PDA

View Full Version : Wouldn't Anderson Have Been Informed of Kosminski's Death?


c.d.
11-27-2016, 09:11 AM
I have never really liked the idea that top Scotland Yard officials simply put Jack the Ripper (Kosminski) in an asylum, shook hands all around on a job well done and then went and had a few pints. You would think that there would have been numerous visits to question him in order to hopefully get a confession, determine the number of his victims, whether he had confederates or if there were some political motive to his actions etc. If this were the case, I would expect that some of the asylum staff would have become suspicious and start to suspect that this was no ordinary inmate and then the cat would be out of the bag.

I would also expect that Anderson would have given instructions to asylum officials that he be informed of any significant events with regard to this particular inmate. Surely Kosminski's death would have been reported to him. Now I know that Anderson's memoirs were written some twenty years after the fact but wouldn't you expect him to remember Kosminski's death so soon after his incarceration (if this were in fact the case) along with the accompanying frustration that further information regarding the murders was now now lost to them? It just seems very strange that he got so significant an event wrong if indeed the suspect was truly Aaron Kosminski.

c.d.

Harry D
11-27-2016, 09:58 AM
Then we have Martin Fido's theory that "David Cohen's" real name was Nathan Kaminsky and they mixed it up with Kosminski. Were the police officials really that lax to not even ascertain the name of the most notorious killer in the country?

c.d.
11-27-2016, 10:48 AM
Hello Harry,

I am willing to cut Swanson a little slack on possibly getting the name wrong after all those years more so than Anderson apparently getting his facts wrong if the suspect was actually Kosminski.

c.d.

Pierre
11-27-2016, 11:10 AM
I have never really liked the idea that top Scotland Yard officials simply put Jack the Ripper (Kosminski) in an asylum, shook hands all around on a job well done and then went and had a few pints. You would think that there would have been numerous visits to question him in order to hopefully get a confession, determine the number of his victims, whether he had confederates or if there were some political motive to his actions etc. If this were the case, I would expect that some of the asylum staff would have become suspicious and start to suspect that this was no ordinary inmate and then the cat would be out of the bag.

I would also expect that Anderson would have given instructions to asylum officials that he be informed of any significant events with regard to this particular inmate. Surely Kosminski's death would have been reported to him. Now I know that Anderson's memoirs were written some twenty years after the fact but wouldn't you expect him to remember Kosminski's death so soon after his incarceration (if this were in fact the case) along with the accompanying frustration that further information regarding the murders was now now lost to them? It just seems very strange that he got so significant an event wrong if indeed the suspect was truly Aaron Kosminski.

c.d.

Kosminski was never hypothesized as being Jack the Ripper. Just a "suspect".

Paddy
11-27-2016, 11:27 AM
Sir Robert Anderson died on 15 November 1918 so would never have been told of Kozminskis' death as it was after this date...

Pat.....

Paddy
11-27-2016, 11:51 AM
Once Kozminski was put in Asylum I am sure they would not allow the police to question him. They would not be able to pass information on to the police either because he was deemed insane. Just like when the police wanted to question Isenschmid and the Asylum at Bow refused to allow them.
Pat.....

Mayerling
11-27-2016, 11:53 AM
I have never really liked the idea that top Scotland Yard officials simply put Jack the Ripper (Kosminski) in an asylum, shook hands all around on a job well done and then went and had a few pints. You would think that there would have been numerous visits to question him in order to hopefully get a confession, determine the number of his victims, whether he had confederates or if there were some political motive to his actions etc. If this were the case, I would expect that some of the asylum staff would have become suspicious and start to suspect that this was no ordinary inmate and then the cat would be out of the bag.

I would also expect that Anderson would have given instructions to asylum officials that he be informed of any significant events with regard to this particular inmate. Surely Kosminski's death would have been reported to him. Now I know that Anderson's memoirs were written some twenty years after the fact but wouldn't you expect him to remember Kosminski's death so soon after his incarceration (if this were in fact the case) along with the accompanying frustration that further information regarding the murders was now now lost to them? It just seems very strange that he got so significant an event wrong if indeed the suspect was truly Aaron Kosminski.

c.d.

Two ways (I can think of) about how to look at possible discovery and fallout of the secret.

1) Kosminski was placed into the asylum by his family with some unobtrusive police official looking at it being done (to make sure it was done), and without all of the big shots like Anderson showing up to give the game away.

2) Anderson and the full pressure of the Yard and Home Office being put on the keeper of the asylum (maybe we should call him "Dr. Seward" after the asylum head in "Dracula") to quash any inquiries by his staff into the patient's (call him Kosminski, Kaminski or even "Renfield") background.

Either way such pressure would have probably worked.

Jeff

Paddy
11-27-2016, 11:58 AM
I also think the Jewish board would have had involvement in protecting him. When I say protecting I mean protecting him as an ill man that is suspected but not proven to be Jack. They would consider him very vulnerable I would have thought...
Pat.....

Jonathan H
11-27-2016, 04:07 PM
The theory I proposed in my book, and which I stand by, is that the then Chief Constable Macnaghten deliberately misled Dr Robert Anderson in about the middle of 1895 (in the aftermath of a witness allegedly affirming to William Grant as the Mitre Square suspect) to believe that "Kosminski" was deceased. This inevitably misled Donald Swanson, who is reported as claiming that the likeliest suspect was dead -- and reportedly said so in 1895.

Swanson further confirmed this erroneous belief in his annotations of Anderson's 1910 memoirs. Anderson's son claimed that his father believed that the killer was an "alien" who had died after being sectioned (in fact, Aaron Kosminski outlived Anderson by a year).

Whereas an argument can be mounted, based on the scraps we have, that Macnaghten was well aware that "Kosminski" was alive long after being sectioned.

How could one police chief know that this suspect was alive and the other believe he was long deceased? Part of the reason is that the two chiefs detested each other, so there is office politics and one-upmanship involved (and this rivalry and detestation extended into their competing memoirs too, in which neither directly mentions the other.

Mostly I think Macnaghten was seeking to protect the true identity of the Ripper from his boss -- whom he not only disliked he also did not trust to be discreet, with good reason as it turned out -- and so he handed him one that would appeal to his sexual, class and sectarian prejudices.

What we have is two Scotland Yard chiefs who both believe they have identified the fiend, albeit both solutions could never be tested by due process, and whom both believed were deceased -- but only one suspect was dead and it was not Anderson's.

c.d.
11-27-2016, 05:23 PM
Sir Robert Anderson died on 15 November 1918 so would never have been told of Kozminskis' death as it was after this date...

Pat.....

Yes, poor wording on my part. I should have said been informed of the death of the suspect he mentioned in his book if in fact he died shortly after being committed.


c.d.

Paddy
11-27-2016, 07:02 PM
Apologies from me CD...I should have read it more too......Pat..

TomTomKent
11-28-2016, 12:10 AM
Hello Harry,

I am willing to cut Swanson a little slack on possibly getting the name wrong after all those years more so than Anderson apparently getting his facts wrong if the suspect was actually Kosminski.

c.d.

This seems most likely to me. There was a suspect, in an asylum, whose details were described in the marginalia, but whose name was confused by Swanson with Kosminski. The names (if not other details) could have been confused with Klosowski by Abberline.

If the man Swanson had in mind was Cohen, Levy, or somebody else (sorry I don't remember death dates off the top of my head), I would not begin to speculate.

But I think Swanson had no reason to lie on the Marginalia, he was writing from memory, years after the fact, of the few important details that would stick in his mind. Getting a name muddled, especially muddled with a name that would have cropped up in the deluge of names and false trails, and especially with a name that sounds close to it, is forgivable, given the somewhat fluid nature of human memory.

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 06:01 AM
I don´t think that Kosminski was only a "suspect"!

Swanson: "...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind..."

Mary Berkin (Swanson´s granddaughter): “From what I heard I gathered that Grandfather had been in charge of the case, knew who was the perpetrator but couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements. That someone was a fellow Jew who declined on religious grounds. The 'proof ' was that the crimes ceased when the suspect was sent away from London.”

Anderson: "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" and "I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him."

Swanson and Anderson spoke about a "murderer" and "perpetrator", not only about a suspect.

Griffiths: "One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him-the police-constable in Mitre Court."

Sims: "The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall. This man was in the district during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders, and soon after they ceased certain facts came to light which showed that it was quite possible that he might have been the Ripper. He had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland. He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some-time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum." and "Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.
They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men."

Griffiths:

"Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts"

Sims:

"but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men." ((Btw.: Impossible für David Cohen)

The series of murders came to an end when Kosminski was caged in an asylum (Macnaghten´s "about march 1889"?).

One could think that Swanson and Anderson (maybe Cox and/or Sagar) first thought that this is "the proof" (and that the ID at the Seaside Home took place later, Anderson: "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum...").

It seems to me that this was not a proof for Macnaghten: "They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men" (Sims). Kosminski was in an asylum ("about march 1889", "sent away from London", Macnaghten/ Mary Berkin) and after this he was at liberty and passing about his fellow men and no other murders took place. And that made the case against Kosminski weak. Very possible that Kosminski was in and out of an asylum (outside London) before he was sent to Colney Hatch. The Seaside Home Identification took place when he was an inmate of that asylum outside London.

