PDA

View Full Version : Kosminski - Dead or Alive


mklhawley
02-26-2013, 04:04 AM
Hi all,

Quick question: How did Melville Macnaghten know that 'Kosminski' was alive yet Assistant Commissioner Anderson and Chief Inspector Swanson did not?

Sincerely,

Mike

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 07:02 AM
Quick answers (two of them):

Either they spoke of different men, or Anderson and Swanson had been misinformed.

That should cover it I think.

The best,
Fisherman

Phil H
02-26-2013, 07:32 AM
I think there was some confusion - perhaps to do with the overlap between City and Met forces. Maybe it had to do with confusion between two men using the name Kosminski, as Scott Nelson has pointed out in his recent article and as Martin Fido wrote long ago. That to me seems likeliest.

Swanson's marginalia seems to fit one man better than the other.

Phil

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 07:49 AM
I think the Cohen theory is ingenious -- and could, of course, be right -- but it's not really necessary.

As his memory fails him, by 1910, Anderson rather seems to be confusing and compressing people and events, including victims, between 1888 and 1895; which includes Pizer, Violena (sic), Sadler, Lawende, 'Kosminski' (as opposed to Aaron) Kelly and Coles, and William Grant.

Whereas Macnaghten, in the fragments, can be argued to have known that 'Kosminski' eg. the real Aaron Kosminski, was quite alive and that he was not sectioned soon after the Kelly murder (Sims, 1907).

I subscribe to Phil H's option that they were [initially] misinformed. Whom else could that misleading figure be but Anderson's No. 2, since he blithely knows more about this suspect than his superior?

Phil H
02-26-2013, 08:55 AM
Whole lot of assumptions there, Jonathan, and a reading of the marginalia that may not be correct - it can be read in various ways, including that DSS knew LESS than Anderson.

It is also possible that Kosminski - as meant by Sir RA and DSS was not Aaron - they give no forename.

Phil

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 09:14 AM
That's right, Phil H, just like Macnaghten provided no first name ...

Phil H
02-26-2013, 09:18 AM
But Jonathan, YOU used the first name in connection with MM not me:

Whereas Macnaghten, in the fragments, can be argued to have known that 'Kosminski' eg. the real Aaron Kosminski, was quite alive and that he was not sectioned soon after the Kelly murder (Sims, 1907).

Phil

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 09:34 AM
You've missed my meaning:

Behind 'Kosminski' Mac knows details which match not this fictional variant but the real person who seems to have inspired him: Aaron Kosminski -- and not David Cohen.

He was alive and not dead.

He was out and about for a considerable time after the Kelly murder.

You have not tackled Mike's question: how did Macnaghten know that 'Kosminski' was alive and his superior and junior did not?

Phil H
02-26-2013, 09:54 AM
Not a question that interests me, Jonathan.

MM is no longer an omniscient creature to me (as he was before the far more important marginalia emerged). IMHO he was just as muddled as you say Sir RA and DSS were.

Phil

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 10:34 AM
Please yourself, but Macnaghten is not as muddled as the other two, that's the point..

Phil H
02-26-2013, 11:27 AM
I will please myself, thank you.

And I don't think Swanson was "muddled" at all. We just dopn't have the information on which to judge.

As we don't in regard to Druitt, with MM.

It is possible that Swanson has been misinformed about the date of "Kosminki's death, but if he was not thinking of Aaron, he may have been right.

phil

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 11:52 AM
Misinformed about the date of Kosminski''s death?

You mean like by somebody who knew he was still alive?

Phil H
02-26-2013, 12:52 PM
No - I think Swanson or Anderson mau have been given what someone BELIEVED was correct information (perhaps because two individuals with similar names were confused).

If you believe that information comes from an authoritative source you don't tend to question it.

Phil

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 01:03 PM
Swanson was in charge of the case - or so we are told.
Anderson was his superior.

Would not one - and probably two - of these men demand to see the death certificate of Jack the Ripper? I´d say that they would.

And if they DID - then Aaron Kosminski was reasonably not the Ripper.

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 01:16 PM
Swanson was in charge of the case - or so we are told.
Anderson was his superior.

Would not one - and probably two - of these men demand to see the death certificate of Jack the Ripper? I´d say that they would.

And if they DID - then Aaron Kosminski was reasonably not the Ripper.

The best,
Fisherman

So, if Anderson and Swanson were hot on the trail of Kosminski, they would have known. That sounds logical.

Mike

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 01:35 PM
So, if Anderson and Swanson were hot on the trail of Kosminski, they would have known. That sounds logical.

Mike

No matter WHO they were hot on the trail for, Mike - if that somebody was known to have been out away in an asylum, then Swanson and Anderson would have kept track of the developments. And once the news reached them that he was dead, they would want confirmation of this.

I hope that sounds equally logical.

The best,
Fisherman

lynn cates
02-26-2013, 01:46 PM
Hello Christer.

Would it be beyond reason to suggest that Swanson and Anderson stood to "Kosminski" as Littlechild stood to Tumblety, with respect to being dead?

But if that were what happened, it looks like rumour and speculation after the fact whilst casting about for a solution to a "cold case."

Cheers.
LC

Phil H
02-26-2013, 02:58 PM
Old cases and senior men.

We know Swanson had been relieved of his ovesight responsibilities once Warren departed. Anderson would have had new issues to deal with.

If the information they received came from what they considered a reliable source, I am sure they would have accepted it at face value.

In my experience, bosses may double check information when an issue is HOT/current - the devil is often in the details - but later other things take priority and they move on. They also have better things to do than second guess their subordinates or colleagues.

The man Sir RA and DSS thought was "Jack" was incarcerated, he wasn't going anywhere, they were told he was dead. No reason to spend more time on an old case.

We now want to know, they believed they knew all they needed to. For all that the Ripper case was notorious and still demanded attention from time to time - Mackenzie, Coles etc - I suspect that the focus of their issue was elsewhere by the early 1890s. They may even have resented the caal-backs to the case which were a distraction from new problems which they may have deemed more important.

Phil

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 03:08 PM
No matter WHO they were hot on the trail for, Mike - if that somebody was known to have been out away in an asylum, then Swanson and Anderson would have kept track of the developments. And once the news reached them that he was dead, they would want confirmation of this.

I hope that sounds equally logical.

The best,
Fisherman

It does.

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 03:10 PM
The man Sir RA and DSS thought was "Jack" was incarcerated, he wasn't going anywhere, they were told he was dead. No reason to spend more time on an old case.

Phil

Hi Phil,

One concern I have with this is, the Jack the Ripper case was the big news of the day, and Scotland Yard didn't look so good. I just don't see them casually ignoring the case like other cases.

Mike

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 03:48 PM
Hello Christer.

Would it be beyond reason to suggest that Swanson and Anderson stood to "Kosminski" as Littlechild stood to Tumblety, with respect to being dead?

But if that were what happened, it looks like rumour and speculation after the fact whilst casting about for a solution to a "cold case."

Cheers.
LC

I think these were very different matters, Lynn - I don´t see Littlechild being very keen on Tumblety at all; he was looking for somebody a bit more rough at the edges. So his erroneous belief that Tumblety did away with himself is not something I think Littlechild would have gone to any great lengths to have proven.
The asylum suspect referred to by Anderson and Swanson, though, was seemingly a man that was invested heavily in. I don´t see him being able to slip under the radar.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 04:00 PM
Old cases and senior men.

We know Swanson had been relieved of his ovesight responsibilities once Warren departed. Anderson would have had new issues to deal with.

If the information they received came from what they considered a reliable source, I am sure they would have accepted it at face value.

