t he?”

You are taking a modern perspective on a contemporary event, and assuming arrest and charge was the aim of this parade.

The code of practice of the period, ie The Police Code, was adhered to in relation to this incident. The guidance was that, guidance, and failure to stick to it would not necessarily result in the loss of a suspect. Especially if other evidences are compelling.

Clearly the incident did happen, we have multiple people who corroborated it. It falls within guidelines (Police Code 1st - 8th editions ‘Identification of Prisoner’s sections 1 - 3).

However, to reiterate, IF the authorities were relying on the ID parade alone then yes, I concede, you have a point.

The question is, were there other valid evidences a part from a potential witness ID held against this suspect?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The question is, were there other valid evidences a part from a potential witness ID held against this suspect?

Monty

Your question is rhetorical because we know there were not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not good enough just to say 'Don Rumbelow was wrong'. Do you know why he thought what he did? Have you discussed it with him? You can say there were rules and guidelines, but what were they? Did they apply in 1888? Were they rigidly adhered to? You know as well as I do that rules and guidelines were broken and maybe still are.

Maybe Don was wrong, but why should anyone believe you over him? After all, Don Rumbelow understands history, he was a police historian and author, a curator of the City of London Police museum, and a serving policeman himself. I would suspect that he had a fairly good grasp of what the police could and couldn't do back in 1888. Your qualifications for talking about what the police could do and did over a century ago are... what? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm not suggesting that your understanding of current police practices is wrong, and I'm not saying that Don wasn't wrong, I'm just asking why your opinion about what the police could have done in 1888 be preferred over Don's?

Even if Don is wrong, it doesn't make a lot of difference to the statement that the suspect was sent for identification with great difficulty. The 'great difficulty' could suggest that the police were circumventing any rules and guidelines that may have existed. The suspect being 'sent' rather than 'taken' also suggests that this was off the record. As does the suspect being returned to his brother's house.

But what is the object of an Id Parade it is to test the accuracy of a witness ! We know there were no witnesses to any of the murders that is a fact, so what witness testimony were they looking to test by doing an ID parade?

You can interpret the content how you wish, but you cant get away from protocol and procedures, which it would seem were not conformed to.

Why would they bring the suspect back from this positive Id and send him home Saying "That you very much we hope you enjoyed your day out at the seaside" knowing that they had the killer Identified, it wouldn't happen in reality for any number of valid reasons. The met police supposedly organized the Id parade, Kosminski lived in Met territory yet out of the blue he is then supposedly watched by City police out of their jurisdiction, which Major Smith seems to have not known about

The marginalia is unsafe to rely on that is a fact !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would they bring the suspect back from this positive Id and send him home Saying "That you very much we hope you enjoyed your day out at the seaside" knowing that they had the killer Identified, it wouldn't happen in reality for any number of valid reasons.

What if the witness had said something along the lines of......well it definitely looks like him but I’m not certain enough to send a man to the gallows?

So at best the police would have had a close match. A might-have-been. They couldn’t have proceeded on that so the best that they could have had done was to have let him go and put him under surveillance?

Surely this isn’t an outlandish suggestion? As to the circumstances of the arrangement of the ID. Given the extreme pressure that the police were under, and with every man and his dog commenting on how useless they were, isn't at at least possible Trevor that they might have bent or even bypassed protocol faced with the dilemma - do we possibly ID the Ripper or stick rigidly to the rules and leave him free to kill again?

[PaulB]

But what is the object of an Id Parade it is to test the accuracy of a witness ! We know there were no witnesses to any of the murders that is a fact, so what witness testimony were they looking to test by doing an ID parade?

You can interpret the content how you wish, but you cant get away from protocol and procedures, which it would seem were not conformed to.

Why would they bring the suspect back from this positive Id and send him home Saying "That you very much we hope you enjoyed your day out at the seaside" knowing that they had the killer Identified, it wouldn't happen in reality for any number of valid reasons. The met police supposedly organized the Id parade, Kosminski lived in Met territory yet out of the blue he is then supposedly watched by City police out of their jurisdiction, which Major Smith seems to have not known about

The marginalia is unsafe to rely on that is a fact !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I said, 'The 'great difficulty' could suggest that the police were circumventing any rules and guidelines that may have existed. The suspect being 'sent' rather than 'taken' also suggests that this was off the record. As does the suspect being returned to his brother's house.'

Let me rephrase the above, you insist the the police would have had to have followed unspecified rules and guidelines, yet the story as we have it suggests that the police were not following any rules and guidelines. You argue that the police wouldn't have done this or done that because it wasn't procedure, yet the source tells you that that's exactly what the police did do.