See also:

Sagar:

"a man, who, without doubt, was the murderer Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end."

“There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."

Cox:

"…but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey… It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls…"

If Aaron Kozminski is Kosminski, before he was sent to Colney Hatch he temporarily was an inmate of a private asylum in Surrey if Sagar and Cox also spoke about Kosminski.

About suspect's Death:

Scott Nelson:

"The main point to ponder is Swanson's (and Anderson's) statement of the suspect's death. This is not mentioned once, but three times, once by Anderson and twice by Swanson. The most quoted instance is the Pall Mall Gazette description of 7 May 1895 by Swanson that he believed the crimes to be the work of a man who was by then dead. If all we had was this single report that one senior police official believed the Ripper was dead, it would be easy to dismiss it, especially since it was "belief", not recorded fact. But Swanson goes on to reiterate this "belief" years later in his marginal notes to Anderson's book where he states rather matter-of-factly "...he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards." And finally, we have Anderson himself, who was reported by his son, Arthur Anderson, to have stated as a fact the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he had died in an asylum. And Aaron Kosminski was still alive after Anderson's death in 1918. But did Anderson merely recall information passed on to him by his subordinate, Swanson? For the most part, probably yes. But I think that in the case of something as important as the death of the JtR suspect, he (Anderson) would have been personally involved in the assessment of the circumstances surrounding this event, assuming it actually happened in his lifetime, and not merely relying on hearsay. There is even the report that Detective Inspector Edmund Reid believed that the killer had died prior to 1896: "The mania was of a nature which must long ago have resulted in the death of the maniac - an opinion that is borne out by the best medical experts who have studied the case". Perhaps the final word concerning the suspect's death could be cited from James Monro, Assistant Commissioner of the CID during the Ripper Murders, "the Ripper was never caught, but he should have been". I believe this means that Monro believed the Ripper was dead or at least was out of the public spot-light and was never brought to justice. This fits what Anderson and Swanson both said about Kosminski. Having worked in the secret divisions of the CID and having been a liaison to the Home Office, Monro, even though he resigned as Commissioner in 1890, would have had much information about the investigation of which many MET policemen were never made aware."

"The mania was of a nature which must long ago have resulted in the death of the maniac - an opinion that is borne out by the best medical experts who have studied the case".

Did the police believe that Kosminski death was quite close when he was brought to Colney Hatch? What would have been the reasons for this assumption?

In February 1891, did the police officers see a dying Kosminski and medical experts told them Kosminski only has a few months left to live? But he was lucky and survived?

Another thing:

Is David Cohen really identical with Aaron Davis Cohen? Is there a chance that Aaron Davis Cohen was in fact Aaron Kozminski? They changed the name of Aaron Davis Cohen to David Cohen perhaps they first got the wrong man.

Aaron Kozminski December 1889:

“I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes because Kosminski is hard to spell."

His brothers Isaac and Woolf were Abrahams.

What if, Autumn 1888:

“I goes by the name of Davis Cohen sometimes because Lubnowski- Cohen is hard to spell."

His sister Matilda was a Lubnowski, Lubnowski- Cohen, Cohen and he had a cousin with the name of Jacob Cohen (see Colney Hatch admission).

If Kosminski is hard to spell, then, would also be hard to spell Lubnowski.

Macnaghten 1894:

He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889

Perhaps inspired by Macnaghten, Swanson could have written to Colney Hatch asking for an young Jewish man, a Davis Cohen, who was seriously ill. But there was only a David Cohen who died in Colney Hatch (Btw.: Aaron Kozminski was transferred to Leavesden in April 1894). And again, the wrong man?

Pure speculation as always.

Karsten.

Abby Normal
11-28-2016, 07:20 AM
IMHO opinion it probably went down like this:

Kosminski was brought to the attention of police by a family member or maybe a doctor around the time that he was put in an asylum. probably precipitated by him threatening his sister with a knife.

a crazy jew threatening a women with a knife was probably enough for the police to want to check it out.

that man was Aaron Kosminski.

since he was already in an asylum it was "with difficulty" for the police to set up the ID with Lawende, who the police took seriously and who also attended the eddowes inquest, more than likely the witness.


Lawende thought it might be the man he saw, but "couldn't swear to it."

with Andersons preconceived notions about the killer being a jew, his boastful nature, and years to mis remember the events and boost his ego and the public that he had caught the ripper, he came to believe that kosminski was the man.

swanson came to believe it too, but probably not as strongly as Anderson.
"and suspect knew he was identified"... "Kosminski was the suspect."

MM also heard about this suspect and included him in the memorandum.


boom. done. No convoluted theories, mixed up suspects or other nonsense.
just the (somewhat) simple truth.

Rainbow
11-28-2016, 07:30 AM
At least Kosminski smells like a suspect

Not like that one who was playing card on a box that contains his wife... the players there couldn't smell anything at all ...



Rainbow°

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 07:44 AM
IMHO opinion it probably went down like this:

Kosminski was brought to the attention of police by a family member or maybe a doctor around the time that he was put in an asylum. probably precipitated by him threatening his sister with a knife.

a crazy jew threatening a women with a knife was probably enough for the police to want to check it out.

that man was Aaron Kosminski.

since he was already in an asylum it was "with difficulty" for the police to set up the ID with Lawende, who the police took seriously and who also attended the eddowes inquest, more than likely the witness.


Lawende thought it might be the man he saw, but "couldn't swear to it."

with Andersons preconceived notions about the killer being a jew, his boastful nature, and years to mis remember the events and boost his ego and the public that he had caught the ripper, he came to believe that kosminski was the man.

swanson came to believe it too, but probably not as strongly as Anderson.
"and suspect knew he was identified"... "Kosminski was the suspect."

MM also heard about this suspect and included him in the memorandum.


boom. done. No convoluted theories, mixed up suspects or other nonsense.
just the (somewhat) simple truth.

Abby

I part company with you on several areas:

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende, even if he was sure of the man.
He saw someone with a woman, who he believed could have been Eddowes, sometime before the killing.
He did not see an attack, he did not see someone leaving a murder site, whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.

No mix up as you say.

Just one question, can we prove Kos?
Answer no!

So we either move on, or look for more evidence.


Steve

Abby Normal
11-28-2016, 08:06 AM
Abby

I part company with you on several areas:

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende, even if he was sure of the man.
He saw someone with a woman, who he believed could have been Eddowes, sometime before the killing.
He did not see an attack, he did not see someone leaving a murder site, whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.

No mix up as you say.

Just one question, can we prove Kos?
Answer no!

So we either move on, or look for more evidence.


Steve

Hi El

whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

rather surprised by this response-from you. your usually one of the more careful posters about making claims of opinion as fact. It very well could have been, and probably was Lawende, although possibly could be Schwartz, I would concede.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.


"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.."


I think that pretty much answers that.

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 08:33 AM
Hi El



rather surprised by this response-from you. your usually one of the more careful posters about making claims of opinion as fact. It very well could have been, and probably was Lawende, although possibly could be S notchwartz, I would concede.

Hi Abby,

I fully understand that view, and thank you for the kind words.

However on this occasion I fail to see how Lawende can be the Witness, i guess its a personal thing.

To me that either means it is Schwartz or to use Fish a "phantom witness".

Well not so much Phantom, but someone who is known, just not named.

I go on this rare occasion with my personal view, but it is just that, and not something I can prove. So I may suggest it as possible but no more!






"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.."


I think that pretty much answers that.


That depends on how you interpret those lines,

I see it as we knew "who" he was, but not his name, so they knew he was a low-class Jew, note not poor, which is actually not true of Kosminski's family. and may have know the street he lived in.
In addition Anderson's statement can be view entirely in line with his not view of not wishing to name the actual name.

However its not something i feel we should get too hot under the collard about, either Anderson and Swanson were correct or they were not, and going back to my normal fact lead view, we do not have enough to prove it either way.


All the best



Steve

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 08:48 AM
To me that either means it is Schwartz or to use Fish a "phantom witness".

Well not so much Phantom, but someone who is known, just not named.

Steve

So less phantomlike than the substitute killer who is neither known nor named. But still a likelier suspect than Lechmere for some equally phantomlike reason!:)

On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.
Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead.

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 09:10 AM
So less phantomlike than the substitute killer who is neither known nor named. But still a likelier suspect than Lechmere for some equally phantomlike reason!:)

On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.
Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead.



Hi Fisherman

that is indeed the question, why did they believe that? there must have been a reason.

As for the phantom killer, at present the prospect still remains, and I am sorry my work on Bucks Row is going so slowly.
However I am sure you would prefer my work to be as full as I can make it.


And so back to Anderson and why he believed his man was dead?

We have several possibilities do we not:


1. He is completely wrong on all counts.


2. He is wrong about the date of death, but correct on the rest.


3. He is right on all counts and we have the wrong individual in Aaron Kosminski.


Three name him as a suspect at sometime, and a fourth eludes to him, Littlechild, when he say Anderson "only thought he knew".

That to me makes it clear that for some reason they had a suspect, whom we have decided was Aaron Kosminski.