In my experience, bosses may double check information when an issue is HOT/current - the devil is often in the details - but later other things take priority and they move on. They also have better things to do than second guess their subordinates or colleagues.

The man Sir RA and DSS thought was "Jack" was incarcerated, he wasn't going anywhere, they were told he was dead. No reason to spend more time on an old case.

We now want to know, they believed they knew all they needed to. For all that the Ripper case was notorious and still demanded attention from time to time - Mackenzie, Coles etc - I suspect that the focus of their issue was elsewhere by the early 1890s. They may even have resented the caal-backs to the case which were a distraction from new problems which they may have deemed more important.

Phil

The Ripper was incarcerated rather quickly according to Swanson, and he died shortly afterwards. The case would not have been "an old case", Phil. My own stance is that the Ripper was so rare a bird that no matter how old he, Anderson and Swanson grew, they would keep track of him! And therefore, they would make sure that if anything significant happened to him, they would be the first to be informed.
I cannot envisage them saying: "Who? Oh, the Ripper? Him? Dead, you say?" to anybody. They would have followed the growth of the man´s toenails, if they had the possibility.

So when you are sure that they would have accepted "at face value" a bid coming from someone "reliable" that the Ripper was dead, I must disagree with you, as you will understand. If the Ripper died soon after his incarceration - and that is what we are told! - then Anderson and Swanson were still very much in office! Anderson only retired from the Met in 1901, and Swanson waited two years further. And they were both tied to the case in everybodys mind - they would have made sure they were informed.

The suggestion of a lacklustre interest on their behalf is not something I can understand readily, and both you and I know that there has never been a more high-profile murder case in British history. Plus the killer was perceived as doing something nobody else had done before him. He would have been studied meticulously, no matter if he took off to la-la-land or not.

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 04:01 PM
I think these were very different matters, Lynn - I don´t see Littlechild being very keen on Tumblety at all; he was looking for somebody a bit more rough at the edges. So his erroneous belief that Tumblety did away with himself is not something I think Littlechild would have gone to any great lengths to have proven.
The asylum suspect referred to by Anderson and Swanson, though, was seemingly a man that was invested heavily in. I don´t see him being able to slip under the radar.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

The intention of Littclechild was to show Sims that not only was he keen on Tumblety, so was the rest of Scotland Yard in November 1888. Littlechild stated Tumblety was 'a likely suspect' and Anderson 'only thought he knew'. It was because of the MacKenzie murder that caused Anderson and company to disregard Tumblety, since Tumblety was across the Atlantic at the time.

Littlechild's involvement with Tumblety and the Whitechapel investigation occurred in November, since his old boss, Anderson, needed Tumblety's information from the Special Branch files. Littlechild not knowing of Tumblety after November 1888 is very understandable, since he personally was not investigating Tumblety, but doing important Irish nationalist stuff.

Mike

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 05:21 PM
Hi Fisherman,

The intention of Littclechild was to show Sims that not only was he keen on Tumblety, so was the rest of Scotland Yard in November 1888. Littlechild stated Tumblety was 'a likely suspect' and Anderson 'only thought he knew'. It was because of the MacKenzie murder that caused Anderson and company to disregard Tumblety, since Tumblety was across the Atlantic at the time.

Littlechild's involvement with Tumblety and the Whitechapel investigation occurred in November, since his old boss, Anderson, needed Tumblety's information from the Special Branch files. Littlechild not knowing of Tumblety after November 1888 is very understandable, since he personally was not investigating Tumblety, but doing important Irish nationalist stuff.

Mike

In November 1888, anybody who could spell "knife" ran the risk of becoming a favoured suspect of the police, I´d say. Tumblety was not a woman´s man, he was a (quack) doctor and he was somewhat exotic, so he had a lot going for him! Small wonder that the Yard went after him, thus. But in spite of Littlechild naming him a "likely" suspect, I don´t really see all that much enthusiasm on his behalf. It´s kind of like the MacNaghten guys;"here´s a bunch that´s not all that bad", sort of.
It has been said that Littlechild opted for a sadist, and that Tumblety didn´t match that frame; I don´t know how they could be sure of that though. I just don´t see Littlechild carrying much of a torch here.

As for Mackenzie, there was never any universal agreement that she was a Ripper victim - some said she was, others disagreed. Bond and Phillips represented the two camps. And of course, Bond was Anderson´s man ...

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 05:57 PM
In November 1888, anybody who could spell "knife" ran the risk of becoming a favoured suspect of the police, I´d say. Tumblety was not a woman´s man, he was a (quack) doctor and he was somewhat exotic, so he had a lot going for him! Small wonder that the Yard went after him, thus. But in spite of Littlechild naming him a "likely" suspect, I don´t really see all that much enthusiasm on his behalf. It´s kind of like the MacNaghten guys;"here´s a bunch that´s not all that bad", sort of.
It has been said that Littlechild opted for a sadist, and that Tumblety didn´t match that frame; I don´t know how they could be sure of that though. I just don´t see Littlechild carrying much of a torch here.

As for Mackenzie, there was never any universal agreement that she was a Ripper victim - some said she was, others disagreed. Bond and Phillips represented the two camps. And of course, Bond was Anderson´s man ...

The best,
Fisherman

Anderson not only personally contacted US Chiefs of Police about Tumblety, he sent Andrews to Canada for this reason. They didn't invest that much time and energy on anyone else. In view of this, you are way off the mark. You are still trying to compare Tumblety's public persona with your perception of who JTR was. Wrong thing to do, and Scotland Yard did not do this.

Phil H
02-26-2013, 06:00 PM
The Ripper was incarcerated rather quickly according to Swanson, and he died shortly afterwards. The case would not have been "an old case", Phil.

It was a PAST case, Fisherman. "Old" is a relative term.What happened last week can be old to a senior civil servant/official if the agenda has shifted.

I was a UK civil servant from the mid 70s working with a lot of senior men not unlike Anderson. They focused on what was "politically" sensitive at the time, and on things that had to be done.

So yes, Anderson etc would go to a potential "Ripper" murder scene because they had to be seen to do so; they wrote about in their memoirs because it had been high-profile and remained in the piblic mind; the failure publicly to bring the culprit to justice was undoubtedly an embarrassment.

But none of that is the same as saying they continued to take a professional interest in the case. They were not paid to do so. They were paid to "grip" (as the word for it is) the issues of the moment, not of the past. Sir RA and DSS were of the view that they had put their man away - largely end of story.

That's how I see it.

Phil

Stewart P Evans
02-26-2013, 06:32 PM
Why do people always leave out the 'very' from Littlechild's description of Tumblety as a 'very likely one'?

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 07:13 PM
Anderson not only personally contacted US Chiefs of Police about Tumblety, he sent Andrews to Canada for this reason. They didn't invest that much time and energy on anyone else. In view of this, you are way off the mark. You are still trying to compare Tumblety's public persona with your perception of who JTR was. Wrong thing to do, and Scotland Yard did not do this.

Well, I MAY be way off the mark, just like you say.

Then again, I may be right on it - maybe my feeling that Littlechild did not really believe all that much in Tumblety is absolutely correct. We will both find it hard to prove our takes in this respect.

I notice that Stewart Evans asks why the "very" is left out when Tumblety is spoken of. And that is a fair question. In my case, I guess I am somewhat coloured - as you suggest - by my own take on who Jack was, and so I make that blunder. Littlechild wrote "very" but it is a "very" that does not feel very "very" to me. Call it a hunch, and I know that you have the upper hand semantically here, but there you are.

