A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Identification by a witness was not always a straightforward procedure, we can see this in the case of Isenschmid. In the early hours of 12 Sept Isenschmid was arrested and taken to Holloway Police Station. Judged insane, he was sent to the Islington Workhouse and from thence, the same day, to Grove Hall Lunatic Asylum, Fairfield Road, Bow. Dr Mickle, resident medical officer at Grove Hall, was so concerned about his patients health that he declined to permit the witnesses to confront him.
And by the 18 Sept Mrs Fiddymont had still not been able to view him to see if Isenschmid was the man she saw in her public house on the morning of Annie's murder. The police at the time took stock in her as a witness because we know that she tried to ID Pizer and I believe Pigot. So what do the police say? In a letter date
We do not even know if an ID ever took place? But to me it seems the police were having great difficulty in trying to procure one on a suspect who was deemed insane... Sound familiar?
Regards Darryl

It does sound familiar.

Now take a look at Swanson's marginalia:


...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...


If a reluctant witness already knew the suspect was Jewish, he would not have identified him and would not even have gone to the police in the first place.

If he did not know he was Jewish, he would not have learned that he was until after the suspect was charged - possibly not until the trial.

Anderson and Swanson's assertion that the suspect was not charged because of a witness learning of his religion is hardly possible.



And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...


Since Kosminski was seen walking a dog in the City of London in December 1889, the identification could not have taken place until more than a year after what Scotland Yard considered to be the last murder in the series.

Swanson's claim that the alleged identification of Kosminski coincided with, or could explain, the cessation of the murders is obviously unfounded.



after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification,


If the police had so much difficulty in being able to arrange the identification of Isenschmid, then what are the chances that they could have sent Kosminski to a seaside resort?

Why would the Whitechapel Murderer - a murderous psychopath - allow himself to be transported from London to the coast when he was not even under arrest and perfectly within his rights to refuse to cooperate?

Why would anyone have authorised the transportation of a London-based suspect to the coast to be identified by a London-based witness?

Swanson's claim is unbelievable.



and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel


And this is where it becomes clear that Swanson is muddled.

Kosminski returned to his brother's or brother-in-law's house after spending three days in a workhouse, not following a trip to the seaside.

It is hardly possible that, having been identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, Kosminski would have been allowed to go home.

He would have been arrested - something which, curiously, neither Anderson nor Swanson ever claimed ever happened to the suspect.



he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night.


Either Swanson is referring to a time prior to 1890, in which case he is describing someone who cannot be Kosminski, or he is referring to a time so long after the murders that there would have been no point in watching Kosminski day and night.



In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse


There is no evidence that Kosminski had to be placed under any kind of physical restraint in some three decades of asylum records.

He was described therein as not dangerous and as harmless.

Such a person does not need to be placed under restraint and, consequently, Swanson cannot be telling the truth.



and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS


And these last remarks are so obviously wrong that it is a wonder that Swanson is still taken seriously.

Swanson is unaware that Kosminski was released from the workhouse after just three days and thinks that instead he died soon after being sent to an asylum.

From beginning to end, Swanson's marginalia and further remarks are completely unbelievable.

[Abby Normal]

I hate to rain on your parade but we do have a German sailor suspect !!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

if you cant even place him in the country, let alone London, a suspect you do not have. not even a person of interest.

[JeffHamm]

I hate to rain on your parade but we do have a German sailor suspect !!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Don't you mean "person of interest"?

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

lol. this from someone who thinks its a fact the ripper was a nordic sailor. good lord you have issues. no wonder you cant post with someone for five minutes without getting into a fight. i was giving you a second chance after you returned from your ban, but as i suspected, that was a mistake.

one i wont be making again.

I hate to rain on your parade but we do have a German sailor suspect !!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

lol. this from someone who thinks its a fact the ripper was a nordic sailor. good lord you have issues. no wonder you cant post with someone for five minutes without getting into a fight. i was giving you a second chance after you returned from your ban, but as i suspected, that was i mistake.

one i wont be making again.

You were the one who started a fight when you wrote:

you need to study up more on the case, if you cant (sic) even get basic facts straight, let alone analize (sic) it intelligently,


Any reader can read through our previous exchanges and see that I wrote nothing to you that was offensive in the slightest.

You then called me a dude and made comments about my intelligence.

I then defended myself and you say that I started a fight.

If you don't like fights, I suggest you don't start them.

[Abby Normal]

there is no doubt that an ID took place, that it was koz, the witness lawende and it took place at some kind of sea/sailors home.


I would like to know why Elamarna has not pointed out that your statement is NOT A FACT, but merely your opinion.

There is considerable doubt as to whether an identification took place.