That to me rules out the first of the 3 options. (please note I am not arguing for Kos as the killer. merely was he Anderson's suspect, and if so why did he get the death wrong)

This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Or alternatively he is right about the date and we are looking at the wrong man completely.

I am not prepared to make a judgement on which, the data is too sparse.



Steve

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 09:25 AM
Elamarna: Hi Fisherman

Hi Steve!

that is indeed the question, why did they believe that? there must have been a reason.

One of many, I fear. And some will be less worthy than others. It is indeed a phantom issue.

As for the phantom killer, at present the prospect still remains, and I am sorry my work on Bucks Row is going so slowly.
However I am sure you would prefer my work to be as full as I can make it.

You just take your time, Steve. I have spent many years on it myself, and I have lots of things left to check just the same.


And so back to Anderson and why he believed his man was dead?

We have several possibilities do we not:


1. He is completely wrong on all counts.


2. He is wrong about the date of death, but correct on the rest.


3. He is right on all counts and we have the wrong individual in Aaron Kosminski.

Three name him as a suspect at sometime, and a fourth eludes to him, Littlechild, when he say Anderson "only thought he knew".

Mmm. And Henry Smith was not very appreciative of Andersons efforts either. I think Anderson was barking up the wrong tree altogether, but I am as lost as anybody else to prove my point.
Unless, of course, I prove it from the reverse angle: The Ripper and the Torso man were twinlike when it comes to the anatomical implications. They were therefore more than likely the same man. The Torso man seemingly set iut in 1873. In 1873, the small boy Aaron Kosminski, eight years of age or so, had not yet arrived in Britain.
To me, that is very powerful evidence that Anderson must have been wrong.

That to me makes it clear that for some reason they had a suspect, whom we have decided was Aaron Kosminski.

Well, strictly speaking, they THOUGHT they had a suspect. I demand more from a suspect status than mere suspicions on behalf of a senior policeman. WIth no hard facts behind it, I rate men like Kosminski, Druitt et all persons of interest only. That is not to diminish the work done on the two, which has been exhaustive in many a way.

That to me rules out the first of the 3 options. (please note I am not arguing for Kos as the killer. merely was he Anderson's suspect, and if so why did he get the death wrong)

Aaron is by far the likeliest man to have been Andersons choice. But not a very likely killer in my eyes.

This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Phantom ground, Steve - phantom ground.

Or alternatively he is right about the date and we are looking at the wrong man completely.

We are doing so either way, if I´m correct.

I am not prepared to make a judgement on which, the data is too sparse.

Indeed it is.

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 10:05 AM
You just take your time, Steve. I have spent many years on it myself, and I have lots of things left to check just the same.



Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.


.


Mmm. And Henry Smith was not very appreciative of Andersons efforts either. I think Anderson was barking up the wrong tree altogether, but I am as lost as anybody else to prove my point.

]Unless, of course, I prove it from the reverse angle: The Ripper and the Torso man were twinlike when it comes to the anatomical implications. They were therefore more than likely the same man. The Torso man seemingly set iut in 1873. In 1873, the small boy Aaron Kosminski, eight years of age or so, had not yet arrived in Britain.
To me, that is very powerful evidence that Anderson must have been wrong.



It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

At present, I do not feel that approach succeeds in the objective you set, but it is a good starting point.






Well, strictly speaking, they THOUGHT they had a suspect. I demand more from a suspect status than mere suspicions on behalf of a senior policeman. WIth no hard facts behind it, I rate men like Kosminski, Druitt et all persons of interest only. That is not to diminish the work done on the two, which has been exhaustive in many a way.




No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.





Aaron is by far the likeliest man to have been Andersons choice. But not a very likely killer in my eyes.



Agreed, but we may all be wrong.


This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Phantom ground, Steve - phantom ground.



No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.



We are doing so either way, if I´m correct.



I disagree, if we are purely asking why did Anderson have the wrong date for his suspect, his being the killer of not is academic


Steve

The Good Michael
11-28-2016, 10:20 AM
If Kosminski was the murderer and he was identified as such, but was a complete nutter at this point, I'm not so sure the police would be keen to pursue charges, knowing that the man could not stand trial, and was hallucinatory and such. We don't know what went on the period of time when Aaron was first admitted, released and then readmitted permanently. If only a few top officials knew and couldn't prove anything, is it so odd that they might be content locking a loony away who had irreversible mental damage?

What could they really tell the public that wouldn't bring out lynch mobs? "We have the killer, but he's nuts, so we are just locking him away." as if that would fly. Far better for their sake to put him away and throw away the key. It is unsatisfactory to us, but it seems a satisfactory solution to a no-win situation...if Kosminski was the killer.


Mike

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 10:21 AM
Hi Steve!

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende

I agree...

Swanson:

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

It seems that Kosminski was detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. After the Kelly murder in November 1888 there was an identification which Kosminski knew.

But in the case of Aaron Kozminski the Seaside Home ID must have taken place in the second half of the year 1890.

Swanson again:

"and he knew he was identified"

If Kosminski and Aaron Kozminski are the same person, then, it is possible that Kosminski knew he was identified after the Millers Court murder in 1888. But the Seaside Home ID (Swanson:"...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...") took place not before the second half of 1890.

One could think there is a differance between "And after this identification which suspect knew" and "and he knew he was identified".

At the Seaside Home Kosminski knew he was identified (his reaction?) and the witness "at once identified him/ unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him." Seaside Home was their second encounter and it is clear their first encounter was very "intense". And they have seen each other well without any disturbance.

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

It might mean that Kosminski was seen when leaving Millers Court and he knew he was identified. He stopped killing prostitutes because he knew he is a suspect, already "seen" by a PC near Mitre Square.

"but couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements."

Suspect´s movements and a good view of the murderer... it could mean that the witness saw Kosminski leaving a crime scene, similiar to the City PC near Mitre Square. A suspect seen two times when leaving a crime scene would be more than a suspect, in the Ripper case he would be the murderer.

It is possible that the witness was not fully aware of what he had seen. Kelly was found a few hours after she was murdered. If the witness saw Kosminski hours before it would be possible that he did not recognize the close link between Kosminski and the murder in Millers Court. In this case, I have no idea how the police had found the witness after such a long time. But I prefer a man like Frank Ruffell, a carman. He was a witness in the Annie Farmer case and it seems his mother was a Jewish widow (maybe he was Jewish, too). In the case of Kelly, Elizabeth Prater:

"At 5.30am she left Miller's Court, seeing nobody except two or three carmen harnessing horses in Dorset Street."

One of the carmen could have entered Millers Court between 5.30-6.00am, maybe only to fetch some water for the horses. The passage was very narrow...

"Frank Ruffell, a man who was taking some sacks of coke in the next house from a van... About half-past nine I was delivering two sacks of coke from my van at the house next door, when a man came out of No. 19. As he walked sharply past me, he muttered to himself, 'What a ---- cow."

In this case, Frank Ruffell was fully aware of the incident:

"About two minutes after that, I saw the woman on the bottom stair bleeding from the neck. Sullivan said to me, 'Did you see a man run?' And I said, 'Yes.' We both ran up Thrawl-street into Brick-lane, but we did not see him."

Such a witness on Dorset Street/ Millers Court had no chance to see what did happen.

Karsten.

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 10:23 AM
Elamarna: Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.

"Merely"? ;)

It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

I am a lot more certain; the commonalities, some of them very, very specific, are too many not to conclude that we should work from the assumption. Proven it is not, but the likelihood touches on conclusive circumstantial evidence in my eyes.
The "competition", if you will, between Kosminski and the Torso man is a complete mismatch. One man a smallish, thin, delusional man eating out of the gutter and walking other people´s dogs for them, and another who kills prostitutes, bleeds them, cuts their abdomens open, sternum to pubes, take out organs, cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, excises part of the colon and steal rings from the fingers of his victims.
Guess who is the more likely man to have been the Ripper, going by the recorded rap sheet?

At present, I do not feel that approach succeeds in the objective you set, but it is a good starting point.

It is the backdrop against which I am reasoning. I do keep the door ajar, but admittedly not very much so.


No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.

I don´t think I need to argue for the carman any more than I have already done. The evidence pointing in his way is real, it´s factual, it´s on record, and that removes him from the Phantom killer more than any other suggested killer.


Agreed, but we may all be wrong.

Sadly, that´s true. :(


No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.

...until which time it is Phantom ground. I am not prepared to chant Hoorah!!! and accept Anderson as a master detective in this case until I see some hard facts. If that time ever arrives, I´ll be the first to say "Me oh my, was I wrong!" But I´ll save it for then.


I disagree, if we are purely asking why did Anderson have the wrong date for his suspect, his being the killer of not is academic

In that case, I have nothing to object about. I´ll have to try and cope with that too. ;)

The Good Michael
11-28-2016, 10:36 AM
Another thing: I do not believe any officials made written mistakes. They had plenty of time to think about what they wrote. Some communications were speculative, but the ones that are statements, seem to me to be thought out and not like some old men reminiscing over a glass of port and then contradicting each other. There are holes in the information we have, but that doesn't mean there are mistakes, only omission of detail, and there would have been no need for that if there never was a conviction or pursuit of charges. It doesn't mean they were right, but it does mean, to me, they believed what they said.

Mike

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 10:44 AM
Elamarna: Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.