The yard perhaps sent Andrews after Tumblety, yes. But is that not only a perhaps? The snag here seems to be that Andrews originally went over the Atlantic to deliver a criminal from London to Toronto, so the journey seems to have been a joint venture of some sort. After that, it seems it was reported that Andrews moved on to New York, but no confirmation has been found that he arrived there.
Looking upon it like that, the Tumblety business may well have been second-hand stuff.
But I truly don´t know - Tumblety has never been on my list of truly interesting suspects (surprise!), and so I am not updated on him. He is something of a blind spot for me, so far. If I have missed out here, then I would be happy to learn more.

The best,
Fisherman

Steve S
02-26-2013, 07:25 PM
I think it's fair to say that's there's at least as much evidence to support Tumblety as a contemporary Police suspect as MM's trio..........

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 07:26 PM
Amounting to...?

Fisherman

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 07:31 PM
I notice that Stewart Evans asks why the "very" is left out when Tumblety is spoken of. And that is a fair question. In my case, I guess I am somewhat coloured - as you suggest - by my own take on who Jack was, and so I make that blunder. Littlechild wrote "very" but it is a "very" that does not feel very "very" to me. Call it a hunch, and I know that you have the upper hand semantically here, but there you are.



I love the very 'very'! I have to tell you, though. With Tumblety, it's not a case of limited evidence so either of us might be right. 'Very' actually means 'very', just as Stewart has pointed out. You will enjoy my next two articles coming out in the near future. This should clarify things.

Now, back to Kosminski.

Sincerely,

Mike

Steve S
02-26-2013, 07:39 PM
Amounting to...?

Fisherman

One mention after event by a senior policeman....But one who was actually involved at the time........I'm not talking about later refs by Anderson/Swanson,but just comparing Littlechild to MM..........Obviously there's a lot of newspaper stuff about and by Tumblety,but I'm just looking at Police sources........

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 07:52 PM
One mention after event by a senior policeman....But one who was actually involved at the time........I'm not talking about later refs by Anderson/Swanson,but just comparing Littlechild to MM..........Obviously there's a lot of newspaper stuff about and by Tumblety,but I'm just looking at Police sources........

And that’s not the only police source. The entire cascade of Tumblety newspaper articles find their origin from a New York World foreign correspondent stating that his source was, …’the police’. This was confirmed by US Chiefs of Police Byrnes, Crowley, and Campbell by them admitting in one way or another that Tumblety was considered a Ripper suspect by Scotland Yard.

Now, back to Kosminski.

Mike

Jonathan H
02-26-2013, 07:57 PM
Littlechild writes to Sims that somebody 'believed' that Tumblety committed suicide. Satisfyingly it could have happened after he jumped his bail.

This echoes what Swanson jots down about 'Kosminski': satisfyingly deceased soon after Kelly.

Littlechild also never questions the status of 'Dr. D' which we know from all Sims other writings was the [alleged] prime suspect of 1888.

The 'very' matches that notion: the chief suspect -- except a Yank not a Brit, and was arrested and not about to be, and believed to have taken his own life, not that we we were sure, let alone in a river.

Does nobody else see a pattern here?

Druitt was dead soon after Kelly, not Tumblety and not Aaron Kosminski, yet somebody is mixing and matching bits and pieces and telling all this to significant police figures.

Tom Divall in the 1930's claims that Macnaghten had told him that the Ripper was a man who fled to the US and died in an asylum. This was soon after Kelly, and the murders ended.

Fisherman
02-26-2013, 07:59 PM
I love the very 'very'! I have to tell you, though. With Tumblety, it's not a case of limited evidence so either of us might be right. 'Very' actually means 'very', just as Stewart has pointed out. You will enjoy my next two articles coming out in the near future. This should clarify things.

Now, back to Kosminski.

Sincerely,

Mike

Looking forward to it, Mike - I could do with a brushing up on my Tumblety. Will you go into the homosexuality bit too?

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
02-26-2013, 08:16 PM
Druitt was dead soon after Kelly, not Tumblety and not Aaron Kosminski, yet somebody is mixing and matching bits and pieces and telling all this to significant police figures.

Tom Divall in the 1930's claims that Macnaghten had told him that the Ripper was a man who fled to the US and died in an asylum. This was soon after Kelly, and the murders ended.

Hi Jonathan,

The fact that someone admitted Macnaghten was basically mixing and matching is very convincing.


Hi Fisherman,
Yes indeed.


Sincerely,

Mike

Stephen Thomas
02-26-2013, 08:30 PM
In November 1888, anybody who could spell "knife" ran the risk of becoming a favoured suspect of the police

And them what couldn't spell 'nice' as well.

Stewart P Evans
02-27-2013, 06:34 AM
Why do people always leave out the 'very' from Littlechild's description of Tumblety as a 'very likely one'?

It has been brought to my attention that rather significantly, perhaps, the 'very' has been omitted on page 213 of the new book Jack the Ripper: CSI Whitechapel where it states, '...and, later, John Littlechild - formerly of Special Branch - who named Dr Francis Tumblety as a "likely" suspect in a letter written in 1913...' People seem to just not like that pesky word 'very'.

mklhawley
02-27-2013, 01:02 PM
It has been brought to my attention that rather significantly, perhaps, the 'very' has been omitted on page 213 of the new book Jack the Ripper: CSI Whitechapel where it states, '...and, later, John Littlechild - formerly of Special Branch - who named Dr Francis Tumblety as a "likely" suspect in a letter written in 1913...' People seem to just not like that pesky word 'very'.


Hi Stewart,

Now that's disheartening. The use of 'very' is quite specific, and to not use it seems to alter Littlechild's intention:

I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard.

Sincerely,

Mike

Wickerman
02-27-2013, 07:13 PM
If Littlechild was directly involved in the Ripper inquiry then his use of 'very' would come, we might presume, from personal knowledge, and therefore be of some significance.
If Littlechild was not directly involved, then his use of 'very' is just repeating the opinions of others whom he trusts.

So, which is it, and therefore, how significant is his use of 'very'?

Steve S
02-27-2013, 07:23 PM
If Littlechild was directly involved in the Ripper inquiry then his use of 'very' would come, we might presume, from personal knowledge, and therefore be of some significance.
If Littlechild was not directly involved, then his use of 'very' is just repeating the opinions of others whom he trusts.

So, which is it, and therefore, how significant is his use of 'very'?


It depends if Tumblety's name came to attention via Special Branch sources..These are murky waters! :)

mklhawley
02-27-2013, 07:43 PM
It depends if Tumblety's name came to attention via Special Branch sources..These are murky waters! :)

Yes, and Francis Tumblety was neighbors with Irish nationalists in New York City. There are a number of accounts of Tumblety interacting with Irish nationalists. Interestingly, Francis Tumblety escaped England (did not leave his usual Liverpool exit) in the very same way Irish nationalists escaped, through Folkstone Harbour.

Sincerely,

Mike

Fisherman
02-27-2013, 08:06 PM
If Littlechild was directly involved in the Ripper inquiry then his use of 'very' would come, we might presume, from personal knowledge, and therefore be of some significance.
If Littlechild was not directly involved, then his use of 'very' is just repeating the opinions of others whom he trusts.

So, which is it, and therefore, how significant is his use of 'very'?

My thought would be that men in general were all potentially the killer.

Men who were of foreing extraction were all useful bids.

Men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, were all good bids.

Men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, and who had a story of insanity to add to the picture, were all very good bids.

And men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, who had a story of insanity to add to the picture and who couuld be in one way or another connected to Whitechapel, were probably the Ripper. All of them.

I don´t think it is a iot harder than that.

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
02-27-2013, 08:24 PM
My thought would be that men in general were all potentially the killer.

Men who were of foreing extraction were all useful bids.

Men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, were all good bids.

