Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[c.d.]

You are far too forgiving, C.D.

On at least three occasions in TLSOMOL, Sir Robert Anderson told elaborate and demonstrable lies. So, why should we believe him about the Polish Jew?

Hello Simon.

I was speaking of the investigators in general not anyone specifically. Just because we can demonstrate that someone has told a lie or lies it does not therefore necessarily follow that everything they say is a lie. Anderson simply could have been mistaken or honestly believed what he stated without sufficient evidence to back it up.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

You are far too forgiving, C.D.

On at least three occasions in TLSOMOL, Sir Robert Anderson told elaborate and demonstrable lies. So, why should we believe him about the Polish Jew?

[c.d.]

The investigators were human and so it reasonable to believe that all might have had some prejudices or presuppositions to begin with. If you believe the Whitechapel Murderer must have been (or even probably was) a foreigner that is a starting point from which you interpret the evidence. Or he must have been a Jew. Or he must have had medical knowledge or must have had a history of prior violence. Take your pick. It would have to have influenced them to some degree. Probably some more than others.

The other factor would be that they probably focused on some suspects more than others in the course of their investigation. It would not be surprising if their most favored suspect was the one that they had investigated the most.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

TLSOMOL is also genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.

I think I'd prefer TOSOMLL, but it has yet to be written. I heard those meetings of the Protestant Truth Society could be a real gas.

[Simon Wood]

TLSOMOL is also genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.

[Wickerman]

I suppose the caveat should be "without other corroborating evidence", which is what's entirely missing with all these memoirs. As Trevor says, they're clearly not singing from the same sheet.

Yes, not an accurate source of information, but also not intentionally fiction.
Memoirs are not Autobiographies, the former are just recollections as you sit at your writing desk. The latter requires factual research for times, dates & places. Recollections are by defacto vague as to essential details, you know what happened but the specifics may be out by days or certain names are close but not precise.

What Macnaghten wrote in 1994 (the Memorandum) was written while he was still on the force, any records were still available. Even his own Memoir (Days of my Years) was not written long after he retired, but the same year 1913, published in 1914.
His paragraphs on the ripper murders are so detailed he most likely worked from reports. It is likely the most accurate summary of the murders written by a police official.

So, can we conclude that there was a conspiracy, engineered across departments from working Bobbies up to the most senior level, where they each pulled a suspects name at random from a peaked cap and co-operated thereafter to mislead the inquisitive while protecting their inside knowledge, or, as I suspect, they didn't have a clue?

No conspiracy.

Personally, I like to believe the Swanson Marginalia is genuine. That doesn't make it correct. It's an insight into his recollections, but a solution to the problem it ain't. Does make you wonder about the name Kosminski though. Mentioned by Swanson and McNaughten (who wasn't there at the time, I know), but still not matching up factually? Although it would make Swanson a reasonable candidate for sourcing the MM.

Yes, the Marginalia is genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.

[DJA]

The Unsinkable Molly Brown - Trailer - YouTube

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did any witness write about what they saw, or get interviewed about it, years later?
I know quite a few Titanic survivors were interviewed, well after WW2.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Memoirs can't be trusted and shouldn't be used to back up a theory.

I suppose the caveat should be "without other corroborating evidence", which is what's entirely missing with all these memoirs. As Trevor says, they're clearly not singing from the same sheet. So, can we conclude that there was a conspiracy, engineered across departments from working Bobbies up to the most senior level, where they each pulled a suspects name at random from a peaked cap and co-operated thereafter to mislead the inquisitive while protecting their inside knowledge, or, as I suspect, they didn't have a clue?
Personally, I like to believe the Swanson Marginalia is genuine. That doesn't make it correct. It's an insight into his recollections, but a solution to the problem it ain't. Does make you wonder about the name Kosminski though. Mentioned by Swanson and McNaughten (who wasn't there at the time, I know), but still not matching up factually? Although it would make Swanson a reasonable candidate for sourcing the MM.

[Wickerman]

I don't disagree with your general point, that the Marginalia is not to be trusted, of course it could be full of errors, they are reflections on events from long ago.
I'm not a fan of memoirs in general, be it Anderson, Dew, Reid or Smith or anyone writing about what they did 20-30+ years ago.
Memoirs can't be trusted and shouldn't be used to back up a theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Huh?
Doesn't the fact it was made up demonstrate it is false?

Personally, I think he might have confused it with the Sailors Home, in the East End, but that's another story.

You could be right, but it still doesn't explain why such an important alleged event in the murder investigation was never mentioned by MM especially when he has taken the trouble to list Kosminski as a likely suspect in two versions of his memo. They were clearly not all singing from the same song sheet.

Even if the venue was the sailors home and not a seaside home all the police procedures regarding ID parades and hearsay evidence would still have applied.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. Thanks so much for your insights into the police procedures of the day. I'm not very well versed in this stuff, but I made a go of it anyway with my responses.

In answer to your questions

Yes, there was probably a written record that has not survived. It is unknown how the police contacted the witness. A friend or acquaintance could have told someone what the witness saw, but the witness would only admit to recognizing the suspect.

It seems as if you are looking for excuses not to accept what the procedures dictated as I have set them out. The police would need a witness statement from the witness before they would consider an ID parade and that statement would have to have had some evidential value i.e what the witness saw or heard concerning one or more of the murders. The witness would be asked to give a statement from that it would be determined the evidential value of that statement and whether or not it was worth forming an ID parade.

How they contacted the witness is academic because if we are to believe the marginalia they did contact him and he attended the ID parade

In the case of Jack the Ripper the witness had to be treated very carefully because of the perception of anti-Semitism should he be jailed.

The police were investigating a series of horrific murders they were only interested in finding the killer whether that killer was a Jew, or an Afganistan fire worshipper would not matter one bit if they got their man

Henry Smith questioned the witness before the identification to see if it was worth the effort to sanction the proceeding. He concluded that it was not, but likely bowed to pressure from the MET Police anyway.

Where did you get this from?

If the City of London Police conducted the proceeding, that documentation, as noted above, was lost.

But it was the Met who seemingly conducted this according to what is written

As I said, I think the police had to tread very carefully -- this was no ordinary case. Jewish suspect. Jewish witness. The refusal of the witness to provide further evidence -- like what he actually saw the suspect doing -- wouldn't be enough to charge him (Something along the lines of what Anderson said).

I have already explained the procedures

Here I think his Jewish family intervened and reached a deal with police to have him evaluated. When it became apparent the suspect was insane, he was confined in the asylum. That's all they could do at that point.

But according to what is written they didn’t do that they took him back to his home address

"...and he knew he was identified."
Yes because he would have heard the witness identify him

Macnaghten does mention the City PC witness near Mitre Square, so this indicates he may have been aware of some sort of identification proceeding.

But the MM is also unsafe to rely on there is no evidence to corroborate this

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Because the term "seaside home" could not be disproved especially if it was made up!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Huh?
Doesn't the fact it was made up demonstrate it is false?

Personally, I think he might have confused it with the Sailors Home, in the East End, but that's another story.

[Trevor Marriott]

If Swanson didn't pen the marginalia, is the reference to the 'seaside home' weirdly specific? Kosminski, yeah, could have come from a book, the lunatic theory etc, but why place an identification at the seaside home?

Because the term "seaside home" could not be disproved especially if it was made up!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If Swanson didn't pen the marginalia, is the reference to the 'seaside home' weirdly specific? Kosminski, yeah, could have come from a book, the lunatic theory etc, but why place an identification at the seaside home?