"Merely"? ;)



Compared with trying to prove a suspect, it is merely, I am reasonably sure of that.

And my admiration for the work you must have done grows.




It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

I am a lot more certain; the commonalities, some of them very, very specific, are too many not to conclude that we should work from the assumption. Proven it is not, but the likelihood touches on conclusive circumstantial evidence in my eyes.
The "competition", if you will, between Kosminski and the Torso man is a complete mismatch. One man a smallish, thin, delusional man eating out of the gutter and walking other people´s dogs for them, and another who kills prostitutes, bleeds them, cuts thir abdomens open, sternum to pubes, take out organs, cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, excises part of the colon and steal rings from the fingers of his victims.
Guess who is the more likely man to have been the Ripper, going by the recorded rap sheet?




Firstly the views given of Kosminski, do not as you know describe how he was prior to his incarceration.

We know nothing about him which says if he could or could not have done the killings. (The Dog incident just suggests he was not a raving lunatic)

However your conviction that the two, JtR and Torso are the same, is not convincing to me at this point, there are similarities, but there are also major differences.
We will have to agree that at present we cannot agree on that issue I think.





No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.

I don´t think I need to argue for the carman any more than I have already done. The evidence pointing in his way is real, it´s factual, it´s on record, and that removes him from the Phantom killer more than any other suggested killer.




Yes he is close to ONE murder, very close to the correct time, how close is however a matter of debate, but even allowing for extremes it must be within 5 mins of the fatal cut, possible closer.

The research I am doing at present may throw more light on this.



Agreed, but we may all be wrong.

Sadly, that´s true. :(


No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.

...until which time it is Phantom ground. I am not prepared to chant Hoorah!!! and accept Anderson as a master detective in this case until I see some hard facts. If that time ever arrives, I´ll be the first to say "Me oh my, was I blind!" But I´ll save it for then.




No problem, if he was right, it was not his work, but that of an underling.



Steve

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 10:46 AM
Another thing: I do not believe any officials made written mistakes. They had plenty of time to think about what they wrote. Some communications were speculative, but the ones that are statements, seem to me to be thought out and not like some old men reminiscing over a glass of port and then contradicting each other. There are holes in the information we have, but that doesn't mean there are mistakes, only omission of detail, and there would have been no need for that if there never was a conviction or pursuit of charges. It doesn't mean they were right, but it does mean, to me, they believed what they said.

Mike

That is the view I take as well.

They may not be correct, but they believed they were.


Steve

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 11:14 AM
Elamarna: Compared with trying to prove a suspect, it is merely, I am reasonably sure of that.

That´s a point, of course.

And my admiration for the work you must have done grows.

I was a professional researcher for fourteen years, and I have a memory that is well cut out to remember details, so it came reasonably easy for me. But the material is large, admittedly - as you will have found out.


Firstly the views given of Kosminski, do not as you know describe how he was prior to his incarceration.

True - but a giant, he was not. I think it is a fair bet that he was a smallish man throughout.

We know nothing about him which says if he could or could not have done the killings. (The Dog incident just suggests he was not a raving lunatic)

True again - but his condition is not one I would favour when looking for "my" Ripper. Not in the least.

However your conviction that the two, JtR and Torso are the same, is not convincing to me at this point, there are similarities, but there are also major differences.

I think we can safely say that the differences we know of can very easily be overcome.

We will have to agree that at present we cannot agree on that issue I think.

No problem, Steve.


Yes he is close to ONE murder, very close to the correct time, how close is however a matter of debate, but even allowing for extremes it must be within 5 mins of the fatal cut, possible closer.

The research I am doing at present may throw more light on this.

Let´s hope so. I think you will find that one of the drawbacks - or advantages, depending on how you see it - is that there can never be any conclusive establishing of times. As Jason P-J says, if it can be argued that "surely shw may have bled for half a minute longer?", then it can also be argued that it may have been a minute. Or two. Or three. Or five. I think all we can do is to go with what experienced forensich specialist with medical insights tell us is the PROBABLE time span. And when we do so, using Jason P-J as that specialist, we can see that what he proposes puts Lechmere right in the spot when Nichols was cut.
When I found that out, after already having felt very certain that Lechmere is our man, it certainly did not detract from that certainty.

It will be interesting to see what you arrive at.


No problem, if he was right, it was not his work, but that of an underling.

Yes, but his never dirtying his own hands did not disallow him the pleasure of being dubbed the greatest detective of his time, did it? It´s not always fair, but it is the way it works.

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 11:16 AM
That is the view I take as well.

They may not be correct, but they believed they were.


Steve

There are such things as pride and self-delusion to weigh in too. It´s phantom territory, and remains so.

Darryl Kenyon
11-28-2016, 12:57 PM
There are three reasons why Kosminski would no longer be at Colney Hatch after April 19 1894. One he was cured and released. two he was transferred, as what happened, or three he died. If he was released i am sure the police would have become aware of it. But what if the correct authorities due to some bureaucratic **** up or whatever didn't inform the police that he was now at Leavesden.
At a later date Swanson got someone to check on Kosminski, at Colney Hatch, they didn't follow it through properly just found out there was no one there by that name in 1895 and presumed he had died.
Swanson tells the Pall mall gazette reporter, or someone close to the press [ 7 May 1895, after Kosminski had been moved from Colney Hatch ] that he believed the man was now dead and they changed it to, as reporters do that he was dead.
Note in the Swanson marginalia he says that Kosminski was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney hatch but makes no mention of Leavesden.

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 01:15 PM
Hi Darryl!

Anderson and Colney Hatch, Rob House 2012 (Post 7):

"This is my last post. I was flipping through the Male Patients Casebook (that contained Kozminski's entry) and quite randomly came across this:

A handwritten letter from Robert Anderson from the Convict Supervision Office, dated March 7 1891 (interestingly, this is exactly 1 month after Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch on Feb 7, 1891).

The letter concerns a patient named George Hall:

"Sir,

I have been informed that George Hall, who is subject to Police Supervision, has been admitted into the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum. I shall therefore feel obliged if you will cause me to be informed in the event of his discharge from your care.

I am
Sir
Your obedient servant
R Anderson (signature)
Assistant Commissioner"

It is addressed "To the Medical Superintendant, Lunatic Asylum, Colney Hatch"

This letter is, in my opinion, very interesting, as it confirms, if nothing else, that Robert Anderson was in direct correspondence with the Superintendant of Colney Hatch at the time Aaron Kozminski was a patient there. In my opinion—as I stated previously on several occasions—if the police informed the asylum that they believed Kozminski was the Ripper (which I assume they did), this would have been communicated to the head officers at the Asylum under strict orders of maintaining secrecy... hence there would not have been such a letter attached to Kozminski's file as there is here.

So this (to my mind) supports such a conjecture, as it shows that Anderson was in touch with the Asylum only shortly after the time Kozminski was admitted there. And he surely would have been informed of Kozminski's release or transfer."

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7059

If Anderson was in touch with Colney Hatch (concerning Kosminski) how could he think that Kosminski died in this asylum? How could Swanson think that Kosminski died shortly afterwards?

Fisherman
11-28-2016, 01:25 PM
There are three reasons why Kosminski would no longer be at Colney Hatch after April 19 1894. One he was cured and released. two he was transferred, as what happened, or three he died. If he was released i am sure the police would have become aware of it. But what if the correct authorities due to some bureaucratic **** up or whatever didn't inform the police that he was now at Leavesden.
At a later date Swanson got someone to check on Kosminski, at Colney Hatch, they didn't follow it through properly just found out there was no one there by that name in 1895 and presumed he had died.
Swanson tells the Pall mall gazette reporter, or someone close to the press [ 7 May 1895, after Kosminski had been moved from Colney Hatch ] that he believed the man was now dead and they changed it to, as reporters do that he was dead.
Note in the Swanson marginalia he says that Kosminski was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney hatch but makes no mention of Leavesden.

Poster S Brett has already contributed a post that sheds a lot of light over Andersons contacts with Colney Hatch. I would just add that when you write that the sudden absense of Kosminski from Colney Hatch could have made Anderson presume that he was dead.
This is where I would think that he would not have settled for a presumption that could well be wrong. To my mind, Anderson would have requested information about why Kosminski was no longer in place - if he ever found himself in this kind of a situation which I very much doubt.
To be honest, I think he would - and should - have made sure beforehand that he was informed about any movements on behalf of Kosminski within the mental asylums, if he was of the meaning that Aaron Kosminski was the killer.

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 01:52 PM
One possible answer would be: Confusion of names!

Imagine the following scenario:

Jacob Cohen, present at the admission when Kosminski was sent to an asylum outside London about March 1889.

Jacob Cohen, present at the admission when Kosminski was sent to Colney Hatch 1891.

In the first case it is possible that Aaron Kozminski was addmitted under the name of Aaron Cohen. Perhaps the police were looking for an Aaron Cohen after the Millers Court murder and had found a man, similiar to Kosminski. When they realized that he is the wrong man they gave him the name "David Cohen" (identity unsolved). At the end "David Cohen" was brought to Colney Hatch.

In the second case Aaron Kozminski was addmitted to Colney Hatch under his real name.