Men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, and who had a story of insanity to add to the picture, were all very good bids.

And men who were of foreign extraction, and who had displayed some sort of violence at some time, preferably against women, who had a story of insanity to add to the picture and who couuld be in one way or another connected to Whitechapel, were probably the Ripper. All of them.

I don´t think it is a iot harder than that.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

You nailed part of it. In the case of Tumblety, he was an American (Americanisms in the Dear Boss letter), was wearing an American slouch hat (Constables were on the lookout for this), and exhibited erratic behavior with unfortunates (according to a few accounts). This is why he was brought into the station 'on suspicion'.

...but that's not what Littlechild was involved for back at Headquarters. Once they realized who they had, things changed.

Sincerely,

Mike

Fisherman
02-27-2013, 08:44 PM
Hi Fisherman,

You nailed part of it. In the case of Tumblety, he was an American (Americanisms in the Dear Boss letter), was wearing an American slouch hat (Constables were on the lookout for this), and exhibited erratic behavior with unfortunates (according to a few accounts). This is why he was brought into the station 'on suspicion'.

...but that's not what Littlechild was involved for back at Headquarters. Once they realized who they had, things changed.

Sincerely,

Mike

Admittedly, Mike, I employed the Anderson scale, since it seems easier to suss out.
It appears I will have to wait for you to bring the Littlechild scale on stage. :)

All the best,
Fisherman

Wickerman
02-27-2013, 08:53 PM
In the case of Tumblety, he was an American (Americanisms in the Dear Boss letter), was wearing an American slouch hat (Constables were on the lookout for this), .....

Awfully tall though wasn't he, for a Ripper suspect.
In most cases the 'suspect' seen was short, in the 5' 6-7" range.

Abby Normal
02-27-2013, 09:34 PM
I would say that Tumblety, at one point at least, was a major suspect- a very likely one as Littlechild says. In fact of the 4 main contemperous(or near contemperous) suspects-Kosminski, Tumblety, Chapman and Druitt-Dr T is the only one it seems who came to the attention of the police and was suspected during the time of the murders (1888).

Simon Wood
02-27-2013, 09:45 PM
Hi All,

As Kosminski appears to have morphed into Tumblety, I would direct your attention to Trevor Marriott's article in Ripperologist 127, August 2012.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-27-2013, 10:17 PM
Some researchers are not grasping the significance of to whom Littlechild wrote and revealed the Tumblety revelation.

It was the uber-famous George Sims, who outranked him in class and connections and supposedly Ripper truth.

This the Sims of the drowned, unemployed, affluent English mad doctor who was definitely the Ripper, or so Edwardians were misled to believe.

This is not a scoop which Sims wants to discover is all wet as it will be very embarrassing to him.

Littlechild has initiated this letter because Sims' suicided doctor bugs him, as it is not quite right.

Littlechild mistakely believes that 'Dr D', as Sims seems to have patronisingly truncated-disguised Druitt's name, is something fed to the writer by Anderson via Griffiths. This is, to Littlechild, either a separate, minor suspect or a garbled version of the real suspect -- a much more humiliating one for Anderson's CID than this 'Dr D' whom they supposedly nearly arrested.

So he sets Sims right about the real chief suspect -- a man who was arrested, not about to be.

Littlechild never corrects the status of the suicided doctor. He never says Dr D was really Dr T, but he was later cleared, or was not that strong a auspect anyhow.

How Littlechild would have loved to have downgraded the status of this suspect too, who jumped his bail, but he cannot because, yes he implies, Dr T was 'very likely' to have been the fiend, or the best suspect they had to be the fiend -- despite Tumblety not being known as a sadist
(meaning his sadism must have been concealed).

Littlechild also confirms to Sims another detail which bring Dr D and Dr T into alignment as probably the same suspect: it was believed that Tumblety killed himself after he made it to France.

I think this is a sincere comment by the ex-head of the Secret Dept. because he knows that if Sims wishes to he can easily find out about Tumblety's particulars. Moreover, in aniticpation of that inquiry, Littlechild is getting in first; he has been told by somebody that Dr T destroyed himself.

In 1907 Sims had written about 'two theories' at Scotland Yard about the Ripper: the drowned English doctor and the young, American medical student. Now Littlechild has strongly suggested to Sims, whom he would expect to broadcast this scoop, that they are the same suspect. For the American may have taken his own life too

Macnaghten's name does not appear in the Littlechild Letter, yet he shadows it. For he is the progenitor of Druitt as a doctor, and is Sims' source no doubt both the drowned doctor and the American medical student (who is young like Druitt, whereas the English doctor is middle-aged like Tumblety).

Interesting that Sims' 1915 and 1917 mentions of the Ripper shows the 'drowned doctor' intacticus. Tumblety has been kicked to the curb.

Did 'Tatcho' anxiously check with 'Mac' about this extraodinary scoop and get reassured, very smoothly and charmingly, that dear old Jack Littlechild was showing a faulty memory -- because this Tumblety of whom he writes had died of natural causes in 1903?

Wolf Vanderlinden
02-27-2013, 10:43 PM
Anderson not only personally contacted US Chiefs of Police about Tumblety, he sent Andrews to Canada for this reason.

Exactly what is the evidence that Anderson sent Andrews to Canada, actually southern Ontario, in connection with Tumblety? (emphasis on the word "evidence.")

Wolf.

Simon Wood
02-27-2013, 10:51 PM
Hi Wolf,

Good question.

Thanks to your research we know that Inspector Andrews didn't go anywhere near New York.

And why would he have bothered? Inspector Fred Jarvis was already there.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 12:03 AM
Why else was Walter Andrews in Canada, since as Dew writes he was one of the three field detective-figures working the Whitechapel murders?

R. J. Palmer wrote some excellent articles for the sadly defunct 'Examiner' arguing, persuasively for me, that Walter Andrews was indeed sent to Canada by Anderson in order to do a background check on prime Ripper suspect, Dr. Francis Tumblety.

Interestingly this trip goes unmentioned by Littlechild because Dr T. had supposedly vanished in France, and maybe killed himself -- a much less embarrassing tale from the Yard's point of view than wasting tax-payer's money on a wild goose trip.

I wonder who thought that fib up?

Yes, the local press which favoured the Irish-Catholic sectrian divide, turned Andrews' trip into a scurrilous bit of business to do with the Parnell imbroglio, but that makes no sense as a plausible politcal scenario -- to put it mildly.

Of course if somebody has evidence that Andrews was not investigating Tumblety as part of the on-going Ripper investigation I'd love to see it?

That battle might be better going across to the Tumblety thread (God help us).

Mike's original question is why did Anderson (and perhaps Swanson) think that 'Kosminski' was deceased when Macnaghten knew -- correctly -- that he was alive?

This is echoed, of course, by Littlechild being told by somebody -- somebody he took seriously -- that Tumblety was [probably] deceased, by his own hand, soon after the Kelly murder too. Certainly inactive forever.

Sound familiar?

My last post was on the theme of 'very'; that Littlechild was writing to the famous writer who persistently claimed definitive knowledge of a sucided doctor suspect as the likely fiend -- and that the ex-polce chief did not contest that element of the scoop.

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 12:21 AM
Hi Jonathan,

Inspector Andrews traveled to Halifax, Nova Scotia, with Roland Gideon Israel Barnett, celebrated financial “fakir” and bucket-shop speculator, in order to deliver him to the Canadian authorities in Toronto.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 12:37 AM
That's right, Simon ... and to do a background check on Dr. Francis Tumblety -- Scotland Yard's 'very likely' suspect to be Jack the Ripper.

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 12:45 AM
Hi Jonathan,

No, no, thrice no.

