Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[Harry D]

...undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not in that category...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him...In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact"


The Baron

That's my point. They claim an identification (of sorts) took place. I don't believe either Anderson or Swanson were liars, nor did they confuse the biggest case they ever worked on with another. It doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that "Kosminski" was the murderer or that the officers didn't bring their own prejudices into play.

[Wickerman]

Funny.. Why should I, it is offecial, No less than Sir Anderson and Swanson stated that.


Who he was is academic.



The Baron

Sure, its also 'official' that Schwartz testified at the inquest, Anderson & Warren both said so, yet they are both equally wrong.
So, how do you know Anderson was not wrong with his who "had a good view"?

[rjpalmer]

Sure, its also 'official' that Schwartz testified at the inquest, Anderson & Warren both said so, yet they are both equally wrong.

So, how do you know Anderson was not wrong with his who "had a good view"?

Anderson's myth of the super witness was a masterstroke, because with one sweep it dismissed all other witnesses as irrelevant. All other potential 'sightings' of the Ripper and all rival theories could be sent to the shredder, with no need to even alert the defense.

But one only needs to read the MEPO files to realize that even Swanson had no clear idea of who saw what. There were half a dozen different potential witnesses and they didn't appear to be describing the same man. No one knew who or what or how much faith to place in any of them. Ergo, Macnaghten is honest enough to admit that 'no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer,' meaning no one indisputably saw the Whitechapel Murderer. He leaves the door open, while Anderson slams it shut. Two different types of men and two different types of thinker.

[Michael W Richards]

Funny.. Why should I, it is offecial, No less than Sir Anderson and Swanson stated that.


Who he was is academic.



The Baron

Was Offecial used as a derivative of feces?

[Michael W Richards]

That's my point. They claim an identification (of sorts) took place. I don't believe either Anderson or Swanson were liars, nor did they confuse the biggest case they ever worked on with another. It doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that "Kosminski" was the murderer or that the officers didn't bring their own prejudices into play.

Both Anderson and Swanson were in the business of deceit Harry. Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Espionage, Terrorism, Double agents, plots that were known and not discussed with those threatened by them...including HRM...their whole professional existence at that time was about keeping information secret. Using lies, ommissions, unofficial comments.....this whole mess about who thought what about the Ripper cases to me smacks of intentional disinformation. Which is a staple within National Security Departments.

There is a dissertation here by Andrew Morrison...A Mystery Play, Police opinions on Jack the Ripper...here is a snippet...

"Henry Smith stated that he did not know who the murderer was and Abberline was only of the opinion that Chapman was the killer. Swanson does not say if he thought Kosminski was guilty only that he was the suspect Anderson was writing about. Macnaghten is not certain and neither is Littlechild. Of all the policemen mentioned only Anderson states that the Ripper's identity was know beyond all doubt. All the others talk of "a very likely suspect" or "good reason to suspect" and do not claim that the killer's identity was definitely known. However, Anderson was almost certainly writing about Kosminski, Swanson definetly was and assumes that's who Anderson meant, Macnaghten mentioned Kosminski along with Ostrog and Druitt and Sagar wrote about somebody that sounds a lot like Kosminski. Even Abberline in naming George Chapman ( S A Kolowski) could have been referring to the same person ie a suspect with a K...ski name."

The thing about Abberline and his belief in Chapman is that it was mentioned in the same year he was executed...1903...before that he claimed people only "thought" they knew. Suddenly he has an epiphany...just as the suspect cannot be tried anymore?

[mpriestnall]

FYI

Adam Wood and Richard Jones discuss the marginalia, amongst other things, here:

"Swanson - The Life And Times Of A Victorian Detective. An Interview With Adam Wood."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQQCQW0F1KU

[The Baron]

Sure, its also 'official' that Schwartz testified at the inquest, Anderson & Warren both said so, yet they are both equally wrong.
So, how do you know Anderson was not wrong with his who "had a good view"?

Trying to make an illusional point, aren't you

As if there was no Schwartz and no testimony of him

Or you may have full knowledge of the inquest and all other police papers related to it.

There WAS Scwartz, he testified.

There WAS a Witness-Suspect identification.

You don't know 1/100 of what Anderson and Swanson knew.

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!



The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

There is a dissertation here by Andrew Morrison...A Mystery Play, Police opinions on Jack the Ripper...here is a snippet...

"[I]Henry Smith stated that he did not know who the murderer was and Abberline was only of the opinion that Chapman was the killer."

Smith never specifically said that he didn't know who the murderer was.

[Trevor Marriott]

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!

The Baron

Everything about the so-called identification goes against official police procedures regarding ID parades.

If the police had a stone wall witness why would they jeopardise their case by breaking rules and regulations?

The marginalia is unsafe to rely on, and why is it unsafe?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Smith never specifically said that he didn't know who the murderer was.

In 1910 he said that he had no more idea where the killer lived then than he did in 1888.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

In 1910 he said that he had no more idea where the killer lived then than he did in 1888.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And that dosen't mean there was no suspect, no watching day by night, no witness, no attempt of an identification to bring a suspect to the court.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Baron,

Dream on.

Stay safe,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Trying to make an illusional point, aren't you

As if there was no Schwartz and no testimony of him

Or you may have full knowledge of the inquest and all other police papers related to it.

There WAS Scwartz, he testified.

There WAS a Witness-Suspect identification.

You don't know 1/100 of what Anderson and Swanson knew.

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!



The Baron

I'd like to know what you think "Official" means.
As has been pointed out, everything about Anderson's "so-called" identification was unnofficial.

[Michael W Richards]

Trying to make an illusional point, aren't you

As if there was no Schwartz and no testimony of him

Or you may have full knowledge of the inquest and all other police papers related to it.

There WAS Scwartz, he testified.

There WAS a Witness-Suspect identification.

You don't know 1/100 of what Anderson and Swanson knew.

A +130 researcher who favours Druitt as a suspect want to wash an official identification of a prime suspect from the book!



The Baron

There is no physical evidence that Israel Schwartz had any connection to the Liz Stride Inquest, none that he "testified" at it. Unless of course you are in possession of some evidence which is unknown to everyone else on the planet now and who has been here over the past 132 years. No? Rhetorical anyway, of course.

[Michael W Richards]

Smith never specifically said that he didn't know who the murderer was.

Then that would be misleading wouldn't it Scott. Precisely what Im asking in this thread...did they mislead. The original point here is that due to the varied and contradictory opinions given over the years by some of the most intimately involved in the investigations, at the highest levels, is this representative of some misdirection or disinformation strategy by those officials? Or, even though they had virtually the same information to access, their opinions on what to make of it still varied dramatically? From a failed suspect id that somehow confirms they had the right man in custody, to knowing absolutely nothing about any particular suspect to link with the crimes.