Both men, "David Cohen" and Aaron Kozminski were very similiar. The same age, the same religion, and most probably the same illness, maybe both men were Polish and both men spoke German sometimes.

At one point Colney Hatch might have provided false informations to Anderson (or someone else) if Anderson had asked for a "Cohen".

Paddy
11-28-2016, 02:03 PM
It appears that Kozminski did not go into Colney under Police Supervision. Possibly his cousin Jacob Cohen got him in there quick before police had a chance.

The Family were pretty successful and well conected. I am sure they would have got legal help to deal with Aarons situation.

It just could have been that when he was moved to Leavesden a broken man Anderson or Swanson just wanted it buried. He was only a suspect, so they could not say he was still alive as it would have stirred up the public and press.

Thats my take on it anyway...
Pat

Paddy
11-28-2016, 02:05 PM
It would explain Andersons complaints against the people protecting Kozminski.

Pat...........

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 02:19 PM
Hi Pat!

It appears that Kozminski did not go into Colney under Police Supervision. Possibly his cousin Jacob Cohen got him in there quick before police had a chance.

The Family were pretty successful and well conected. I am sure they would have got legal help to deal with Aarons situation.

It just could have been that when he was moved to Leavesden a broken man Anderson or Swanson just wanted it buried. He was only a suspect, so they could not say he was still alive as it would have stirred up the public and press.

Thats my take on it anyway...
Pat

But Swanson´s wrote in a copy of Anderson´s book that Kosminski died . They would have lied to themselves, privately. No public, no press...

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 02:27 PM
It appears that Kozminski did not go into Colney under Police Supervision. Possibly his cousin Jacob Cohen got him in there quick before police had a chance.

Swanson:

On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch

It appears that the City Police was not far away when Kosminski went to Colney Hatch.

Paddy
11-28-2016, 02:37 PM
Swanson:

On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch

It appears that the City Police was not far away when Kosminski went to Colney Hatch.

Yes its so confusing. Maybe the police escorted him to Stepney Workhouse and the family were forced or demanded to have him passed as insane. In fact they would have wanted him admitted or else he could have been arrested at some point soon.

Pat........................

S.Brett
11-28-2016, 03:13 PM
Yes its so confusing. Maybe the police escorted him to Stepney Workhouse and the family were forced or demanded to have him passed as insane. In fact they would have wanted him admitted or else he could have been arrested at some point soon.

Pat........................

What do you think about the idea that his family knew of the Seaside Home ID? Perhaps the police first were really hoping that the witness would change his mind but then they told his family (later, after they had realized that the witness would not change his mind), sleight of hand, that there is a chance that this witness might come back, and that it would be better to send their family member to a public asylum. Declared as an insane person, a witness and the police would no longer harm him. At the end the police would have been pretty sure that Kosminski will never leave this asylum, never again temporarily at large (Griffiths) as before.

spyglass
11-28-2016, 03:35 PM
Hi all,
Well the theory I'm working on and still putting together would point to the idea that in reality, there was only a canonical four.
I believe ( possibly ) that the killer, was after Eddowes caught or at least known.
However the Police wanted it to be thought that MJK was a ripper murder and so clearly couldn't say they already had their man. This of course would cause problems at any latter trial.
All the hints of any identification and important witnesses all revolve around the double event, and only mentioned many years later.
I'm beginning to believe all the clues are right there to be found.

Regards

c.d.
11-28-2016, 04:39 PM
"On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.

Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead."

Thank you, Fish. That is exactly the point I was attempting to make in my own clumsy way.

Perhaps if we simply referred to the inmate that Anderson referenced in his memoirs as "Asylum Inmate X" that might help alleviate any confusion regarding the alleged connection to Kosminski. So instead of being told that Kosminski had died, Anderson was simply told that "X" had died. Now since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration I would think that a one or two year period should cover "shortly." The point being that you would think that the Ripper dying shortly after being incarcerated is something that he would remember even twenty years down the road and not get his facts wrong on this point.

c.d.

c.d.
11-28-2016, 04:46 PM
Once Kozminski was put in Asylum I am sure they would not allow the police to question him. They would not be able to pass information on to the police either because he was deemed insane. Just like when the police wanted to question Isenschmid and the Asylum at Bow refused to allow them.
Pat.....

Can anyone confirm what official police procedure would have been in this instance?

c.d.

Elamarna
11-28-2016, 04:50 PM
"On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.

Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead."

Thank you, Fish. That is exactly the point I was attempting to make in my own clumsy way.

Perhaps if we simply referred to the inmate that Anderson referenced in his memoirs as "Asylum Inmate X" that might help alleviate any confusion regarding the alleged connection to Kosminski. So instead of being told that Kosminski had died, Anderson was simply told that "X" had died. Now since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration I would think that a one or two year period should cover "shortly." The point being that you would think that the Ripper dying shortly after being incarcerated is something that he would remember even twenty years down the road and not get his facts wrong on this point.

c.d.


Hi c.d.

Agree it is a very big question why they have the date wrong.

Even if they have the wrong man, the date should be correct should it not?

The answer almost certainly would take us much further forward in the case of Kosminski's candidature.


Steve

c.d.
11-28-2016, 04:58 PM
Hi Steve,

You would think that Anderson being only human would want some confirmation of his suspicions regarding "X" possibly hoping that he would at some point confess or make a very incriminating statement at some point but a premature death would have dashed those hopes. Which is why I think if what Anderson said took place was true that he would have remembered the date of "X's" death as significant.

c.d.

Darryl Kenyon
11-29-2016, 12:48 AM
Sir,

I have been informed that George Hall, who is subject to Police Supervision, has been admitted into the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum. I shall therefore feel obliged if you will cause me to be informed in the event of his discharge from your care.
Excellent find by Rob House, i had forgotten about this.
Do we no what George Hall was accused of ?
I know my previous post is weak, yet something happened from Kosminski entering Colney Hatch in 1891 to Swansons alleged theory in !895 Pall mall gazette to believe that he was dead
As a long shot i assume his family would know that he was being transferred to leavesden in 1894 could it just be possible that they bribed an official to inform the police that he had passed away, After all what harm could it do, he was only some sad incoherent lunatic [thinking the officials way here] .
I personally do not believe that people where told at Colney Hatch they had Jack in their midst, [maybe just the person in charge]. I think it would have been a need to know basis, special attention on this person etc after all if it leaked that the police had let him slip through their grasp, plus Kosminski was never found guilty of anything, libel action if they told all and sundry he was JTR.
Another long shot is that it was the city polices job to keep tabs on him in the asylum. We can infer that Smith did not think Kosminski was ever JTR, maybe they didn't follow things through as they should have.
One final long punt is the pall mall was wrong in 1895 and that Swanson didn't believe Jack was dead at that point [he didn't like telling tales as such], it was only years later, say twentieth century that he believed Jack had died shortly after, why ? i have no idea, all very confusing.

S.Brett
11-29-2016, 06:13 AM
Hi Darryl!


Do we no what George Hall was accused of ?

I don´t know but look at this:

The Star, LONDON. TUESDAY, 30 OCTOBER, 1888

A Badly Punished Policeman.

George Hall and William Burns got sentence of six months' hard labor each at Clerkenwell for punching and kicking Police-constable Hughes, who had to eject them from a shop in Leather-lane. A police-inspector asked for a remand, as the doctor had stated that there was a possibility of serious results from the constable's injuries; but Mr. Bros said in such a case a further charge could be preferred.

i have no idea, all very confusing.

If there were two "Ripper suspects" in Colney Hatch, "David Cohen" and Aaron Kozminski, both men born in 1865, Polish Jews, the same illness, both men spoke German and treated by the same doctor (Dr. Seward), "David Cohen" brought by the MET Police, Kosminski brought by the City Police, then, it would have been possible that there were some confusions.

We do know that Aaron Kozminski gave himself the name Aaron Abrahams in December 1889. I would not rule out that his name was Aaron Cohen in autumn 1888. There were family members, Jacob Cohen (born Kozminski) and later Morris & Matilda Cohen, who have carried this surname (these different names a reason why Macnaghten and Swanson have written "Kosminski" without first name?).

On the basis of their similarity ("David Cohen" and Aaron Kozminski) I believe that it is possible that both men were suspects.

Assumed that Anderson was in touch with Colney Hatch regarding "David Cohen" in 1889 and again regarding Aaron Kozminski in 1891 between him and Colney Hatch something might have gone wrong.

It would be most helpful to know the name of the asylum where Kosminski was sent about March 1889 perhaps the same asylum where he was sent in the second half of the year 1890 ( when he was caged in this asylum -in 1890- he was sent to Seaside Home identification). If we would find an Aaron Kozminski, Abrahams or Cohen in such asylum records we would know that some officers received incorrect informations about the death of him.