On his North American trip Inspector Walter Andrews did not go anywhere near New York; nor did he give a flying fig about Tumblety.

But whilst in Canada he did have other things on his agenda.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 01:20 AM
New York? I never mentioned New York.

Have you read Palmer's trilogy debunking the debunkers?

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 01:47 AM
Hi Jonathan,

Yes, I have.

And both Wolf and I have debunked the debunking debunkers.

Facts or fantasy? Your choice.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 02:22 AM
You know me, Simon.

Always the facts.

I'm the Fact-Man. As Sir Melville writes in his 1914 memoirs: 'certain facts' led to a 'conclusion' but only 'some years after' the police had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom.

I abhor the fantasists -- a polite term in this context -- the ones who created the Rasputin revelation of 1923, the Dr. Stanley scoop, the voluminous, unlimited, all-purpose Dr. Dutton archives, the Ripper as Prince Noodle-head, the Royal Watergate, the you've-got-to-kidding 'diary' (poor Maybrick was murdered twice!) and the penile misadventures of the allegedly impotent Walter Sickert.

Wolf's pieces of a few years ago were very good, and a good read to this day, but their flaw was their political naivette.

Where have you debunked the debunking of the debunkers?

Can I access it?

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 02:40 AM
Hi Jonathan,

Wolf? Politically naive? My goodness, you're a tough date.

In all modesty may I commend "Smoke and Mirrors," my article in Ripperologist 106.

I'm certain Adam Wood will have a back-number.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 03:01 AM
A close relation of mine subscribes, so I will see what I can scrounge.

Look forward to it as I do all your articles.

In the spirit of point/counter-point let me say that the Polish Jewish suspect being deceased makes for a much more satisfying tale. Much better than just 'safely caged' (soon after Kelly) especially the disappointment caused by a treacherous witness.

Except that, this element of the tale was never propagated to the public.

This argues in favour of Anderson 'knowing' this from the start, the Polish Jew being dead, rather than being a detail he has self-servingly confused with some other suspect.

That lack of informing the public that the fiend was safely dead is ambiguous enough to be taken for many things, or not much at all.

But if you've read Scott Nelson's recent, fascinating piece in the latest 'Ripperologist ' then ...

mklhawley
02-28-2013, 03:10 AM
Wolf! Simon!

Glad to see the two of you asking about Andrews and Tumblety again. The fact that Simon commented about Andrews never making it to New York City is clear evidence that he did not read Roger Palmer's articles. Andrews going to New York suggests that he was following Tumblety and that is farthest from the truth.

Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article. The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.

But Jonathan's correct. If you'd like to continue this on any Andrews or Tumblety thread, sounds great. Actually, some of them ARE on this issue.

Sincerely,

Mike

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 04:39 AM
Hi Mike,

Nice spin.

Regards,

Simon

Stewart P Evans
02-28-2013, 07:19 AM
Tumblety is rather off-topic for this thread, but it was not I who introduced him. I merely noted the importance of accuracy and that there is a difference between a mere 'likely' and the accurate 'very likely' of the quote.

This, of course, reflects on any interpretation of Littlechild's evaluation of Tumblety as a suspect. The words 'very likely' were written by Littlechild and historical accuracy demands that it is used in full when quoting Littlechild. Omission of the 'very' diminishes the status Littlechild's description of Tumblety's relevance as a suspect.

People will, as they do, put their own interpretation on these things. But, at least, they should do so from a full and accurate standpoint. There is no excuse or mitigation for leaving out the word 'very' in this context. It is noticeable that it is usually done by Tumblety detractors and may indicate bias rather than objectivity.

Steve S
02-28-2013, 07:51 AM
I'm afraid the hi-jacking is my fault....Just spread from the the "who actually knew what in senior police ranks" idea..........Or,to be more precise,who knew what FROM who..On Koz,I'm not sure....Anderson implies all was known long before MacNaughton ever got involved...........??

Wolf Vanderlinden
02-28-2013, 06:59 PM
I’d like apologize right off the bat for being one of the posters who has hi-jacked this Kosminski thread but I’d like to respond here to a couple of things that Jonathon and Mike have stated.

First. I have noticed that Mike likes to make statements which have little or no basis in fact. Usually I point this out on the boards but it got so that Mike accused me of “cyber bullying” for correcting his mistakes all the time. I haven’t done this for a while because it was becoming more like a full time job but I thought I’d ask him about his statement, given as if it were a universally acknowledged fact, that Anderson had sent Inspector Andrews to Canada because of Tumblety. I asked for evidence to prove this “fact” but what I got in reply was:

“Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article.”

Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.

Second.

“The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.” Mike Hawley, Post #61

“Yes, the local press which favoured the Irish-Catholic sectrian divide, turned Andrews' trip into a scurrilous bit of business to do with the Parnell imbroglio, but that makes no sense as a plausible politcal scenario -- to put it mildly.” Jonathan H, Post #52

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?

Once again, sorry for the hi-jacking.

Wolf.

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 07:26 PM
Hi Wolf,

Thank you.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Regards,

Simon

mklhawley
02-28-2013, 07:58 PM
Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.



It's not surprising that you were less than convinced, because it was your claims that he debunked. Case in point: You stated that the last time Tumblety was in Toronto was years prior to the Ripper murders (hence, ridiculous for Andrews to investigate Tumblety in Toronto), and Roger demonstrated convincingly that Tumblety basically hung out in Toronto in the 1880s. Also, where again was Thomas Beach?

It's also not surprising that Simon couldn't agree with you more, because Roger debunked a number of his contributions from Smoke and Mirrors, as well.



Second.

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?



Roger demonstrated convincingly that these sources had extreme simpathy for the Irish Nationalist movement, such as Patrick Boyle, Teefy, and Frank Millen. Why did you forget to mention this? You used tainted evidence.


And all of the evidence points to Andrews' mission was against Parnell?

(Montreal, Dec. 20th). It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe “Jack” has left that country for this. St. Louis Rep. Dec 22, 1888

In order to believe Andrews and company violated British Law to drum up evidence against a standing member of Parliament with no one blowing the whistle, one has to be a huge conspiracy theorist. Just as Simon likes to use, Occam's Razor clearly favors Andrews coming to Canada for the Ripper investigation, as opposed to propping up a huge conspiracy.

Sincerely,

Mike

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 08:23 PM
Hi Mike,

As usual, you're high on belief and low on facts.

I suggest you re-read "Smoke and Mirrors."

Also, you may have not yet read the second part of Wolf Vanderlinden's "Inspector Andrews in Canada" article which, I understand, has not yet been published, but which he was generous enough to send to me.

Give him a call.

Regards,

Simon

mklhawley
02-28-2013, 09:22 PM
And you'll enjoy my next few articles, as well. It will be interesting when Wolf and I compare notes in the future.

Sincerely,

Mike

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 09:34 PM
Hi Mike,

My nipples are aflame with anticipation.

I can't wait to hear how you finally contrive to spin Tumblety as a viable Ripper suspect.

Bonne chance, mon ami.

Regards,

Simon

mklhawley
02-28-2013, 10:14 PM
Hi Mike,

My nipples are aflame with anticipation.



Oh, how discusting! :1tongue:

Jonathan H
02-28-2013, 10:22 PM
I agree with Wolf that what we have here are contradictory primary sources which require an either-or interpretation.

I thought that Wolf's articles were well written and well argued, and would recommend them to anybody interested in history, and I look forward to reading Simon's rebuttal to the rebuttal because I find his pieces to be thought-provoking and sophisticated.

I found Palmer's brilliant articles to be judicious in the sense that they weighed up bits and pieces from a variety of angles but came down on the side of Andrews definitely investigating Tumblety.