Perhaps you would explain why you, 130 years after the events, can state that there is no doubt, whereas Abberline, Reid, Smith, Macnaghten and Warren knew nothing about it!

Perhaps you would also be so good as to identify the policemen who accompanied Kosminski to the seaside, and the policemen who were present at the alleged identification, and also explain their total silence when Anderson was practically accused of making the story up in 1910.

Since you say that there is no doubt that Lawende identified Kosminski, perhaps you would be so good as to explain:

(1) why there is no record anywhere of Kosminski having had fair hair, which would have been a remarkable physical characteristic - evidentially - in light of the fact that his brothers had very dark hair and his sister had dark hair too

(2) why there is no record anywhere of Kosminski having had the appearance of a sailor, which would have been remarkable, seeing as photographs of his relatives show people who did not have the appearance of sailors, nor any record of a pepper-and-salt coloured jacket being found by police among his possessions

(3) how Lawende could have identified a man who by the time of the alleged identification ate from the gutter, and was on his way to a state of emaciation, as someone of medium build

(4) how Lawende, who was a City of London Police witness, could have been used in an identification procedure without Major Henry Smith, who was head of City Police and had interviewed him, being aware of the fact


As for your connection of Kosminski with sailors, I quote from your # 137 in Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”:


Hi PI

"nordic sailor" ?? where do you get that from?

PI I think alot of the problems your running into here is that you are continually stating things as facts , when they are anything but.

Surely you see that?


But it's okay for you to state as fact that Lawende identified Kosminski at some kind of sea/sailors home.

Somehow, you are not running into problems.

I suppose you have some kind of exemption from the standard set for me - especially when it comes to making connections between certain persons and sailors, and declaring to be a fact an event for which not one single witness has ever been found.

And by the way, having just written to me:

you need to study up more on the case, if you cant (sic) even get basic facts straight, let alone analize (sic) it intelligently,

(your # 126 in JonBenet Ramsey Update)


perhaps it is time you took your own advice.

lol. this from someone who thinks its a fact the ripper was a nordic sailor. good lord you have issues. no wonder you cant post with someone for five minutes without getting into a fight. i was giving you a second chance after you returned from your ban, but as i suspected, that was a mistake.

one i wont be making again.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

there is no doubt that an ID took place, that it was koz, the witness lawende and it took place at some kind of sea/sailors home. If Darryl is correct, and its as good an explanation as any, my question would be why at sailors home? what connection would lawende the police or koz have to this place?

there is no doubt that an ID took place, that it was koz, the witness lawende and it took place at some kind of sea/sailors home.


I would like to know why Elamarna has not pointed out that your statement is NOT A FACT, but merely your opinion.

There is considerable doubt as to whether an identification took place.

Perhaps you would explain why you, 130 years after the events, can state that there is no doubt, whereas Abberline, Reid, Smith, Macnaghten and Warren knew nothing about it!

Perhaps you would also be so good as to identify the policemen who accompanied Kosminski to the seaside, and the policemen who were present at the alleged identification, and also explain their total silence when Anderson was practically accused of making the story up in 1910.

Since you say that there is no doubt that Lawende identified Kosminski, perhaps you would be so good as to explain:

(1) why there is no record anywhere of Kosminski having had fair hair, which would have been a remarkable physical characteristic - evidentially - in light of the fact that his brothers had very dark hair and his sister had dark hair too

(2) why there is no record anywhere of Kosminski having had the appearance of a sailor, which would have been remarkable, seeing as photographs of his relatives show people who did not have the appearance of sailors, nor any record of a pepper-and-salt coloured jacket being found by police among his possessions

(3) how Lawende could have identified a man who by the time of the alleged identification ate from the gutter, and was on his way to a state of emaciation, as someone of medium build

(4) how Lawende, who was a City of London Police witness, could have been used in an identification procedure without Major Henry Smith, who was head of City Police and had interviewed him, being aware of the fact


As for your connection of Kosminski with sailors, I quote from your # 137 in Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”:


Hi PI

"nordic sailor" ?? where do you get that from?

PI I think alot of the problems your running into here is that you are continually stating things as facts , when they are anything but.

Surely you see that?


But it's okay for you to state as fact that Lawende identified Kosminski at some kind of sea/sailors home.

Somehow, you are not running into problems.

I suppose you have some kind of exemption from the standard set for me - especially when it comes to making connections between certain persons and sailors, and declaring to be a fact an event for which not one single witness has ever been found.

And by the way, having just written to me:

you need to study up more on the case, if you cant (sic) even get basic facts straight, let alone analize (sic) it intelligently,

(your # 126 in JonBenet Ramsey Update)


perhaps it is time you took your own advice.