It is interesting that Swanson and Anderson signed the neutralisation of Aaron Kozminski`s brother Isaac Abrahams in 1901 when Aaron Kozminski was still alive:

Memorial
Isaac Abrahams of 171 Cable Street St Georges in the East in the County of London
... a subject of the Emperor of Russia having been born at Klodorer Koliski in the Empire of Russia on the Third day of May 1852 and being the son of Joseph & Golder Abrahams who were both subjects of the Emperor of Russia ...
resides at 171 Cable St St Georges in the East in the County of London and is of the age of 48 years and is a Tailor.
... a Married man and has one child under age residing with him viz.
Rachel - 17 years of age
... settled place of business is at 171 Cable Street St Georges in the East in the county of London
That your Memorialist has for five years within the period of the eight years last past resided within the United Kingdom, vizt. [standard form]
From October 20th 1893 to present time at 171 Cable Street St Georges in the East in the county of London
7 years 2 months
[Signed] I. Abrahams [very shaky]

Sureties
Walter Belcher 40 Tillman Street St Georges East London Estate Agent ([has known him] 8 years)
George Leeder Licensed Victualler of 56 Cannon Street Road London East (10 years)
Henry Whiting Laundryman of 108 St George Street St Georges East London (9 years)
and John Gibbs Builder of 229-231 Cable Street St Georges East London (7 years)
[All signed] 265 Gresham House Old Broad Street in the City of London 16 January 1901
Before Ernest [Smith] A commissioner for oaths.

CID Report
Isaac Abrahams Tailor
The declaration of residence have [sic] been enquired into and the sureties are respectable persons householders and British born subjects.
I have seen the applicant who is a respectable man he states he has resided in this country for the past 30 years, intends to remain permanently and wishes to enjoy the rights and priveleges [sic] of a British subject.
The sureties speak well of applicant as a respectable man and I see no reason to doubt their statements.
Ernest Baxter [?]P S
D. S. Swanson Superintendent
Cover sheet dated 19th February 1901 and signed R. Anderson.

7 June 1901. Isaac Abrahams
Agent Mr J. Cantor 211, Old Ford Road, E.
Certif Regd & returned 19 June '01

[HO 144/617/B35582]

Karsten.

Mayerling
11-29-2016, 06:43 AM
Thanks Steve for picking up on my suggestion of calling the head of the asylum Dr. Seward, after the character in Stoker's "Dracula", but I think we have to put it down with quotation marks (like "Dr. Seward") or people will believe that WAS the name of the asylum official. I don't like to think that I created an inadvertent persistent error in nomenclature like Conan Doyle did in "J. Habbakuk Jephson's Statement" calling the 1872 mystery boat the "Marie Celeste" instead of the correct name of "Mary Celeste". To this day many writer use the Conan Doyle error in name as the correct name of the ship.

Jeff

Fleetwood Mac
11-29-2016, 12:16 PM
Kosminski was never hypothesized as being Jack the Ripper. Just a "suspect".

This is simply linguistic acrobatics.

'Murderer would have hanged' is pretty much as close as you can get to Kosminski being Jack the Ripper, without actually saying: "Kosminski was Jack the Ripper".

Providing the marginalia is genuine, then you can only draw one conclusion: Swanson was convinced Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

Fisherman
11-29-2016, 12:32 PM
This is simply linguistic acrobatics.

'Murderer would have hanged' is pretty much as close as you can get to Kosminski being Jack the Ripper, without actually saying: "Kosminski was Jack the Ripper".

Providing the marginalia is genuine, then you can only draw one conclusion: Swanson was convinced Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

To be honest, Anderson/Swanson saying that their belief was that Kosminski was the Ripper does not per se mean that he must have been. It only means that the two (or at least one of them) were either of this opinion, or they chose to say so anyway. And Swanson may have echoed Anderson without being of the same mindset himself.

Anyway, I don´t think Anderson had the correct solution at all - it seems to me that a personal boastfulness was given the opportunity to walk hand in hand with a desire on behalf of the police authorities to be presented with a solution that was a little less shameful than total defeat.

Paddy
11-29-2016, 02:12 PM
What do you think about the idea that his family knew of the Seaside Home ID? Perhaps the police first were really hoping that the witness would change his mind but then they told his family (later, after they had realized that the witness would not change his mind), sleight of hand, that there is a chance that this witness might come back, and that it would be better to send their family member to a public asylum. Declared as an insane person, a witness and the police would no longer harm him. At the end the police would have been pretty sure that Kosminski will never leave this asylum, never again temporarily at large (Griffiths) as before.

I would have thought the family knew what was happening all along. I would think it was really difficult for them. If Aaron was sent away after the double event I feel it would have been to a Jewish Rest Home or a private hospital. If a seaside home ID happened I would have thought it was to push the family into commiting him. Aarons brother Isaac was a free mason so I am sure could know where to get legal help for him. I think a lot went on behind the scenes to safeguard Aaron.
I think he was written out of history (as dead) due to legal implications...and Swanson backed this up .
Thats my personal view ....
Pat..............

Paddy
11-29-2016, 02:31 PM
United Grand Lodge of England
1863-1887
Register of Contributions: London Lodges, 156-784 (1832); 134-538 (1863)

Isaac Abrahams
age 35
34 Plummers Row
Commercial Road
Mantle Manf.
Passing Dec 30 1884
Raising Apr 28 1885
Certificate June 26th 1885

Pat....

Fleetwood Mac
11-29-2016, 02:47 PM
To be honest, Anderson/Swanson saying that their belief was that Kosminski was the Ripper does not per se mean that he must have been. It only means that the two (or at least one of them) were either of this opinion, or they chose to say so anyway. And Swanson may have echoed Anderson without being of the same mindset himself.

Anyway, I don´t think Anderson had the correct solution at all - it seems to me that a personal boastfulness was given the opportunity to walk hand in hand with a desire on behalf of the police authorities to be presented with a solution that was a little less shameful than total defeat.

I absolutely agree that this doesn't mean Kosminski was JTR.

At the same time, it is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have added his thoughts without saying something like: "but, I wasn't convinced because...." in the event he wasn't convinced with Anderson's conclusion.

The idea that Swanson simply repeated Anderson's opinion is merely a means of avoiding what is laid out in black and white because some people don't want to believe that Swanson and Anderson both believed they had their man, that is two senior officials, one of them the administrative head of the investigation; given that it follows that one or both must have had good reason to believe they had their man.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that the marginalia is genuine, of course.

S.Brett
11-29-2016, 03:02 PM
Thanks Pat!

I would have thought the family knew what was happening all along. I would think it was really difficult for them. If Aaron was sent away after the double event I feel it would have been to a Jewish Rest Home or a private hospital. If a seaside home ID happened I would have thought it was to push the family into commiting him. Aarons brother Isaac was a free mason so I am sure could know where to get legal help for him. I think a lot went on behind the scenes to safeguard Aaron.
I think he was written out of history (as dead) due to legal implications...and Swanson backed this up .
Thats my personal view ....
Pat..............

I read something like that somewhere and there was mentioned Woolf would have been the Freemason. Do you have the source for me?

It appears that the Jewish Home/ Stepney Green was a Jewish Workhouse and later it belonged to the Nightingale in Surrey. We find the Jewish Hospital in Stepney Green.

“The Hand in Hand Home occupied the following premises: 5 Duke's Place (from 1843), 22 Jewry Street (from 1850), Wellclose Square (from 1854) and 23 Well Street, Hackney (from 1878). The Widow's Home was first based at 22 Mitre Street, then 19 Duke Street (from 1850), 67 Great Prescott Street, Goodmans Fields (from 1857) and later moved next door to the Hand in Hand in 1880.

The Jewish Workhouse was founded in 1871 by a movement led by Solomon Green, the son of Abraham Green one of the founders of the Widow's Home. The first premises were at 123 Wentworth Street. In 1876 the Home moved to 37-9 Stepney Green.

Nightingale:

“The charity’s origins can be traced back to 1840. The three original homes were called the Hand in Hand Asylum, the Widows’ Home Asylum and the Jewish Workhouse, also known as the Jewish Home. They were established in the old Jewish quarter in London’s East End to cater for the needs of poor Jewish people”

I found this:

SOLOMON ABRAHAM GREEN . I am a provision dealer and founder of the Jewish Home of which Isaac Bloomfield is secretary—it is a home for the purpose of taking Jews out of Christian workhouses—

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18930306-350&div=t18930306-350&terms=Jewish#highlight

I wonder whether it might be possible that Aaron Kozminski was brought from the Workhouse (July 1890) to the Jewish Home/Hospital, Stepney Green and then on to Surrey.

Along Mile End Road were two Jewish homes (1891):

Portuguese and Spanish Jew´s hospital between 251-255 Mile End Road.
Jewish Home (Samuel Shuter, supt.), 37-39 Stepney Green Mile End Road.

I hope I understood it correctly.

Karsten.

Fisherman
11-29-2016, 03:11 PM
Fleetwood Mac: I absolutely agree that this doesn't mean Kosminski was JTR.

At the same time, it is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have added his thoughts without saying something like: "but, I wasn't convinced because...." in the event he wasn't convinced with Anderson's conclusion.

I don´t know, Mac - we are talking about notes made in a private book. It´s not as if he was selling something to somebody. To me, it may well have been a case of him reiterating Anderson´s take, and at the very least, it´s not something that can be excluded.

The idea that Swanson simply repeated Anderson's opinion is merely a means of avoiding what is laid out in black and white because some people don't want to believe that Swanson and Anderson both believed they had their man, that is two senior officials, one of them the administrative head of the investigation; given that it follows that one or both must have had good reason to believe they had their man.