Is bias involved?

Bias is involved in all sources, primary and secondary -- because they are created by human beings (even reference books make choices about what to include and what not to, and that is due to human opinion too. Other homo sapiens can disagree with those choices).

What counts is the veracity of an argument. As in, does an argument trasncend it's obvious bias and still convince?

My judgement is that Palmer provided the stronger argument for a number of reasons, one of them being because he considered the element of bias by the contemporaneous pro-Irish media, and that the complex, sectarian, of often bare-knuckled politics of the era made it much less likely that Tumblety was the 'cover' story.

Partisan newspapers made up stuff all the time to suit their own agendas, and please their readers -- and, today, in too many cases, that has not changed -- and even alleged interviews-scoops which never took place.

People have a right to their own opinions, and the discovery of new sources can show that an earlier argument -- perhaps initially much dismissed -- was more likely to be correct after all.

We see this with arguments put by Fido, and Begg, and Scott Nelson has a terrific new article pondering the enigma of the Polish Jewish suspect.

I myself have tried to show that Sir Melville Macnaghten was just as convinced about Druitt's culpability as Anderson was about his preferred suspect, and that he likely did know Montie's particulars (that he was not a doctor, that his brother was frantically trying to find him, that he did not kill himself on the night of the final murder as the MP asserted, and so on).

To what degree of success I have done this is entirely in the eye of the beholder (many believe that the theory is original but unconvincing, and that's their right).

Dr. Tumblety was a Ripper suspect in 1888, and 25 years later the retired head of the Irish Branch did not claim to a famous journalist that he was minor, or that he was cleared. Instead he was '... very likely ...' Other sources show, on balance, that he was important enough to have a detective sent abroad to check him out.

Whether by accident or design elements of Tumblety's profile -- a middle-aged, sexually deviant medico permanently off the scene after Kelly -- resurfaced in the public sphere during the Edwardian Era. In fact, to many Brtis of that time this was the solution -- it was not a mystery.

Therefore I disagree with those who argue that Tumblety was unaccountably forgotton until 1993. Whole this is true of his specific identity, his generic DNA is arguably an essential part of the 'drowned doctor', and evey other dodgy doctor suspect who supplanted Sims' scoop.

Furthermore, Tumblety seems to have been cleared in 1889 for the wrong reason: that there 'Jack' murders after Kelly. His suspect status for some police, or at least Littlechild, was subsequently reinstated only when Kelly was, rightly or wrongly, decided to be the final victim.

I think that it is of course fair and reasonable to mount an argument which debunks the conventional wisdom about a suspect. I do it too. I just find the arguments against Tumblety not being a major (if not the) police suspect of 1888 to be less convincing than the arguments that he was.

It's no big deal. Many people say the same about my revisionist Druitt arguments.

Simon Wood
02-28-2013, 10:31 PM
Hi Mike,

No need to get outraged; it was mere hyperbole.

Regards,

Simon

Roy Corduroy
03-01-2013, 02:37 AM
Mke starts a Kosminski thread and we end up discussing Dr T. How'd that happen. :pleased:

Oh yes he was a suspect all right. With Francis Tumblety it was a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In his younger days the doctor always had a steady boyfriend. But he was getting up in years, and on this sojourn to London he engaged in risky behavior to fulfill his desires. Which got him popped by the bobbies. And he was also given a lookover for the Ripper murders. Why? For one thing, when you are around a person, you get a certain 'vibe' from them. We don't know just what vibe Tumblety gave off because we weren't there. But the police were. He could very well have struck them as a dangerous person. Impulsive, unpredictable, odd. Said to be a 'doctor.'

Roy

mklhawley
03-01-2013, 03:04 AM
Hi Mike,

No need to get outraged; it was mere hyperbole.

Regards,

Simon

Not outraged at all. It just gave me too many visuals.

Very insightful Jonathan. Roy, we agree on much.

Sincerely,

Mike

Errata
03-01-2013, 03:06 AM
Mke starts a Kosminski thread and we end up discussing Dr T. How'd that happen. :pleased:

Oh yes he was a suspect all right. With Francis Tumblety it was a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In his younger days the doctor always had a steady boyfriend. But he was getting up in years, and on this sojourn to London he engaged in risky behavior to fulfill his desires. Which got him popped by the bobbies. And he was also given a lookover for the Ripper murders. Why? For one thing, when you are around a person, you get a certain 'vibe' from them. We don't know just what vibe Tumblety gave off because we weren't there. But the police were. He could very well have struck them as a dangerous person. Impulsive, unpredictable, odd. Said to be a 'doctor.'

Roy

Don't forget that homosexuality was a symptom of violent psychopathy back then. But not lesbianism. That didn't exist. Queen Victoria said so.

Jonathan H
03-01-2013, 04:20 AM
How did Macnaghten know that 'Kosminski' was alive and Anderson and Swanson did not?

I am not aware that this was ever noticed before (it's in 'Aberconway'); it was always just voiced as how did the latter two make such a mistake.

In fact t's much worse, for the No.2 at CID knew he was not deceased 'soon after' being sectioned which seems to have been believed to be 'soon after ' Kelly by Anderson and/or Swanson, also wrong.

It begs the question: did Mac mislead Sir Bob?

As for homosexuality, Scotland Yard -- very unusually -- had in Macnaghten a police administrator who had experienced a prestigious, male-only institution where sexual activities, minus females, were common if below the radar. Arguably the inherent sado-masochism innherent in the corporal punihsment rituals is barely even that.

You had a top cop with potentially a greater sense of proportion about so-called 'sexual deviance' than the average plod, and this applies, equally, towards 'Kosminski' and Tumblety. The latter Mac only knew from interviews and files, the latter, on the other hand, was sectioned after he had been on the Force for many months.

Yet he backdates it to before he started.

I do not believe that that is a memory malfunction, it's deliberate.

Teh revised timeline makes the Polish Jew suspect more plausible. To Macnaghten, ipso facto, the timing of his actual incarceration in Feb 1891 'exonerated' Kosminski (a word he uses in 'Aberconway').

The moderate term 'solitary vices' is a world away from the hysterical and judgmental 'unmentionable vices'.

Both Mac and Anderson believed in deceased madmen as the fiend whose concerned families or 'people' also knew, yet only one actually was dead ...

Roy Corduroy
03-01-2013, 03:56 PM
Good morning Mike, I just noticed what appears to be an error that your original question is predicated on -


Quick question: How did Melville Macnaghten know that 'Kosminski' was alive yet Assistant Commissioner Anderson and Chief Inspector Swanson did not?


Robert Anderson. Where did he say that? The unnamed man was not alive. Maybe I've missed something.

Roy

Wickerman
03-01-2013, 06:29 PM
Good morning Mike, I just noticed what appears to be an error that your original question is predicated on -

Robert Anderson. Where did he say that? The unnamed man was not alive. Maybe I've missed something.

Roy

Actually I thought you were going in the other direction, like, where does Macnaghten say Kosminski was still alive?

Jon S.

Jonathan H
03-01-2013, 11:18 PM
To Roy

Yes, you've missed it but you are hardly alone.

Macnaghten from 'Aberconway', which so far as we know was seen only by cronies and family, and which was written sometime between 1894 and 1898:

"No 2. Kosminski, a Polish Jew, who lived in the very heart of the district where the murders were committed. He had become insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies. He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square."

Macnaghten's proxy, Sims, wrote the following discarding this suspect in 1907:

'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.

The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.

The second man was a Russian doctor ...

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.'