You write, 'Why would they bring the suspect back from this positive Id and send him home...' They did it because they had circumvented the rules and guidelines that existed and had no alternative but to let him return home, presumably in the care of whoever took him to the identification in the first place. They also had a witness who was adamantly refusing to testify, so they probably needed time to persuade him to change his mind rather than be a hostile witness.

The marginalia is not unsafe to rely on. You want it to be unsafe, maybe need it to be unsafe, because that's the only way you have of discounting what it says. It isn't the marginalia that's unsafe, it's your insistence that the police wouldn't have done what the marginalia says because it would have breached the unspecified rules and guidelines they self-evidently weren't following.

[PaulB]

What if the witness had said something along the lines of......well it definitely looks like him but I’m not certain enough to send a man to the gallows?

So at best the police would have had a close match. A might-have-been. They couldn’t have proceeded on that so the best that they could have had done was to have let him go and put him under surveillance?

Surely this isn’t an outlandish suggestion? As to the circumstances of the arrangement of the ID. Given the extreme pressure that the police were under, and with every man and his dog commenting on how useless they were, isn't at at least possible Trevor that they might have bent or even bypassed protocol faced with the dilemma - do we possibly ID the Ripper or stick rigidly to the rules and leave him free to kill again?

Hi Herlock,
It's perfectly possible that the actions of the witness were to blame for the police releasing the suspect, and I would argue that the emphasis Anderson places on the witness's refusal to give evidence suggests that he held the witness responsible for what happened thereafter. However, I think returning to suspect to his brother's house was linked to the difficulties the police encountered when sending him for identification. As far as the sources go, there's no suggestion that the witness was uncertain in any way, he just didn't want to be responsible for a man being hanged - he presumably didn't know that Kosminski was insane and therefore wouldn't have been executed.

What’s interesting is that if Don was right and the police would have had no difficulty in taking a suspect for identification in a case as important as this one, then we’d have to explain why the marginalia says the police encountered difficulties. Trevor, by arguing that the police had the follow rules and guidelines, inadvertently answers that question. The difficulties were caused by the police efforts to circumvent those rules and guidelines. That they were circumventing something is supported by the statement that the suspect was ‘sent’ rather than ‘taken’ and by the extraordinary return of the suspect to his brother’s house following the identification.

Rather than accept that the police were surreptitiously evading the rules and guidelines, Trevor chooses to claim that the source is wrong and cannot be relied on. But the source makes perfect sense once we understand what it is telling us. And the marginalia are personal, hand-written notes in the margins and on the endpapers of a book. The notes were intended for nobody’s eyes but Swanson’s. Why would Swanson write lies in marginal notes that he had no reason to believe anybody else would see or, indeed, be remotely interested in? Trevor supplies no rational explanation for this.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The met police supposedly organized the Id parade, Kosminski lived in Met territory yet out of the blue he is then supposedly watched by City police out of their jurisdiction, which Major Smith seems to have not known about



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Robert Sagar from City Police said that they watched a man carefully who was without doubt the murderer and placed in a lunatic asylum. This may or may not have been Kosminski. Henry Smith praises Sagar in writing [forget which one],and yet Smith makes no mention of this suspect either.
If Lawende was the witness it makes sense why the City police watched him. There was a connection to the Eddowes murder, their murder on their patch.
Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

I said, 'The 'great difficulty' could suggest that the police were circumventing any rules and guidelines that may have existed. The suspect being 'sent' rather than 'taken' also suggests that this was off the record. As does the suspect being returned to his brother's house.'

Let me rephrase the above, you insist the the police would have had to have followed unspecified rules and guidelines, yet the story as we have it suggests that the police were not following any rules and guidelines. You argue that the police wouldn't have done this or done that because it wasn't procedure, yet the source tells you that that's exactly what the police did do.

You write, 'Why would they bring the suspect back from this positive Id and send him home...' They did it because they had circumvented the rules and guidelines that existed and had no alternative but to let him return home, presumably in the care of whoever took him to the identification in the first place. They also had a witness who was adamantly refusing to testify, so they probably needed time to persuade him to change his mind rather than be a hostile witness.

The marginalia is not unsafe to rely on. You want it to be unsafe, maybe need it to be unsafe, because that's the only way you have of discounting what it says. It isn't the marginalia that's unsafe, it's your insistence that the police wouldn't have done what the marginalia says because it would have breached the unspecified rules and guidelines they self-evidently weren't following.

In my book I set out in great detail why I believe it to be unsafe. You have to look at the bigger picture and the connecting evidence use to support I only then will it become apparent that it is unsafe but probably not all penned byDonald Swanson.
arguing about parts of it separately in posts is not helping researchers who are u iasde or have their own agenda

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

...is not helping researchers who are u iasde

"who are biased", presumably?