To me, the fact that it must be assumed that Swanson wrote for nobody but himself means that it cannot be established to what extent he believed in Andersons suspect. It´s not that I cannot see what you mean and how you read it, but whenever you argue a case, you argue it AGAINST somebody - and there is no counterpart involved here. To me, Swanson may well have filled in the blanks in order to produce a more full description of Andersons thoughts, nothing more than that.
If you was to ask me how much Swanson invested in it all, I´d really be at a loss to jump off the fence in any direction. To my mind, Swanson seems a much less flamboyant man than his old boss, a man of more afterthought and a sort of quiet reflecting over things. He fits either way.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that the marginalia is genuine, of course.

Of course!

Paddy
11-29-2016, 03:31 PM
I read something like that somewhere and there was mentioned Woolf would have been the Freemason. Do you have the source for me?

I did not find Woolfe as a freemason only Isaac.
Here is the source from Ancestry

United Grand Lodge of England
1863-1887
Register of Contributions: London Lodges, 156-784 (1832); 134-538 (1863)

However I do believe Jacob Cohen was a freemason at some time..

Pat...

Paddy
11-29-2016, 03:37 PM
Karsten Thanks for the info I will have a look at it and get back to you if I can find anything. I do think it would have been private or it would have been mentioned on Aarons notes. Also that it was probably a rest home of some kind.
Thanks
Pat...

S.Brett
11-29-2016, 03:46 PM
Thanks Pat and good night!

S.Brett
11-29-2016, 03:57 PM
...

You on JTRForums:

I do not think he was low class as he came from a successful family both brothers being master tailors and one being a freemason. At the time of the double event his family were living in the next street to Berner Street

I thought the family of the freemason Woolf were living next to Berner Street... my fault...

Paddy
11-29-2016, 04:07 PM
I do not think he was low class as he came from a successful family both brothers being master tailors and one being a freemason. At the time of the double event his family were living in the next street to Berner Street
I thought the family of the freemason Woolf were living next to Berner Street... my fault...

Sorry yes I could have made that clearer. Woolfe and his family were living in Providence street that is next to Berner Street. They pulled their daughter out of school in October 1888. As she was not registered in a school for the next 6 months its hard to know what happened. However Woolfe was living in Yalford street by feb/march 1889 as they had a baby that died there..Maybe the daughter was taken out to help her mum at home...

Pat......goodnight !

S.Brett
11-29-2016, 04:17 PM
Sorry yes I could have made that clearer. Woolfe and his family were living in Providence street that is next to Berner Street. They pulled their daughter out of school in October 1888. As she was not registered in a school for the next 6 months its hard to know what happened. However Woolfe was living in Yalford street by feb/march 1889 as they had a baby that died there..Maybe the daughter was taken out to help her mum at home...

Pat......goodnight !

That was a truly great article in Ripperologist 128 in 2012 by you and Chris Phillips... great research you have done in the past... sleep well...

c.d.
11-29-2016, 04:40 PM
"At the same time, it is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have added his thoughts without saying something like: "but, I wasn't convinced because...." in the event he wasn't convinced with Anderson's conclusion."

Hello Mac,

I am not so sure on this. If Swanson was unconvinced of K's guilt, why would he commit to paper something he already knew, i.e., his own views?

In reading the marginalia it seems like Swanson was trying to refresh his memory for whatever purpose perhaps intending to respond in full at some future point.

c.d.

Paddy
11-29-2016, 05:23 PM
S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)

In reading the marginalia it seems like Swanson was trying to refresh his memory for whatever purpose perhaps intending to respond in full at some future point.

I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...

Pat.......................

c.d.
11-29-2016, 05:34 PM
Even if Anderson and Swanson shared the same view it doesn't necessarily mean that they held it with equal conviction. In other words, Anderson might have absolutely believed that Kosminski was the Ripper so much so that he was willing to wager the souls of his children on it whereas Swanson simply believed him to be a good suspect.

c.d.

Elamarna
11-29-2016, 05:43 PM
S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)



I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...

Pat.......................



Hi Pat

just had a reread of the article, and yes it is very, very good, certainly with the possible placements of home addresses for the Family.

I am convinced that what Swanson wrote was a truthful account from his point of view.
I tend to go with the view that he agrees with Anderson, and is adding information, not merely supporting it.

However one must conceded the view you make is also entirely possible


regards

Steve

Paddy Goose
11-29-2016, 06:30 PM
Surely Kosminski's death would have been reported to him. Now I know that Anderson's memoirs were written some twenty years after the fact but wouldn't you expect him to remember Kosminski's death so soon after his incarceration (if this were in fact the case) along with the accompanying frustration that further information regarding the murders was now now lost to them? It just seems very strange that he got so significant an event wrong if indeed the suspect was truly Aaron Kosminski.



So instead of being told that Kosminski had died, Anderson was simply told that "X" had died. Now since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration I would think that a one or two year period should cover "shortly." The point being that you would think that the Ripper dying shortly after being incarcerated is something that he would remember even twenty years down the road and not get his facts wrong on this point.



Which is why I think if what Anderson said took place was true that he would have remembered the date of "X's" death as significant.


since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration

Robert Anderson's memoir doesn't say anything at all about his suspect's death. Aaron Kosminski outlived Anderson.

Jonathan H
11-29-2016, 06:35 PM
To Fisherman

I can see what you mean, and that might be correct, but I think because of the reported comment by Swanson in 1895 -- about the Ripper likely being a deceased man -- that this was a solution with which he concurred.

On the other hand Swanson may have been wholly dependent on the opinion of his revered chief, Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.

The reason Anderson did not contact Colney Hatch, in 1895, was because "Kosminski" had [supposedly] been dead for nearly six years. In a private bit of revenge Macnaghten had misled Anderson, whom, being a repressed Victorian fundamentalist, pounced on the detail about "self-abuse".

Something else to consider is that George Sims knows in 1910 about the suspect contents of Macnaghten's filed report, and writes in his regular column about it -- and absolutely denies that any Jewish people assisted this suspect to evade justice. He even uses Anderson's phrase about "definitely ascertained facts" but that such an assertion by the retired chief goes beyond the facts.

The existence of this version of a Ripper report would not be referred to again until Robin Odell revealed the suspect's contents in the revised edition of his fine book in 1966 ("Jack the Ripper - In Fact and Fiction").

Therefore questioning the veracity of Anderson's solution is not just a modern examination. Major Smith denied the credibility of the solution at the time, as did Abberline -- and so did Macnaghten, by then Assistant Commissioner, via his literary proxy Sims.

Textual evidence that "Kosminski" emerged originally from Macnaghten is that the former first enters the extant record in the latter's 1894 report(s) and Mac's abbreviation to just the surname is exactly how Swanson will write the alleged killer's name in his copy of his boss' memoirs in 1910, or thereabouts.

Jonathan H
11-29-2016, 06:49 PM
It is theorized that Anderson believed, just like Swanson in 1895 and 1910, that his Ripper was deceased -- because of the biography written about him by his son:

"Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson" by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947

From Chapter IV:

"... The criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent kind living in the immediate vicinity. The police reached the conclusion that he and his people were aliens of a certain low type, that the latter knew of the crimes but would not give him up. Two clues which might have led to an arrest were destroyed before the C.I.D. had a chance of seeing them, one a clay pipe, the other some writing with chalk on a wall. Scotland Yard, however, had no doubt that the criminal was eventually found. The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum."

The clay pipe detail is hopelessly wrong (a mistaken memory fusion of the Kelly and McKenzie murders, neither of which produced a pipe of anything like the significance Anderson gives it) and so is the alleged killer being long dead.

Why not the detail about the witness being wrong too?

Paddy Goose
11-29-2016, 07:04 PM
Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.


Was Anderson aware Macnaghten hated him? The one he was wholly dependent on.

Paddy

Jonathan H
11-29-2016, 08:31 PM
To Paddy

Hard to tell, I would guess not -- because the son writes about his father relying on Macnaghten and this professional relationship is characterized quite benignly (and blandly).

The two police chiefs were certainly polar opposites in background, temperament and personality, and this time opposites apparently did not attract. Their memoirs reveal a "cold war" between the pair, and their Checkpoint Charlie is "Jack the Ripper".

Dr. Robert Anderson was hard-working, tertiary educated and an incorruptible civil servant. He was also a humorless egotist and a sectarian crank (who believed that Christ's return was imminent). Born to the elite Melville Macnaghten, by contrast, was a charming smoothie, a fanatical Old Etonian, an ex-Indian overseer, a true crime aficionado, a toff who enjoyed the company of working men, an, despite his desk-job saw himself as a roving sleuth (and between 1889 and 1891 was frequently down in the East End trying to catch the Ripper, not realizing that he was long in his grave).

I think we see definite glimpses of the enmity felt by the younger, more modern and affable man towards the older, stuffier, Victorian hold-over.

For example, in Anderson's 1910 memoir, in which the colleague he worked with for twelve years, Macnaghten, is never mentioned by name, he makes a reference to a Scotland Yard figure who supposedly made an embarrassing "fuss" over a threatening note -- in effect Anderson is accusing the man of acting like a coward. Yet in a very passive-aggressive way Anderson claims to be admitting his own error: he burned the note, but then the same lunatic nearly shot Prime Minister Gladstone. Anderson writes he should not have burned the note, but his colleague's fear was so distracting he made this error. Swanson's annotation identifies this top cop as being none other than Macnaghten, an upper crust gentleman who styled himself as "a man of action".

