How do Suspects compare?

[PaulB]

In fact there was such a man about in the East End who came to Henry Birch's milkstand and changed clothes out of a black bag the night after the Nichols murder. The same night a woman was attacked near a music hall. (click here)

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Roy

No. It always rains.

[Roy Corduroy]

What a strange world you live in, where people cannot even change their attire -- if it means Druitt might be 'Jack'.

In fact there was such a man about in the East End who came to Henry Birch's milkstand and changed clothes out of a black bag the night after the Nichols murder. The same night a woman was attacked near a music hall. (click here)

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Roy

[lynn cates]

Smith's sighting

Hello Bridewell.

"Smith would have known about the IWMEC and the Arbeter Fraint."

At least vaguely. But perhaps a beat copper would not be familiar with the nuances?

"I guess the AF bundle theory can't be discounted, but surely he would have recognised the publication for what it was and said as much in his evidence, wouldn't he?'

Not sure whether he would have recognised it or not.

"What about Marshall's sighting."

My one and only problem with Marshall is that he saw no flower on Liz. Tom may be right, however, and his arm may have obstructed Marshall's view.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Agreed

I wasn't thinking so much of someone bringing an action against the police as wrongful detention being being remarked on in court by a prisoner or his defence. Or whether statistics of any kind were produced when the law was changed. The trouble is that while we know or can safely surmise that the rules were broken, we need to know how often they were broken in order to say with any degree of certain that they were broken in a specific case.

Hi Paul,

That's fair comment.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

That was a stab in the dark, I wasn't sure it was you who had offered that, but I remembered someone binging it up.



Yes we do. And, given that Mrs Long also saw a man wearing the deerstalker, we have one common, albiet slender, point across two murders.

The fact PC Smith's suspect appeared to be only 28 years old, and Mrs Long's "over 40", must be tempered by a similar confusion spoken by both Diemschitz & Heshburg who estimated Stride's age as around 28, yet she was 45 years old.
Which only demonstrates how unreliable age estimates are, along with estimates of height, and "time" of day.

When you think about, what on earth is there to rely on?

Regards, Jon S.

I too agree that Smith's may be the most reliable description, but not that he was a club man. Smith would have known about the IWMEC and the Arbeter Fraint. I guess the AF bundle theory can't be discounted, but surely he would have recognised the publication for what it was and said as much in his evidence, wouldn't he? (Devil's Advocate: unless he was supposed to do something about it and turned a blind eye, but would his bosses have been fooled by such a pretence?).

What about Marshall's sighting. He says "middle-aged", but with a life-expectancy around the 50 mark, even for the well-off, what would "middle-aged" have meant in 1888? About 30? Not much more, I suspect, if late 40's was old.

Regards, Bridewell

[PaulB]

Yes, possibly, but on the other hand the flyleaf, if written a great disatnce from the first annotations then this is the evidence that his memory was failing, in a self-serving way as memoirs often do. For he is telling a tale which would be famous within the dept. and once the flloodgates would have opened once Anderson published. Instead nobody backs him, except Swanson who does it in private perhaps a remove of decades.

There is no evidence that a 'great distance' separated the two sets of writings, only that a slight shakiness of the hand in some of the writings could be due to the sort of illnesses which afflict one in one's more mature years and might indicate that there had been a passage of time between them. Otherwise you've lost me. I don't understand why this is either evidence of (a) a failing memory, (b) it being self-serving of the type typical in memoirs - memoirs are distrusted because their authors can (not always or habitually) portray themselves in the best possible light, not because they blatantly lie about things which could easily be checked, or (c) how anything Swanson wrote in the annotations need be self-serving, given that the notes were written for himself.

Anyway, nobody really challenges Anderson either. Not even Major Smith, who, like 'Mentor', is outraged by Anderson's suggestion that the murderer was protected by his fellow Jews.

On the other hand that still leaves the unlikely coincidence of two senior police figures not only having failing memories -- but about exactly the same subject?!

Indeed. A matched pair of geriatric wishful thinkers.

That is why I think it more likely that Swanson is repeating what Anderson told him, in one sitting. I understand the argument as to why this is not likely to be so, but for me the countervailing factor is the total lack of support for the tale from any other police figures. After all, it is not a story like Mac's which could be kept private because his just involved a few discreet meetings. His suspect was not even alive.

Arguably Swanson does support him. How many supporters would you like him to have? How many would there have to be before you acknowledged that they all weren't repeating what Anderson had told them? Why would this legion of coppers have come to his support when he wasn't under attack? Where would they have done it? And there's a whole army of politicians, journalists and policemen who could have said "what a load of old bull... Terrible what age can do to a fine mind." Not even Smith says that. He just attacks Anderson, justifiably, for seemingly accusing the Jews as a people of concealing the Ripper (which Anderson never actually said). You are, I think, basing a fairly far-reaching conclusion on a presumed lack of support for Anderson. That's my opinion.

