A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

You talk about suspect named kosminski but there is not one piece of evidence anywhere to show that Aaron was that kosminski.

talk about trying to get a square peg in a round hole, why does Aaron’s Christian name not appear in all the kosminski references,A prime suspect with no Christian name that only two police officer in the whole police forces that we’re involved
if you or others believe all of this to be tru you might as well start believing in fairies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With respect to Darryl, I'll just point out that three people are named in the Macnaghten memoranda and two existed, so why is believing that Kosminski also existed akin to believing in fairies?

If one believes that Kosminski existed, there appears to be no alternative but to accept that there was a reason why Macnaghten and Swanson didn't use his forename (he was Jewish. I suspect it might be incorrect to refer to his forename as a 'Christian' name!). We just don't know what that reason was. Does the absence of a forename have any relevance to anything?

It's no good saying there is no evidence that Aaron was the suspect Kosminski. We all know that. But find another 'Kosminski' that fits the criteria. To some extent the fact that no altogether plausible alternative has been found does constitute evidence that Aaron Kosminski was 'Kosminski'.

[Monty]

Your question is rhetorical because we know there were not

As the suspect files are incomplete, the above is opinion not fact.

Monty

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have made a simple point: the marginalia tells a story that you acknowledge does not conform to the rules and guidelines you insist the police would have had to work within. Your response to this is to declare that the marginalia is unreliable, yet the marginalia tells an unusual story (which is probably why Swanson noted it down) but a coherent one containing plenty of clues that the police were not following any rules and guidelines. So, concluding that the marginalia is unreliable because the story it tells does not conform to your unspecified rules and guidelines is wrong. The marginalia's story is perfectly coherent once it is understood that the police were not conforming to any rules and regulations.

I don't think anybody needs to look at any bigger picture or to read your book to understand this. You can simply agree with it, or gives your reasons why you're right. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

It is not being biased to carefully look at what a source tells you and trying to understand what it says. The marginalia self-evidently describes something that was out of the ordinary. You therefore dismiss the marginalia because the story it tells does not conform to your expectation that the police would act according to unspecified rules and guidelines. But not only is there no reason to doubt the story the marginalia tells - it was a personal note by Swanson and something he had no reason to think anyone else would see - it tells a perfectly coherent story of the police evading any rules and guidelines. The only bias here seems to be yours, concluding that the marginalia is unreliable because it does not conform to your expectations.

Your argument doesn't hold water. I've read your book and I don't think anybody needs to read it to see the weakness in your argument. In fact, it seems that to bolster your case you'll try to argue that the marginalia is a fake, despite all the evidence to the contrary, which smacks of bias write large as well as desperation.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

You talk about suspect named kosminski but there is not one piece of evidence anywhere to show that Aaron was that kosminski.

talk about trying to get a square peg in a round hole, why does Aaron’s Christian name not appear in all the kosminski references,A prime suspect with no Christian name that only two police officer in the whole police forces that we’re involved
if you or others believe all of this to be tru you might as well start believing in fairies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

...is not helping researchers who are u iasde

"who are biased", presumably?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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