A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Scott Nelson]

The Thames Magistrates Court record for December 7, 1888 (found by Keith Skinner?, not photocopied but partially transcribed in hand-written notes?) established his name as Aaron Davis Cohen. I think the "s" in Davis should actually be a "d".

He is recorded in both the Whitechapel Workhouse and Colney Hatch admission registers as "David Cohen." In fact, the same scant information about Cohen is repeated for both institutions, except for specific case notes.

Interestingly, his death certificate, released in January 1890, repeats the same general information - same age (23), mistaken (?) address 86 Leman Street, and no relations. Sounds like there were no informants that came forward to offer any additional information.

[PaulB]

Either way, 'David' or 'Davis', it's the 'Aaron' that suggests rather more was known about him than Martin thought. I listened to an interview with Martin from the 1990s today. He was so enthusiastic. Where did the time go?

[PaulB]

I don’t know why any of us maintain an interest in the subject Paul. Or even try to discover things or make suggestions. Has anyone connected to this case, especially if they’re in authority, ever told the truth? Trevor is becoming the David Icke Of ripperology.

Well, where were we before the nonsense about Adam's book so rudely interrupted us. Yes, Trevor was having to accept that the sources didn't say anything about the identification being an identity parade, and therefore acknowledge that if it was a confrontation then no rules and regulations need have applied.

[Trevor Marriott]

For the final time the sources you and Paul Begg hold in such high esteem are unsafe to rely on they all conflict with each other
the marginalia is also unsafe to rely on it cannot be conclusively proven that Donald SWANSON was the author of its entirety
and if what we read from the latest revelation is true we should now completely disregard Aaron Kosminski

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[packers stem]

Sorry Phil,

We obviously read the article in entirely different ways.
My take is that he mentions Cohen, Adam has explained why on FB, but you may not be in those groups I understand.
Having mentioned Cohen to me he goes on to say very clearly that Swanson got the name correct, it was therefore not Cohen.
We will disagree on this, and it's not because it's Kosminski either.

My main issue here is people attempting to review without reading the actual work, I have had that myself, and I am afraid such can never be full and fair, I see it as wrong, but that's just me.

If it were based on the abridged version Adam's released I would be fine with it, but it's not

Anyway all the best, we still have sun here in Glasgow(just) so going outside to soak it up.


Steve

Steve ,with all due respect mate we are bound to take an interest in a newspaper article regarding a long awaited book release .
it just wasn't something any of us expected.
It comes across as his theory, he mentions Martin Fido nowhere in the piece.
If a book was awaited and the press release talked of a brand new theory involving a prince, a baby, a royal doctor and carriages would we not be discussing it and saying it sounds very much like Knight?
For your chosen scenario to become reality maybe authors would be better to wait until immediately before the release before any press release .
We're not discussing the book ,we haven't seen it ,we're discussing a newspaper article and what it indicated.

[JeffHamm]

As far as ID is concerned in todays modern world a witness has to make a positive ID, if he says "I think its him" it is not regarded as a positive ID.

This could not have happened in the way described by Swanson and Anderson, physically or legally.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True, and probably wouldn't have been considered a positive ID in 1888 either (but maybe the criterion was different then? that's beyond my ken for sure). Anyway, with the time delay between the event (if real) and when it was recorded in the marginalia is so long that the description of it being a "positive ID" could very well arise from it originally being tentative at best. Memory changes over time, and if that was as close as they ever got, then that tentative ID event could easily turn into a memory of a much more definitive identification.

And, just to be clear, also given how memory works, it could very well be that this whole identification of a suspect was actually an event from an entirely different crime and had nothing to do with the JtR murders at all! Rather, over time, it's been "mis-filed and rewritten", so to speak, and has ended up tangled in memory as part of the JtR crimes.

If there was someone researching this particular identification event, I would highly encourage them to cast their net far and wide, and look for any identification scenario from any and all violent crimes over a fairly wide time window. It could very well be that the "real event" was for something else and at another time.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

This is my thinking, Jeff. I don't believe the witness literally refused to testify because the suspect was a fellow jew. That might have been the case for all we know, but the conclusion itself was conjecture on Anderson & Swanson's part.

Yes, that's a much more succinct summary than mine! It sort of feels like a prejudice being imposed on the disappointment of not getting a solid identification. And I rather suspect the original identification was as positive as it is made out to be. (Again, I'm going with the assumption there was an identification take place, but if there was, it can't possibly be described correctly as we have - which means working out the facts from the errors of memory is a necessary step but without any contemporary documentation of this identification available to us, we're left, as always, to conjecture).