It involves the [alleged] police hospital, the transportation of the suspect, the fracas over the treacherous witness, the extensive and expensive surveillance of the same man, eg. Jack the Ripper, and the relief at his incarceration and death soon after. No other murders which police initially thought were by 'Jack' happened after this.

The last two elements of this tale are not even true.

The rest would be known, and it would leak, and if not it certainly would the moment Anderson in 1910 made it ok to talk and to write about.

Nothing?! Except denunciations -- and Macnaghten pointedly leaving out 'Kosminski' altogether from his own memoirs.

Well, of course, it did leak. Anderson leaked it. But what floodgates do you imagine would have opened? Hardly anyone gave a toss. There were hardly any denunciations, hardly anyone damning Anderson. Various newspapers reported a generally garbled version of what Anderson had said, but where are all the journalists lining up to interview Anderson, to get more details? Where are the front page headlines? Where are all the policemen and politicians being asked for their opinions? There's next to nothing, yet you are making a very big thing out of there being no support, no breaching of the dam, no surging floodwaters of newsprint. The fact is, nobody was interested in damning Anderson or supporting him or doing anything at all.

The limitation of the Swanson Marginalia is that it is not only private, it is furtive, and therefore it is not an opinion tested anywhere, against anybody else's contrary view. It does not have to be, being private. Swanson can write whatever he likes to himself.

The marginalia is hardly 'furtive'. And whilst Swanson could indeed write whatever he liked, there was no reason for him to have lied to himself.

I take everything you say, Jonathan, but it attaches undue weight, I think, to a one-sided view of the silence that greeted Anderson's revelations.


being private is a limitation, but it is also a strength. Being private it was written for Swanson for personal use, and as suchto achieve any of the multitude of things

[Jonathan H]

Yes, possibly, but on the other hand the flyleaf, if written a great disatnce from the first annotations then this is the evidence that his memory was failing, in a self-serving way as memoirs often do. For he is telling a tale which would be famous within the dept. and once the flloodgates would have opened once Anderson published. Instead nobody backs him, except Swanson who does it in private perhaps a remove of decades.

On the other hand that still leaves the unlikely coincidence of two senior police figures not only having failing memories -- but about exactly the same subject?!

That is why I think it more likely that Swanson is repeating what Anderson told him, in one sitting. I understand the argument as to why this is not likely to be so, but for me the countervailing factor is the total lack of support for the tale from any other police figures. After all, it is not a story like Mac's which could be kept private because his just involved a few discreet meetings. His suspect was not even alive.

It involves the [alleged] police hospital, the transportation of the suspect, the fracas over the treacherous witness, the extensive and expensive surveillance of the same man, eg. Jack the Ripper, and the relief at his incarceration and death soon after. No other murders which police initially thought were by 'Jack' happened after this.

The last two elements of this tale are not even true.

The rest would be known, and it would leak, and if not it certainly would the moment Anderson in 1910 made it ok to talk and to write about.

Nothing?! Except denunciations -- and Macnaghten pointedly leaving out 'Kosminski' altogether from his own memoirs.

The limitation of the Swanson Marginalia is that it is not only private, it is furtive, and therefore it is not an opinion tested anywhere, against anybody else's contrary view. It does not have to be, being private. Swanson can write whatever he likes to himself.

[PaulB]

There are two other options, for more likely than the first two:

3) Swanson's memory failed him. Simon Wood recently posted an astute observation that, arguably, the more unlikely bits are only on the flyleaf. Therefore that section might have been written at a much later time when Swanson's memory really had begun to fade.

Or,


4) It is his annotation, for sure, but Swanson is recording what his beloved ex-boss told him, and it not a story he agrees with as he knows it did not happen quite like that. So he showed it to nobody, his family only coming across it by accident. Swanson did not need to write that he did not agree as it was just to himself, though the final, anti-climactic line does, arguably, hint at far less than a 'definitely, ascertained fact'.

Whilst the idea that Swanson's memory failed him is a possibility, there is no evidence that it did, and age isn't always accompanied by memory loss, and even when memories do fail it is more often about recent things and the details. Whether a major event in one's life, which the Ripper case may have been to Swanson, would easily be confused or forgotten or twisted out of shape is questionable.

I think the Jack the Ripper marginalia has to be assessed together with all the marginal notes which in the main are expansions of or correctives to what the author wrote, from which it can be seen - or, to be more cautious, may be argued - that the Ripper material was not a corrective because Swanson would have written a rejection of it (or not written marginal notes at all) if it had been.

Fleetwood Mac
Money was made from the marginalia, but not a great deal, and whilst I have no idea what Jim's financial position was at that time, his lovely home did not suggest a man in need of a few bob. I think Jim Swanson would have to have been nuts and naive not to have sought some financial return from what he had every reason to believe was a sensational discovery in the centenary year.