Sir Robert Anderson never mentions the suspect being alive, or dead, after being 'safely caged', in any extant source by him, but it can be inferred from two other sources who were close to him that this was, indeed, his mistaken opinion.

Firstly, the biography by his son:

'Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson'
by Arthur Ponsonby Moore-Anderson, 1947.

Chapter IV Scotland Yard

'The facts were that the locality in which the crimes occurred was full of narrow streets with small shops over almost every one of which was a foreign name. The victims belonged to a small class of degraded women frequenting the East End at night. However the fact be accounted for, no further murder in the series took place after a warning had been given that the police would not protect them if found on the prowl after midnight. 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.'

Secondly, the last section of the 'Swanson Marginalia', written sometime between 1910 and 1924:

"Continuing from page 138, 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, and he knew he was identified. 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 and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS"

Swanson writes that 'Kosminski' died soon after 1888 and yet in 1894, or thereabouts, Macnaghten is aware that he is still alive.

Of course a suspect who is safely deceased does not require any follow-up checking -- or can be checked.

Actually it was Druitt who was dead, and whose family 'believed'.

So, back to the original question: how did Macnaghten have accurate intelligence about the fate of [presumably] Aaron Kosminski and Anderson (and Swanson) did not?

mklhawley
03-03-2013, 12:49 PM
Hi Roy, Wickerman,

Jonathan has answered your question much better than I could. What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mike

Wickerman
03-03-2013, 03:18 PM
Hi Roy, Wickerman,

Jonathan has answered your question much better than I could. What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike.

In all fairness, there are differences between the two versions (Donner/Aberconway). In the Aberconway version Mac. suggests that he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski & Ostrog, and that "he believes" Kosminski may still be alive.

In the better known Donner version these lines were removed, therefore, we cannot justify including contrary claims just to substantiate a theory. We should go with one, or the other.

Either, Kosminski is a weak suspect (exonerated), and he may still be alive, or, Kosminski is a strong suspect, and Mac. does not know if he still lives.

We traditionally take the Donner view.

Roy Corduroy
03-03-2013, 03:22 PM
Good morning to you Mike,

Yes Jonathan did a great job of compiling those excerpts for us. But no he confirmed I've not missed something. Because he said -


Sir Robert Anderson never mentions the suspect being alive, or dead, after being 'safely caged', in any extant source by him,

Jonathan then went on to say -

but it can be inferred from two other sources who were close to him that this was, indeed, his mistaken opinion.

He quoted Anderson's biography written by his son in 1947 -

"Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum".

and of course he quotes the marginalia, too. And from these two he inferred Anderson also thought the man had died. During Anderson's lifetime, which ended 1918, one year before Aaron Kosminski died in 1919.

So what do I think? To tell you the truth, I'd never thought of it. Since Anderson didn't say it. When Macnaghten wrote he believed Kosminski
was still detained in asylum that was 1894. Anderson's own book and Swanson's comments in the margin were written later.

So let me ask you, Mike. Was this what you were inferring in your original question? That Anderson believed the man had died, even though he never said that.

Roy

Jonathan H
03-03-2013, 09:44 PM
Who's this 'we'?

Plus Donner is 'Aberconway'.

The 'Donner' version, by which I presume -- perhaps wrongly -- that you mean the original from which Lady Christabel Aberconway made a typed and hand-written copy (sometime, it is thought, in the 1930's) is the same version as the one in which Macnaghten knows, between 1894 and 1898, that 'Kosminski' is still alive.

Perhaps you mean the filed version for Scotland Yard's arhcive in which he says nothing about the ultimate fate of 'Kosminski' one way or another.

To deny one version because it does not suit the 'conventional wisdom' is not how an historian works. You are meant to test the received wisdom and expand the possibilities, not contract them, by examining a range of sources.

In a source, 'Aberconway', exactly what Mac wrote matches other primary sources about the fate of Aaron Kosking -- that he was still alive.

Yet we are supposed to ignore that, shut our eyes to it, because in the filed version -- the alternate version I think you mean -- he says nothing about his fate (it would be a stronger argument if he had written for file that 'Kosminski' was deceased, but he does not).

Another point adherents to this wisdom will never digest, is that Macnaghten chose 'Aberconway' as his opinion for the public -- albeit anonymously. Sure enough, Sims tells the public in 1907 that the Polish Jew was out and about and alive and well for a coniserable time after the Kelly murder.

That also matches the primary sourcesa about Aaron Kosminski and not what Anderson writes or Swanson (who may only have Anderson as his source).

In his own memoirs, the one source under his own name for the public, Macnaghten eliminated 'kosminski' altogether and implicitly debunked Anderson's preferred suspect.

Swanson not only has 'Kosminski' safely dead but soon after incarceration. These are annotations in an account which Swanson never corrects the false impression that this all happened in late 1888 or early 1899 (where Cohen theorists understandably try and locate the arrest of the suspect and the positive i.d.)

Where would Anderson and/or Swanson have gained the erronoeus impression that 'Kosminski' was 'safely caged' almost two years earlier than he actually was?

From Macnaghten who in the extant record -- twice -- backdates an incareration which happened while he was already months and months on the Force.

Otherwise, if you do not backdate then 'Kosminski' is no longer a viable suspect. Again this matches the opinion of those who propose Choen or somebody like him. To a certain extent, this is true of Fido's opinion.

The conventioanl wisdom has long argued that Macnaghten received his information from Anderson and/or Swanson, but just adding up the bits that the former gets right and the latter get wrong, suggests the flow of information was the other way round.

Of course in the filed version, the one nobody seems to have read until 1966, and which too often is the only one which makes it into today's secondary sources, Macnaghten wrote that Druitt was definitely turned on by ultra-violence. Police were [allegedly] unsure what he did for a living, or whether he came from a good family, or whether his body was upwards of a month in a river -- but he was definitely 'sexually insane' causing his family to 'believe' in his guilt. How could they not ...?

Wickerman
03-03-2013, 11:38 PM
Hello Jonathan.

Yes, there are differences between the Official version and the Aberconway version, is what I meant. It was these differences I was concerned with.

When the Aberconway states, "No-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, unless possibly it was the city P.C...." and the Official states, "No-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer".

We must choose one, we cannot have it both ways, either he was seen or he wasn't - the choice is black or white.

Likewise then, when comparing the two, either Kosminski was a weak suspect whom he thinks 'may' still be alive, or a strong suspect, where he makes no comment either way.

As the Abeconway version (always assuming it is a faithful copy), is taken to have been the draft copy, then any differences between it and the final Official version are generally accepted to indicate a change of opinion meaning, false information was superceded by accurate information.

We cannot use these contrary statements at the same time.

Jonathan H
03-04-2013, 02:50 AM
To Wickerman

Macnaghten is cognizant that 'Kosminski' is alive in a document from 1894. In 1907 in a proxy source he is still aware that the man was alive for a long, long time after Kelly's murder.

To deny that basic match between 'Aberconway' and the meagre medical sources on Aaron Kosminski is to fly in the face of, well ... common sense.

Instead it is twisted to mean that Macnaghten agrees with Anderson and Swanson that he's dead.

All I can say is: abandon all hope ...

Nowhere in the extant wrritings of Anderon and Swanson are they are aware of this elongated timeline, or that their suspect was alive as they wrote him off for dead.

Quite the opposite.

A strong argument can be mounted that they thought the same suspect was deceased 'soon after' the Kelly murder (back to Mac again).

Eveything with them is soon after. That's the key theme. The murderer's reign was 'cut short', it was brief. He died 'soon after' being sectioned. Swanson talks in 1895 of a man who is already dead. Anderson tells his son that the man was deceased -- when he actually outlived the police chief.