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Steve ,with all due respect mate we are bound to take an interest in a newspaper article regarding a long awaited book release .
it just wasn't something any of us expected.
It comes across as his theory, he mentions Martin Fido nowhere in the piece.
If a book was awaited and the press release talked of a brand new theory involving a prince, a baby, a royal doctor and carriages would we not be discussing it and saying it sounds very much like Knight?
For your chosen scenario to become reality maybe authors would be better to wait until immediately before the release before any press release .
We're not discussing the book ,we haven't seen it ,we're discussing a newspaper article and what it indicated.

My point is that it is becoming increasing common to attempt to review work, based on the scantist of evidence. the book is not even published.
In this case, it seems clear that what many seem to think Adam says, he actually doesn't.

He makes it very clear that he believes Swanson had the correct name, that name is not Cohen.

That is my reading of it, and I am prepared to wait for the actual book. Before passing informed comment.



Steve

[PaulB]

For the final time the sources you and Paul Begg hold in such high esteem are unsafe to rely on they all conflict with each other
the marginalia is also unsafe to rely on it cannot be conclusively proven that Donald SWANSON was the author of its entirety
and if what we read from the latest revelation is true we should now completely disregard Aaron Kosminski

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor Marriott has made it his job to cast doubt on pretty nearly all our sources, from newspapers through the Macnaghten Memorandum to the Swanson marginalia and the Littlechild letter, and it should be clear to everyone that Doubting Trevor has a personal agenda in play. He has been shown unable to support his sweeping comments time and again, although he stoically deludes himself otherwise, and even his post above is wrong in every respect.

What is especially sad about the above is that Trevor will describe a gross misreading of a newspaper interview with Adam as a 'revelation' and suggest that if it is true then we should disregard Aaron Kosminski. The fact is that Adam revealed nothing new and did NOT say he thought Cohen was Swanson's suspect. But it's a measure of Doubting Trevor that he will grab anything, absolutely anything, to support his nonsense.

[harry]

Rules and regulations would apply surely,at the beginning.How did Kosminski become involved.He was taken from where? It is an incident that appears to have no beginning.How did Kosminski come to be in police custody? Had he been arrested?What suspicion did the police harbour against him that required further testing?what is the difficulty that appears to be an element in getting Kosminski to the home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott has made it his job to cast doubt on pretty nearly all our sources, from newspapers through the Macnaghten Memorandum to the Swanson marginalia and the Littlechild letter, and it should be clear to everyone that Doubting Trevor has a personal agenda in play. He has been shown unable to support his sweeping comments time and again, although he stoically deludes himself otherwise, and even his post above is wrong in every respect.

What is especially sad about the above is that Trevor will describe a gross misreading of a newspaper interview with Adam as a 'revelation' and suggest that if it is true then we should disregard Aaron Kosminski. The fact is that Adam revealed nothing new and did NOT say he thought Cohen was Swanson's suspect. But it's a measure of Doubting Trevor that he will grab anything, absolutely anything, to support his nonsense.

I have not made it specifically my job to do anything other than to independently assess and evaluate all the facts and evidence which have supported all the previous accepted facts surrounding everything connected to these murders. I have used all my previous and current police expertise in conducting unbiased reviews of all the so called evidence people have sought to rely on and have documented my findings.

Clearly some of my findings do not sit well with the likes of you and others who clearly have your own agendas for continuing to support the old accepted theories, and who it will seem to go to great lengths to reject them and great lengths to try to persuade others to also reject them, and in your case all that can be seen in your posts where you reply to one of mine, are pathetic attempts at precisely that.

Time and time again in your posts you keep referring to the fact that I wont answer question or there is nothing to support what I postulate you are totally wrong in both cases. Might I suggest you desist from keep trying to persuade others that my research and findings are not to be relied on, and let people make up their own minds based on what they are able to asses and evaluate from what they read. You are certainly doing yourself no favors by the way you have been conducting yourself of late on here and so for the final time on this topic.

Why dont you tell people your hidden agenda on this topic you were heavily involved in this marginalia

They do say if you can destroy the man, then try to destroy his work and my work is far from the nonsense you suggest.

The Marginalia is unsafe to rely on it cannot be conclusively proven that Donald Swanson authored all of it
The facts contained in the marginalia cannot be proved
The sources you seek to rely on cannot be relied on, because they conflict with each other, and in the case of MM he makes no mention of such an ID parade.
The content of the marginalia is also unsafe to rely on there is no evidence to show such a parade ever took place
No evidence to show Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminksi mentioned in both the MM and the marginalia
The City police do not corroborate what is stated in the marginalia
If what is contained in Adam Woods new book is to be believed then that also shows that the marginlai and its contents are not just unsafe but should be disregarded totally.