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

Just wanted to tell you that I watched a YouTube video entitled "Jack the Ripper: A Crime Documentary" in which you were prominently featured. Very nice job on your part.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Oooo, that's an interesting take on it, and not one I recall seeing before.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

So Julius Lipmann existed then. I'll look for him harder. Thanks, Simon.

IIRC Paul and Simon, his given name was Barnet Lipman. Going off memory from a post from the past (I'll see if I can find it), he may have been a cousin to another Barnet Lipman who was mentioned in a Kate Marshal trial as being a lodging house manager in Dorset Street.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

In July 1897, at 22 Mulberry Street, John Pizer died, aged 47, from gastroenteritis. He was buried at the Plashet Jewish Cemetery, Manor Park, London.

Three years later, on October 17th 1900, a curious story appeared in the Daily Express and many local and overseas newspapers—

“Not Jack the Ripper.

“A man named Julius Lipman has just died in the East End of drink, neglect and starvation. He was a cobbler by trade, and was known as ‘Leather Apron.’ He fell under the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, and although he completely proved his innocence the stigma never quite left him, and his business dwindled away.

“Lipman was peculiarly unfortunate in the matter. ‘Leather Apron’ as a possible Jack the Ripper was invented by an imaginative journalist on a sensational paper. He did not suspect for a moment that there was a real man in the district known by that name.”

Julius Lipman was as real as the Maybrick Diary and the Swanson marginalia.

Regards,

Simon

So Julius Lipmann existed then. I'll look for him harder. Thanks, Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

In July 1897, at 22 Mulberry Street, John Pizer died, aged 47, from gastroenteritis. He was buried at the Plashet Jewish Cemetery, Manor Park, London.

Three years later, on October 17th 1900, a curious story appeared in the Daily Express and many local and overseas newspapers—

“Not Jack the Ripper.

“A man named Julius Lipman has just died in the East End of drink, neglect and starvation. He was a cobbler by trade, and was known as ‘Leather Apron.’ He fell under the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, and although he completely proved his innocence the stigma never quite left him, and his business dwindled away.

“Lipman was peculiarly unfortunate in the matter. ‘Leather Apron’ as a possible Jack the Ripper was invented by an imaginative journalist on a sensational paper. He did not suspect for a moment that there was a real man in the district known by that name.”

Julius Lipman was as real as the Maybrick Diary and the Swanson marginalia.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi, The Baron,

Some say Leather Apron was a man named Julius Lipman, who died of drink in October 1900.

The Donner version gets an airing in this particularly contentious 2010 exchange—

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/police-officials-and-procedures/macnaghten-sir-melville/5413-the-missing-memorandum

As Lance Corporal Jones used to say, "They don't like it up 'em."

Regards,

Simon

Was Julius Lipman real, Simon?

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you for such a long post. However, the fact remains that you have determinedly dismissed all the seminal documents from the Macnaghten memoranda through the Swanson marginalia to the Littlechild letter.

As the recent exchange has very clearly demonstrated, you also don't read what the sources tells you, are prone to assuming it says things it doesn't, such as there having been an identity parade, and reaching conclusions that have little substance, even to the point of taking a silly misreading of an interview with Adam Wood and suggesting that if the content of his forthcoming book is to be believed, the marginalia can be discarded - all before you have the remotest idea whether the interview with Adam accurately reported him (which it didn't, it was a bit garbled).

[Darryl Kenyon]

Identification by a witness was not always a straightforward procedure, we can see this in the case of Isenschmid. In the early hours of 12 Sept Isenschmid was arrested and taken to Holloway Police Station. Judged insane, he was sent to the Islington Workhouse and from thence, the same day, to Grove Hall Lunatic Asylum, Fairfield Road, Bow. Dr Mickle, resident medical officer at Grove Hall, was so concerned about his patient’s health that he declined to permit the witnesses to confront him.
And by the 18 Sept Mrs Fiddymont had still not been able to view him to see if Isenschmid was the man she saw in her public house on the morning of Annie's murder. The police at the time took stock in her as a witness because we know that she tried to ID Pizer and I believe Pigot. So what do the police say? In a letter dated the 18 Sept Abberline says that Dr Mickle had been consulted but the Dr is of the opinion that cannot be done at present with a view to the safety of his patient. Abberline also says that Isenschmid had been wandering about for several weeks, and he had taken two butchers knives with him. He had previously been in an asylum and is said to be at times very violent [Ult Sourcebook P65].
He seems to me to be the type of person they would want to try and ID straight away, yet six days, at least after he had been arrested this still had not been done, and not just by Mrs Fiddymont.
We do not even know if an ID ever took place? But to me it seems the police were having great difficulty in trying to procure one on a suspect who was deemed insane. Sound familiar?
Regards Darryl