More likely is that Macnaghten tried to bring to the attention of his boss evidence of a dangerous lunatic, but Anderson dismissed it. This colossal error of judgment nearly led to the decapitation of the national government. Rather than really take responsibility, he shifted the blame to his allegedly nerves-of-jelly subordinate.

It is an appallingly bitchy and unpersuasive bit of slander against an English gentleman, albeit "Good Old Mac" is not named. Nevertheless Macnaghten took his revenge, I think, in two ways.

In 1910 he had his close pal Sims (as Dagonet) inform his enormous readership that Anderson did not know, for certain, the true identity of the Ripper -- and, just to sink the boot in, was unfairly picking on Hebrews.

Secondly Macnaghten's own memoirs of 1914 -- which likewise do not mention Anderson at all, though he gushingly praises Williamson, Abberline, Monro, Swanson, Littlechild, et al. -- subtly refute Anderson and his Ripper solution.

According to Macnaghten's "Days of My Years" the likeliest Whitechapel suspect had never been in an asylum, was maybe seen by just one witness (a Bobbie, but his description was useless) and Scotland Yard did not know about this man until "some years after" he had killed himself, -- they, as in Anderson, had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom. Macnaghten does not even concede that a Polish immigrant had ever been a suspect of significance.

Furthermore Macnaghten devotes a chapter to the Adolf Beck case of the mid-1900's in which multiple witnesses had mistakenly picked out the wrong man and sent him to prison for the crimes of another (Mac, perhaps too generously, takes the lion's share of the credit for getting Beck cleared). The pertinent point is Macnaghten says that eyewitness evidence, by itself, is notoriously unreliable. An outraged Jewish critic of Anderson had made the same point to the retired chief during the imbroglio his memoirs caused in 1910, and he too cited the Beck debacle.

I think another glimpse is that Macnaghten knows that "Kosminski" is not deceased (that was Druitt) and yet Anderson (and Swanson) think he was. This disinformation can only come from Mac misleading a boss he neither liked nor trusted (did not trust to be discreet, that is, and if it was in 1895, when Anderson first learned about the Polish suspect as the likeliest Ripper, he was telling people about "his" solution; people like Major Griffiths).

Fisherman
11-29-2016, 11:00 PM
To Fisherman

I can see what you mean, and that might be correct, but I think because of the reported comment by Swanson in 1895 -- about the Ripper likely being a deceased man -- that this was a solution with which he concurred.

On the other hand Swanson may have been wholly dependent on the opinion of his revered chief, Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.

The reason Anderson did not contact Colney Hatch, in 1895, was because "Kosminski" had [supposedly] been dead for nearly six years. In a private bit of revenge Macnaghten had misled Anderson, whom, being a repressed Victorian fundamentalist, pounced on the detail about "self-abuse".

Something else to consider is that George Sims knows in 1910 about the suspect contents of Macnaghten's filed report, and writes in his regular column about it -- and absolutely denies that any Jewish people assisted this suspect to evade justice. He even uses Anderson's phrase about "definitely ascertained facts" but that such an assertion by the retired chief goes beyond the facts.

The existence of this version of a Ripper report would not be referred to again until Robin Odell revealed the suspect's contents in the revised edition of his fine book in 1966 ("Jack the Ripper - In Fact and Fiction").

Therefore questioning the veracity of Anderson's solution is not just a modern examination. Major Smith denied the credibility of the solution at the time, as did Abberline -- and so did Macnaghten, by then Assistant Commissioner, via his literary proxy Sims.

Textual evidence that "Kosminski" emerged originally from Macnaghten is that the former first enters the extant record in the latter's 1894 report(s) and Mac's abbreviation to just the surname is exactly how Swanson will write the alleged killer's name in his copy of his boss' memoirs in 1910, or thereabouts.

Well, Jonathan, if nothing else, your post goes to show how multifaceted this errand is, and how many interpretations can be made. Whether Kosminski was a good suspect or not and whether there was a genuine belief in his guilt hinges on a good many things.

I take your comment on the 1895 statement by Swanson, but will add that the "likely" seems less aimed at the killer being deceased than his being the killer. The exact wording was, I believe, that Swanson "believed" the killer to be dead, but that amounts to the same: no certainty.

Plus, of course, as always - Aaron Kosminski was definitely not dead at this stage.

Around we go. :)

S.Brett
11-30-2016, 02:23 AM
Hi Pat!

S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)

It appears that the family of Woolf Abrahams was not the only family branch that lived near Dutfields Yard. More than a half year ago there was a discussion on JTRForums and Chris Phillips wrote that it would have been possible that Israel Lubnowski was living 23 Batty Gardens (behind Dutfields Yard) at that time. This address comes from a record of the London Hospital. Marie Lobonoffski, most probably a daughter of Israel Lubnowski, was a patient there from April to May 1887. 1891 we find Israel Lubnowski, a Rabbi Minister (brother of Morris Lubnowski, the husband of Aaron Kozminski´s sister Matilda), 6 Yalford Street, the same street (34 Yalford Street) where Woolf Abrahams was living between 1889 and 1890, if not earlier. Perhaps both men, Woolf Abrahams and Israel Lubnowski, left their streets near Dutfields Yard after the Double Event when the police had arrested the man who dropped off the bloody shirts. Mrs. Kuer (Batty Street "Lodger") said the man who dropped off the clothes was a ladies tailor working for a West end house. This might have been Isaac Abrahams, the freemason. In October 1888, you know, there were press reports about a man, inmate of an East End Infirmary, who was shadowed. Other newspapers have reported about a who man was shadowed but did not leave his house anymore. Aaron Kozminski? In October 1888 no murder took place. I remember your great grandfather´s brother Henry Cox who stated:

"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased"

Was this madman put under observation two times, after the Double Event and after the Kelly murder?

I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...

My impression is that Swanson was the first who received the information about Kosminski´s "death"! Lady Anderson (wife of Sir Robert Anderson) once remarked that the Ripper was interned in an asylum near Stone. His son Arthur Anderson, via his father, stated: the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he had died in an asylum! It is hard to imagine that Anderson was not sure whether Kosminski died in Stone or Colney Hatch. It is possible that Anderson was telling certain people:

"he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Stone, Kent and I believe he died there"

Maybe Swanson had the idea to send his copy to Anderson, with all this remarks. Remarks like:

"he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards"

or:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew"

Did Anderson not entirely realize that the witness was a Jew? Did his name not sound Jewish? On this thread I gave the example of Frank Ruffell a carman (witness in the Farmer case).

Oldbailey 1885 shows:

THOMAS HALEY (22) and FRANK RUFFELL , Robbery with violence with another person unknown on James Carey, and stealing a watch, a chain, and seal, his property.

“AMELIA RUFFELL . I am a Dutch Jewess and Ruffell's mother—I am a widow—I live at 10, Wine Court, Whitechapel—on 24th September Ruffell had been selling grapes at the corner of Baker's Row—I brought him his dinner at 4 o'clock.”

Via Worldvitalrecords you can see a Francis Ruffell, Carman, in 1891.

I don´t know if Oldbailey´s Frank Ruffel is identical with Frank Ruffell (Carman 1888/Farmer) and/or Francis Ruffell (a Carman in 1891) but Ruffell sounds not Jewish to me. But the maiden name of his mother might have been Abrahams, Cohen, Levy, Lewis, Solomon, Goldstein etc.

This is my idea of the Seaside Home witness, young, his mother widowed, both living in Whitechapel, Jewish but the name Ruffell, I´m not sure, of a Scandinavian origin. I must confess I really do not know it but I think in the Netherlands it was possible to marry a man or woman who were not Jewish. In the case of Ruffell it would be possible that his father was not born Jewish.

However, pure speculation.

Karsten.

Paddy
11-30-2016, 07:59 AM
It appears that the family of Woolf Abrahams was not the only family branch that lived near Dutfields Yard

Hi Karsten I did read on a very blurred newspaper article (find my past) that When Aarons' sister came to Whitechapel she had many relations here.

I am sure there are more cousins around...

Pat......

S.Brett
11-30-2016, 01:34 PM
Thanks Pat!

As might be expected... can I see the newspaper on findmypast without being logged in?

Paddy
11-30-2016, 04:15 PM
As might be expected... can I see the newspaper on findmypast without being logged in?

Dont think you can see the whole lot maybe just a snippet but I still think you would have to register to search. Unfortunately it didn't name the relations just said she had many.

Pat...

c.d.
08-08-2017, 04:29 PM
Hi Pat

just had a reread of the article, and yes it is very, very good, certainly with the possible placements of home addresses for the Family.

I am convinced that what Swanson wrote was a truthful account from his point of view.
I tend to go with the view that he agrees with Anderson, and is adding information, not merely supporting it.

However one must conceded the view you make is also entirely possible


regards

Steve

As has been pointed out, this was just marginalia and not a book setting out Swanson's views although he could have said "Anderson's suspect (with which I did not concur) ... or something to that effect.


c.d.