None of that matches Aaron Kosminski, hence the lingering arguments for David Cohen. Scott Nelson's recent effort is fascinating.

There are a myriad of competing pressures and countervaling forces which go into the making of primary sources, including playing fast and loose with the facts when so required.

That 'Aberconway' was a draft is a long-standing theory, not a fact, and maybe correct.

What is a 'definitely, ascertained fact' is that the so-called draft was propagated to the public. Mac shared much of the content with the public -- though anonymously.

This is an element nof the mystery which RipperLand has never absorbed and never will. Macnaghten's opinion did not stay in a drawer; he shared it with the public.

The 'drowned doctor', eg. behind which impenetrably lies Druitt, is the best suspect.

Then Mac reconceived the document again as his memoir chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914). This time, the only time, it would be under his own prestigious name for the public -- forever

Thus there are arguably three versions to 'choose' from.

The choice you say which has to be made was made by Macnaghten himself.

He's already used the shears, though people in 1914 could not have known this unless they were playing very careful attention to what George Sims had written about a doctor who drowned himself in the Thames, the same night as the final murder:

3rd Version:

- the best suspect was a 'Simon Pure' Gentile gent and not a Jew.
- no mention of being a mddle-aged doctor
- had never been 'detained' in an asylum, or been a lodger.
- all other suspects are worthless, and not worthy of even the briefest outline.
- no witness saw anything worthwhile, not even a beat cop.
- the police, eg. Anderson, had never had the real Ripper on their radar
- the real Jack only came to police attention 'some years after' he killed himself.
- these 'certain facts' leading to a 'conclusion' by Macnaghten were provided by 'his own people'.
- he had a diseased body as well as mind, and suffered from an implosion after the 'awful glut' of Miller's Ct.
- yet this implosion was not the same night, as he could function to get away from the East End and be noticably 'absented' by his 'people' presumably family members whom he seems to live with (though it does not state that explicitly).

But if all that cuts no ice, then consider this line from the official version which is aruably definitive (not my argument):

' ... He was sexually insane, and I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to be the murderer'.

They believed he was Jack the Ripepr because he was Jack the Ripper.

As for the witness?

Of course there was one -- and he appears in no extant source by Mac or on his behalf.

It was Joseph Lawende, used once if not twice by the police of the day.

In my opinion Macnaghten went to great lengths (well, it took all of a few minutes) to eliminate Lawende's existence from public consciousness; to obliterate a witness and whom that witness allegedly saw: a man of about 30, Gentile featured, middle-figured and heighted, with enough charm to put an exhausted, poverty-striken, middle-aged woman at her ease ...

Jonathan H
04-01-2013, 10:27 PM
On the other site there is a debate about whether Reid knew about Aaron Kosminski, or at least his fictional variant: 'Kosminski'.

I would argue there is nothing in the extant record to suggest that he knew of this suspect. Quite the opposite. He has a generic theory, that's all.

Debaters still ignore two salient points, in my opinion, which traps the debate in a never-ending loop.

1. Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive.

Why shouldn't he? He was alive. He also knows that he was sectioned a long time after the Kelly murder. Why shouldn't he? Macnaghten had been on the Force for nealy two years when Aaron Kosminski was permanently incarcerated. He knew that Aaron was a chronic self-abuser and lived in the heart of the kill-zone. Why shouldn't he? Both of these details are true too.

What needs explaining is why Anderson (and Swanson?) thought he was dead soon after being sectioned?

2. That the timing of Druitt's suicide at least explains the cessation of the Ripper murders.

It doesn't.

The last Ripper victim was initially thought to be Frances Coles, over two years after Druitt had taken the fateful plunge. That Kelly is the real final victim is retrospective only; it is imposed by the timing of Druitt's demise not the other way round.

Almost everybody does not think Druitt is viable suspect, nor that Sir Melville is a strong and reliable source. Fair enough.

The puzzle is why so many people stick with his Druitt-centric list of victims (albeit some do not). That's the easiest way to eliminate Druitt -- the timing of his self-murder does not fit.


For example, Reid always believed that Coles was the final victim and we can see why. Though his memory is dodgy, other police primary sources from 1891show that Coles' murder was taken very seriously as Jack's return, for example by Swanson.

Certainly there was no indications in 1891 that any police thought that they had identified the Ripper as a 'safely caged' madman -- not until 1895 when Swanson says it is believed to be a man who is deceased and Anderson tells Griffiths he believes it is probably a locked-up lunatic.

In 1898 Griffiths mentioned the locked-up lunatic again, but sidelined him in favour of the drowned, English doctor, the timing of whose death cemented Kelly as the final victim with Coles not mentioned at all (no acknowledgment is made that the timeline is being altered because the Major is also claiming that the police knew at the time in 1888 about all these suspects.)

Jonathan H
04-05-2013, 09:08 AM
Have a look at this quote from a top cop's memoirs:

It is about a suspect who probably was the killer, they just could not nail him.

'... But the identification had entirely failed ... Some months after the man was ajudged insane and confined in a lunatic asylum, and, as far as I know, he died there.'

Sounds like a version of the Swanson Marginalia: an identification which does not get the required result for a courtroom, though this is the likeliest suspect -- but never fear he was sectioned and then expired.

Well, that's some kind of justice.

The main difference with Swanson is the wriggle room the author leaves for himself in case the suspect is not deceased -- which he wasn't.

He was not guilty of murder either.

The above is from Sir Melville's memoirs, p. 186, about the Elizabeth Camp murder on a train in 1897.

Chris Phillips found the suspect, or at least elements of a suspect who was investigated and who was cleared. He also got better, and was released from the asylum.

Yet he seems to have been merrged with other suspects, one of whom wore a false moustache. This was not true of the young, mentally ill barrister

Surely the similarities with 'Kosminski' are not only obvious but relevant.

Macnaghten knew Aaron Kosminski was alive, and yet his superior, Anderson, believed -- or was misled to believe -- that the suspect was long deceased (which of course was true of Druitt).

Since we know that Mac falsely wrote that 'Kosmisnki' was sectioned in early 1889, was this detail also used to mislead his loathed boss? Certainly Anderson writes as if these were all events tidied up in late 1888 and/or early 1889.

That contingent line -- 'as far as I know' -- echoes Littlechild writing to Sims and saying it was provisionally 'believed' that the American quack had vanished and, maybe, taken his own life.

Tom Divall claimed in his 1930 memoir that Mac had told him that the Ripper was a man who fled to the States and died there -- in an asylum.

I'll put this on the other site to see if debate can be generated about this aspect.

Jeff Leahy
04-02-2015, 04:08 AM
Macnaghten knew Aaron Kosminski was alive,

Actually having read through these last posts this is where the whole of Jonathon's theory falls down..

Actually we have know idea what MacNaughten did or did not know because what he says is: "He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889"

'And I believe still is' is a clear indicator that MacNaughten didn't know the definitive answer to what happened to Kosminski after March 1889.

Of course MacNaughten continues to give this information out to various people including Griffith's…

But he never knows what happens after March 1889

We know of Course that James Monroe did not believe that an ID had taken place after the Alice McKenzie murder some months later and its not until 1890,Monroe told Casells magazine that he had formed a theory on the case, adding 'when I do theorise it is from a practical stand point. and not upon visionary foundations' He also said, however, that the police had nothing positive' by way of the clues, with the ryder that such crimes were difficult to solve since the victims, as well as the murderer, SOUGHT SECTRET SITES'

Did at this time Monroe know about the meeting (Crawford Letter) between Anderson and a member of Kozminski's family but the ID itself hadn't yet taken place…

Another words the ID took place after July 1890 but the introduction and meeting took place before?

Yours Jeff