A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Lots of perhaps’s of course but this is because we can’t know for certain. Perhaps not doing it by the book was the only option available to them? Perhaps because Kosminski was extremely disturbed they felt confident that they could trick him into being ID’d without any repercussions? Perhaps they were so desperate that even an “ ‘well it certainly looks like him” would have been worth it?”

Why do you keep asking everyone to stay within reason but you keep implying conspiracies? The Marginalia is unsafe. The MM is unsafe. Anderson saying a suspect was id’d is unsafe.

The Id is not corrborated, and further more MM makes no mention of such a positive ID ever taking place when he talks about Kosminski, and he should have known because he was Swansons immediate boss. So are you and others going to say that this Id parade was solely orchestrated by Swanson with Anderson going along to drive the bus, and after such a positive outcome, no one else ever knew about it. Not even Major Smith who would have been kept in the picture to authorize City officers to watch the suspect house as has been described. Not even anyone from the asylum. nothing mentioned in his asylum notes.

It did not happen in the way described. No evidence to prove Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned, even Martin Fido who discovered Aaron cannot be certain that they are one and the same.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

You're just dragging in anything and everything you can find to divert attention from the question - the police did not always act within the rules and guidelines, the marginalia describes an unconventional event, so why do you insist that the police followed some unspecified procedure and conclude that the event described by the marginalia did not take place?

Martin Fido had no doubt that Aaron Kosminski was the suspect Kosminski, but he believed that he was confused with Aaron Davis Cohen.

[Harry D]

You're just dragging in anything and everything you can find to divert attention from the question - the police did not always act within the rules and guidelines, the marginalia describes an unconventional event, so why do you insist that the police followed some unspecified procedure and conclude that the event described by the marginalia did not take place?

Martin Fido had no doubt that Aaron Kosminski was the suspect Kosminski, but he believed that he was confused with Aaron Davis Cohen.

Would MM mention the identification if it wasn't exactly on the up and up?

[Monty]

We know that not all policemen were or are by the book. We know that corruption has been rife in the police force almost from its creation, sometimes notoriously so. Trevor isn't as naive as he appears. His stance is simply avoidance.

Rife?

It exists, however there are plenty ore honest Bobbies than bent ones. Just that the good work is often ignored.

However, sometimes the bending of protocols are a necessity in order to progress an investigation. Sometime rules and regs hinder.

Like going into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind your back.

Monty

[PaulB]

Would MM mention the identification if it wasn't exactly on the up and up?

Harry,
I don't know. The trouble with all this is that we simply don't have the story, just some basic details. If we knew the story, we might be able to answer that sort of question. Prima facie it looks like the identification was restricted to a very small number of people, so Macnaghten may not have known about it or not appreciated how seriously Anderson took it. Equally, of course, he was party to the ID, but didn't mention it in a report that might be read by people who they thought were best kept in ignorance.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rife?

It exists, however there are plenty ore honest Bobbies than bent ones. Just that the good work is often ignored.

However, sometimes the bending of protocols are a necessity in order to progress an investigation. Sometime rules and regs hinder.

Like going into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind your back.

Monty

But in this case there is no evidence to suggest anything improper happened in fact there is very little to even support it happened

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Would MM mention the identification if it wasn't exactly on the up and up?

If it was on the up and up why would anyone mention it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Equally, of course, he was party to the ID, but didn't mention it in a report that might be read by people who they thought were best kept in ignorance.

Indeed. And since MM was a Druitt man, he obviously didn't put much stock in the alleged identification. Therefore there was no need to mention it in the memorandum.

[PaulB]

Rife?

It exists, however there are plenty ore honest Bobbies than bent ones. Just that the good work is often ignored.

However, sometimes the bending of protocols are a necessity in order to progress an investigation. Sometime rules and regs hinder.

Like going into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind your back.

Monty

'Rife' - I wouldn't ever minimise the excellent work done by the police, Neil, but the police are never far away from corruption scandals. Remember Sir Robert Mark's valient efforts to clear up the Yard in the 1970s? There were times when half the Flying Squad was in the pay of criminals and the Obscene Publications Squad were basically criminals themselves. West End Central was notorious in the 1980s. The Krays and the Richardsons apparently had policemen in their pay, and before them Comer and Spot, and before them the likes of Sabini and the Messinas. Dick Kirby singles Bert Wickstead out because he was an honest cop! Kirby isn't too flattering about the police in his books. In 2014 there were 3,000 allegations of police corruption, half of which were improperly investigated.

But amid this gloom, your point needs to be emphasised because the majority of policemen are honest and brave and have skills I don't and do a job I couldn't do and wouldn't want to do, and I'm gratefull that we have a police force. But you can't always fight those in the gutter without getting into the gutter yourself, and the police do break the rules from time to time. I seem to recall Anderson once admitting that the police broke the law when necessary, almost certainly only meaning that minor rules were broken, but I can't find the reference now.

[PaulB]

Indeed. And since MM was a Druitt man, he obviously didn't put much stock in the alleged identification. Therefore there was no need to mention it in the memorandum.