You yourself in 1988 were instrumental in a handwriting examination of the marginalia by an expert Dr Totty which it seems the results were never published, perhaps you might want to publish them now. In any event photo copies of Swanson handwriting were submitted which makes if difficult for a handrwiting expert to give a definitive opinion.

Then in 2006 by Dr. Davies from The Forensic Science Service who was asked by the Metropolitan Police to examine it after Anderson’s book containing the annotations was donated by Nevill Swanson the current owner to the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard. His examination was also inconclusive, and in fact having dealt with handwriting experts I identified flaws in the examination and attempted to contact Dr Davies to clear up these flaws, but it seems he was advised not to answer any questions, now I wonder who didn't want to many holes kicked in his report?

For those reading this who want to read my full review of the examination of the marginalia, and my conclusions they can be found in "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1535752176&sr=8-2

and with that I have at this time nothing more to add to this topic all that need to be say has been said

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aelric]

I would give your words more credence if they didn't end with "buy my book!"

[Lipsky]

I would give your words more credence if they didn't end with "buy my book!"

This case has more books than named suspects --- and that was quite a feat if you consider all the name-calling!

[Joshua Rogan]

True, and probably wouldn't have been considered a positive ID in 1888 either (but maybe the criterion was different then? that's beyond my ken for sure). Anyway, with the time delay between the event (if real) and when it was recorded in the marginalia is so long that the description of it being a "positive ID" could very well arise from it originally being tentative at best. Memory changes over time, and if that was as close as they ever got, then that tentative ID event could easily turn into a memory of a much more definitive identification.

And, just to be clear, also given how memory works, it could very well be that this whole identification of a suspect was actually an event from an entirely different crime and had nothing to do with the JtR murders at all! Rather, over time, it's been "mis-filed and rewritten", so to speak, and has ended up tangled in memory as part of the JtR crimes.

If there was someone researching this particular identification event, I would highly encourage them to cast their net far and wide, and look for any identification scenario from any and all violent crimes over a fairly wide time window. It could very well be that the "real event" was for something else and at another time.

- Jeff

There are definitely similarities in both Anderson's and Swanson's accounts which match the arrest of Piser and subsequent identification by Violena.
Some differences too, mind. But enough similarities to point to a possible misremembering of Piser's arrest, and/or conflation with other events/suspects.

Anderson: "the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews"

Daily News 11 Sept
"The arrests which were considered to be of most importance were those of a Polish Jew, named Piser..."

Anderson: "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Daily Telegraph 12 Sept;
"the witness unhesitatingly pointed to John Piser as he stood among a score of other men"

Anderson: "his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice"

Daily News 12 Sept:
"Piser's friends and relatives are not seriously alarmed at the alleged identification, for they are confident they will be able to prove an alibi without difficulty."

Daily Telegraph 12 Sept: "Both women above-mentioned [step-mother and sister-in-law] are positive that Piser came home at half-past ten on Thursday night, and had not left the house since"

Swanson: "on suspect's return to his brother's house..."

Echo 12 Sept: "He immediately returned to the house of his brother, Samuel* Piser, at 22, Mulberry-street, Commercial-road, where he had been in the habit of residing."

* or Gabriel, reports differ.

[The Baron]

There are definitely similarities in both Anderson's and Swanson's accounts which match the arrest of Piser and subsequent identification by Violena.
Some differences too, mind. But enough similarities to point to a possible misremembering of Piser's arrest, and/or conflation with other events/suspects.

Anderson: "the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews"

Daily News 11 Sept
"The arrests which were considered to be of most importance were those of a Polish Jew, named Piser..."

Anderson: "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"

Daily Telegraph 12 Sept;
"the witness unhesitatingly pointed to John Piser as he stood among a score of other men"

Anderson: "his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice"

Daily News 12 Sept:
"Piser's friends and relatives are not seriously alarmed at the alleged identification, for they are confident they will be able to prove an alibi without difficulty."

Daily Telegraph 12 Sept: "Both women above-mentioned [step-mother and sister-in-law] are positive that Piser came home at half-past ten on Thursday night, and had not left the house since"

Swanson: "on suspect's return to his brother's house..."

Echo 12 Sept: "He immediately returned to the house of his brother, Samuel* Piser, at 22, Mulberry-street, Commercial-road, where he had been in the habit of residing."

* or Gabriel, reports differ.

In one of the MM versions that is lost today, Macnaghten mentioned "a Polish cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron."

But why then both of those senior officers named him Kosminski?!



The Baron