Paul

[Jonathan H]

There are two other options, for more likely than the first two:

3) Swanson's memory failed him. Simon Wood recently posted an astute observation that, arguably, the more unlikely bits are only on the flyleaf. Therefore that section might have been written at a much later time when Swanson's memory really had begun to fade.

Or,

4) It is his annotation, for sure, but Swanson is recording what his beloved ex-boss told him, and it not a story he agrees with as he knows it did not happen quite like that. So he showed it to nobody, his family only coming across it by accident. Swanson did not need to write that he did not agree as it was just to himself, though the final, anti-climactic line does, arguably, hint at far less than a 'definitely, ascertained fact'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Kosminski has to rank very highly due to Swanson's notes intended for personal consumption. I don't go along with the 'old dribbling fool' school of thought. I mean, when people move into the 50+ sphere of their lives do they really lose the capacity to accurately record an ID and a suspect's name? In my mind, there are two options: 1) the notes are fraudulent 2) Kosminski was ID'd. I'm not accusing anyone of fraud although I do believe there was an attempt to make money on the back of these notes.

Then how does that square with the 'sailor' type seen by Lawende? Would Kosminski have dressed in such a fashion? And, it's fair to say that there's a good chance that 'sailor' was JTR.

I would love to know how it was determined Sadler was on a ship at the time of some of the murders, and would love to know a bit more about Grainger/Grant.

I've never been convinced that JTR was a local man.

On the local theme, one thing struck me the other night when reading the would Jack strike having been seen (Lawende). Well, yes he would, just as people do today.

A better question is this: a local man would have known that Morris was working, surely, and that the police beat went round that square - and was pretty tight in terms of time. When I was growing up and beyond I got to know all the nooks and crannies of the area in which I lived - knew people's habits etc. If Jack was local then I feel he would have known how little time he had and how much of a risk he was taking in that square - would he have struck had he known this? I certainly wouldn't have.

Seems that sailors did 'treat' women, which may explain the 'jolly new bonnet' and Stride hanging around. I do believe Coles and Sadler had some hat fiasco and arranged to meet at a later time. It would also explain the lapse in time between murders.

Take away Swanson's notes and a sailor seems the best bet to me.

[PaulB]

The book was published in 1881,and it was printed in Czechoslovakia.Yes it was 25 years since the murders that Thomson took office,but surely the memories would have endured.Would he resist the temtation,no matter any pressing needs,to at least gain some idea of possible suspects when the chance presented itself.'Sir Basil Thompson was equally convinced that the Russion,Pedachenco,was the ripper'.This is what Alice writes.I do not know Alice,therefor I cannot comment on her statement.There is no indication of how or when she became aware of Thompson's belief,and of course no evidence that she is speaking the truth.It is words in a book,but so is 'The seaside home'.

Hi Harry,
I don't think we can safely base conclusions on what guesses about what Thomson may been sufficiently interested or been tempted by. The evidence we possess is that he wrote about Jack the Ripper in passing, and from his writings, career, and surviving documents, he was interested in and concerned by events which were contemporary and of immediate concern to him.

As explained, by others as well as myself, there is absolutely no evidence that Thomson was 'convinced' that Pedachenko was Jack the Ripper. None at all. That Pedachenko ever existed is also highly doubtful. And I don't know the author or the article you are talking about, or where or when it was published, so I have no clue as to its reliability, by prima facie it would appear based on Le Queux/McCormick.

Yes, 'the Seaside Home' is mentioned in a book, or rather in notes written in a book, but the writing is authentic, has impeccable provenance, and was written by an informed contemporary source who was probably acquainted with the facts, not by a writer one has never heard of in an unknown publication, using unknown sources, and claiming something which as far as is known has a very unreliable pedigree.

Cheers
Paul

[PaulB]

Only if you were wealthy enough to bring the action. There was no legal aid.

Regards, Bridewell.

I wasn't thinking so much of someone bringing an action against the police as wrongful detention being being remarked on in court by a prisoner or his defence. Or whether statistics of any kind were produced when the law was changed. The trouble is that while we know or can safely surmise that the rules were broken, we need to know how often they were broken in order to say with any degree of certain that they were broken in a specific case.

[harry]

The book was published in 1881,and it was printed in Czechoslovakia.Yes it was 25 years since the murders that Thomson took office,but surely the memories would have endured.Would he resist the temtation,no matter any pressing needs,to at least gain some idea of possible suspects when the chance presented itself.'Sir Basil Thompson was equally convinced that the Russion,Pedachenco,was the ripper'.This is what Alice writes.I do not know Alice,therefor I cannot comment on her statement.There is no indication of how or when she became aware of Thompson's belief,and of course no evidence that she is speaking the truth.It is words in a book,but so is 'The seaside home'.

[Tom_Wescott]

To Wickerman

You always move the goal-posts and just reiterate your position without debating it.

Wick is good peeps, but oh my lord, is this ever true.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

frustrating

Hello Dave. Yes, frustrating.

Hope you can find it. Sounds interesting.

Cheers.
LC