As I said, we don't know the story so it's impossible to draw conclusions. The thing is, in a heirarchical organisation like the police it might not have been politically wise to have written a report in which one relegated one's boss's chief suspect in favour of one of one's own and omitted to mention the piece of evidence crucial to one's boss's theory. But that's what Macnaghten did. And from that we COULD deduce that Macnaghten didn't know about the identification or that Anderson favoured Kosminski. Of course, Macnaghten could have known about the identification and embraced it in 'the many circs' that he says made Kosminski a good suspect. This possibility MIGHT suggest that he didn't know much about the identification or how much weight Anderson attached to it. These are just two scenarios predicated on the assumption that in 1894 Kosminski was Anderson's favoured candidate and that Macnaghten would have had more tact than to relegate him in favour of Druitt. Lots of other scenarios are possible.

[PaulB]

If it was on the up and up why would anyone mention it ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you written what you meant to write?

If it was on the up and up then one could mention it, but if it wasn't on the up and up then one might choose not to air it.

Any chance of answering, you know, those questions?

[Trevor Marriott]

'Rife' - I wouldn't ever minimise the excellent work done by the police, Neil, but the police are never far away from corruption scandals. Remember Sir Robert Mark's valient efforts to clear up the Yard in the 1970s? There were times when half the Flying Squad was in the pay of criminals and the Obscene Publications Squad were basically criminals themselves. West End Central was notorious in the 1980s. The Krays and the Richardsons apparently had policemen in their pay, and before them Comer and Spot, and before them the likes of Sabini and the Messinas. Dick Kirby singles Bert Wickstead out because he was an honest cop! Kirby isn't too flattering about the police in his books. In 2014 there were 3,000 allegations of police corruption, half of which were improperly investigated.

But amid this gloom, your point needs to be emphasised because the majority of policemen are honest and brave and have skills I don't and do a job I couldn't do and wouldn't want to do, and I'm gratefull that we have a police force. But you can't always fight those in the gutter without getting into the gutter yourself, and the police do break the rules from time to time. I seem to recall Anderson once admitting that the police broke the law when necessary, almost certainly only meaning that minor rules were broken, but I can't find the reference now.

There is a big difference between bending the rules and totally breaking them in law enforcement. Bending the rules might not jeopardize a prosecution, breaking them would.

Let me again show the guidelines for Id parades as set out in the Victorian police codes of practice

1. It is of the utmost importance that the identification of a person who may be charged with a criminal offence should be conducted in the fairest possible manner.
If a direct confrontation had taken place would that be described as fair- no it wouldnt

2. With this end in view the following procedure should be observed :

(a)	The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court. So at least one other officer would be needed to take charge of the parade usullay an Inspector
(b)	The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
(c)	The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present. No evidence from anyone else confirming this took place
(d)	The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
(e)	Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie. A written record of the events that took place at the parade should have been made and filed, nothing on file anywhere
(f)	Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it. Again nothing in writing to show any comments if any were made by the suspect after being identified

Each case has to be judged on its merits both from a police perspective, and from those who now research historical cases such as this. You cannot say that because the police were corrupt, or broke the rules in one case it automatically applies to another. In this case using that as a yardstick just shows the desperation in wanting to believe this Id parade happened in the way described, and thus supporting Aaron Kosminki as a suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed. And since MM was a Druitt man, he obviously didn't put much stock in the alleged identification. Therefore there was no need to mention it in the memorandum.

But if Anderson is to be believed he did, and he was superior to both MM and Swanson !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

As I said, we don't know the story so it's impossible to draw conclusions. The thing is, in a heirarchical organisation like the police it might not have been politically wise to have written a report in which one relegated one's boss's chief suspect in favour of one of one's own and omitted to mention the piece of evidence crucial to one's boss's theory. But that's what Macnaghten did. And from that we COULD deduce that Macnaghten didn't know about the identification or that Anderson favoured Kosminski. Of course, Macnaghten could have known about the identification and embraced it in 'the many circs' that he says made Kosminski a good suspect. This possibility MIGHT suggest that he didn't know much about the identification or how much weight Anderson attached to it. These are just two scenarios predicated on the assumption that in 1894 Kosminski was Anderson's favoured candidate and that Macnaghten would have had more tact than to relegate him in favour of Druitt. Lots of other scenarios are possible.

Paul, in your opinion, how likely is it that Macnaughten would not have been aware of the identification, given his position?

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, we don't know the story so it's impossible to draw conclusions. The thing is, in a heirarchical organisation like the police it might not have been politically wise to have written a report in which one relegated one's boss's chief suspect in favour of one of one's own and omitted to mention the piece of evidence crucial to one's boss's theory. But that's what Macnaghten did. And from that we COULD deduce that Macnaghten didn't know about the identification or that Anderson favoured Kosminski. Of course, Macnaghten could have known about the identification and embraced it in 'the many circs' that he says made Kosminski a good suspect. This possibility MIGHT suggest that he didn't know much about the identification or how much weight Anderson attached to it. These are just two scenarios predicated on the assumption that in 1894 Kosminski was Anderson's favoured candidate and that Macnaghten would have had more tact than to relegate him in favour of Druitt. Lots of other scenarios are possible.

Yes lets keep investing scenarios without any evidence to support them as we go along, anything other than to accept that this didn't happen in the way described and that there is no evidence to show Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for these crimes was not the Kosmisnki referred to, and to that end for thos who may not know here are the difference in the antecedent of Aaron Kosminski and the other Kosminski referred to.

Aaron Kosminski - Incarcerated in asylum 1891 died 1919

Magnaghten Memo - He was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. Not Aaron Kosminski then !

Swanson 1895 Pall mall Gazette “The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead.” Not Aaron Kosminski
Aaron Kosminki was very much alive in 1895 and clearly show the police were still looking for the killer at that time

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk