Home office report

[Phil H]

Yes we have both Druit and Kosminski mentioned by contempary policeman. So hopefully you except they are credible suspects.

No - not if the word "credible" is properly used.

they are as you say, both mentioned by policemen serving in the 1890s, but one of those (MM) was NOT in post at the time of the "canonical 5" (his term!) and there is no evidence 9at least that survives that points a finger at them until after the murder.

At best I would call both "contemporary suspects" - but no more. ostrog has the same credentials - are you arguing he too is now a "credible" suspect?

However I was talking about Druit and Kosminski as possible JtR matches in there own right.

So why raise the first point?

Kosminski is a local man...it seems reasonable to conclude Jack worked on foot.

Was "Kosminski" as named by DSS, AARON KOSMINSKI? If you think so PROVE IT.

But even if we accept that Kosminski means AK, then the second half of your sentence remains an assumption. A reasonable one, I grant you, but its speculation. "Jack" could have come from outside the area and still done the murders on foot, could he not?

In a recent analysis of Kosminski's case notes Dr Lars Davidson concluded that he was probably suffering from Hebophenic Schizophrenia an illness that attacks the sufferer in waves known as Psychotic episodes usually 16-18 in length.

Sorry, not really interested in modern diagnoses of a man who may not be our suspect anyway. However qualified, it remains Dr Davidson's opinion, does it not?

He lives in a number of family premises, brother of a wealthy Tailoring family. probably Green feild street in 1888....(Walk to the top of Greenfeild street cross Whitechapel High road and your quickly on Old Montigue street.....the linking point of the whitechapel murders).

I know all that, but it is simply circumstantial - we don't know he did it. An awful lot of people lived in the east End, many of whom have been viewed as potential suspects by some and some on better evidence than AK.

A local man, who would know the area, who would fit in unnoticed.

there were 10s of 1,000s of people to whom that would apply. the East End was probably the most densely populated area of London in 1888.

Druit on the other hand is a travelling serial killer, he comes from Blackheath and heads to Whitchappel...why?

Tell me, you are now questioning a suspect you want to dismiss by opposing exactly the sort of arguments that you support (it seems 0 for AK)!! Years ago it was argued that MJD had links to the East End (Minories), these were later shown to be wrong - but who knows he might have had "digs" in Whitechapel!!

His nearest station is Cannon Street, his nearest source of pray is Elephant and Castle. If he was JtR surely we would have a wider spread of kills with Cannon Street the epicentre?

What a strange argument - WE do not have a scrap of evidence to link MJD with ANY mirders, or even the desire to murder. Only MM did, if there was any beyond hearsay.

Druit doesnt fit the witness descriptions particularly well. And would sure have been conspicuous on Whitechapel streets?

But if it were shown that MM's evidence was strong - say if a file emerged - we'd all be amazed that MJD managed to pull it off. What a strange argument you promote - one could equally argue that none of the facts known about AK fit him to be the Ripper either.

So although its it much to go on, I'll stand by my claim that on paper Kosminski seems the more probable of the two suspects.

That is just patent illogic. Any case against either man you named is circumstantial and based on hearsay. That you have a PREFERENCE is fine, but don't dress it up as scientific or evidence based when it clearly is not.

QED my point proved.

phil

[Jeff Leahy]

As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

Is Kosminski a better fit? I am not sure we have anything but hearsay evidence against him.

OK, he ended up in a mental institution/asylum, as MJD committed suicide - which could explain the end of the killings, BUT ONLY if the last murder was that of Kelly, or she was a JtR victim. But we have no evidence that places him at a crime scene, or in a mental state to commit the murders.

He is mentioned by three policeman (Anderson, without naming him, Swanson, and MM). Swanson's annotations contain anomalies that we cannot explain and are related to Anderson's claims; MM mentions also Ostro, whom we now know is a non-rummer as a suspect (whereabouts and type of crimes he did). Which somewhat undermines any case against Kosminski - though he must, of course, remain a contemporary suspect.

On Druitt - and I speak as a one-time Druittist - we have NOTHING but hearsay evidence (family) - no connection to the East End, no record of contemporary suspicion, no record that he was inclined to crime or murder - indeed, the opposite, a wholly conventional, cricket loving middle-class man.

I say that, recognising that there may have been files at the time on AK or MJD, but we have not had sight of them, and thus must read the evidence we have - though of course, our analysis will change should new evidence come to light.

Thus I do NOT believe we can assert that AK is a better fit than Druitt - neither man can be "fitted" against JtR in any real sense.

Phil

I think your slightly missing my reasoning..

Yes we have both Druit and Kosminski mentioned by contempary policeman. So hopefully you except they are credible suspects.

However I was talking about Druit and Kosminski as possible JtR matches in there own right.

Kosminski is a local man...it seems reasonable to conclude Jack worked on foot. In a recent analysis of Kosminski's case notes Dr Lars Davidson concluded that he was probably suffering from Hebophenic Schizophrenia an illness that attacks the sufferer in waves known as Psychotic episodes usually 16-18 in length. He lives in a number of family premises, brother of a wealthy Tailoring family. probably Green feild street in 1888....(Walk to the top of Greenfeild street cross Whitechapel High road and your quickly on Old Montigue street.....the linking point of the whitechapel murders).

It seems probable that the JtR murders were opportunistic, random acts taking extreme chances. A far better match for a psychotic serial killer than the planned psychopath.

A local man, who would know the area, who would fit in unnoticed.

Druit on the other hand is a travelling serial killer, he comes from Blackheath and heads to Whitchappel...why?
His nearest station is Cannon Street, his nearest source of pray is Elephant and Castle. If he was JtR surely we would have a wider spread of kills with Cannon Street the epicentre?
Druit doesnt fit the witness descriptions particularly well. And would sure have been conspicuous on Whitechapel streets?

So although its it much to go on, I'll stand by my claim that on paper Kosminski seems the more probable of the two suspects.

Pirate

[Phil H]

As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

Is Kosminski a better fit? I am not sure we have anything but hearsay evidence against him.

OK, he ended up in a mental institution/asylum, as MJD committed suicide - which could explain the end of the killings, BUT ONLY if the last murder was that of Kelly, or she was a JtR victim. But we have no evidence that places him at a crime scene, or in a mental state to commit the murders.

He is mentioned by three policeman (Anderson, without naming him, Swanson, and MM). Swanson's annotations contain anomalies that we cannot explain and are related to Anderson's claims; MM mentions also Ostro, whom we now know is a non-rummer as a suspect (whereabouts and type of crimes he did). Which somewhat undermines any case against Kosminski - though he must, of course, remain a contemporary suspect.

On Druitt - and I speak as a one-time Druittist - we have NOTHING but hearsay evidence (family) - no connection to the East End, no record of contemporary suspicion, no record that he was inclined to crime or murder - indeed, the opposite, a wholly conventional, cricket loving middle-class man.

I say that, recognising that there may have been files at the time on AK or MJD, but we have not had sight of them, and thus must read the evidence we have - though of course, our analysis will change should new evidence come to light.

Thus I do NOT believe we can assert that AK is a better fit than Druitt - neither man can be "fitted" against JtR in any real sense.


Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

No, no, you're quite confused, mate.

I know it took place in 1895 -- that is what I keep writing -- which shows how Swanson and Anderson were not certain as to the true identity of the fiend to be still investigating Ripper suspects with Ripper witnesses, well the witness in Lawende.

If Lawende had already said yes and no to Kosminski why is being wheeled out for this gentile sailor so many years later -

Absolutely Absolutely. Paul Begg has been pointing this out for years and been ignored. Lawende would not have been used again in the Sadler ID (I dont know where Lawende is named in the Grant ID)

However yes yes yes....Lawende WAS NOT THE WITNESS! I agree...

- to whom he says yes by the way. Ahh, but you think the key witness was Schwartz. Then why are they not using him?

Um Now this is a hard one? Lets think shall we Jonathon, lets just stop for five seconds running away with wild theories and think about what your saying here...

WHY WOULD THEY NOT USE SCHWARTZ?

Um very difficult.....Oh yes Schwartz had already made a positive ID hadnt he? So why use him again?

And you call my theory (actually a variation on Evans and Rumbelow) confusing ...?.

Your theory is complicated and confusing. It also relies on Anderson being muddled, confused and forgetful. A premise you make on one incident when late at night and tierd, he confused two cases. It also ignors the fact that Anderson was known to have kept a diary.

The grant episode makes it very unlikely that Anderson knew the slightest thing about a Polish Jew suspect.

For example, Griffiths under his pseudonym Alfred Aylmer in 1896, wrote that there was some speculation at the Yard about a man with two distinct personalities -- but there was not a shred of evidence for such a belief.

So much for a slam dunk witness identification!

Isnt there some doubt about Griffiths and Aylmer being the same person? They appear to have published in the same magazine the following year?

And you still need to explain why Anderson would threaten has immortal soul and lie over such a trivial matter?

When Griffiths would shift ground in 1898 towards just such a Jekyll-and-Hyde solution (he calls it 'probable') it will be about the un-named Druitt not the un-named 'Kosminski', at that point still bereft of a witness identification, though we can see the strands being woven towards such a myth with him being possibly seen by a beat cop with the fourth victim..

And? Anderson continued with his claim.

After this acute disappointment with Grant, Swenason makes his commect about a deceased chief suspect. This could refer to Druitt, but I think it more likely refers to a fictionalized version of 'Kosminski' -- which we know first emerged in Mac's Report the previous year..

Swanson was in charge it was his duty to investigate any lead.

He had 14 unsolved murders on the case file, are you saying that it never occured to Swanson that he may be looking for more than one person in connection with the file?

Your hero Mcnaughten only connected five.

William Grant is a perfect fit for Lawende's 'Jack the Sailor', except for the tattoos and scars. That is presumably why the witness affirmed, if the newspaper has that detail correct (if only we had a photo of Druitt from 1888 and one of Grant -- would they be virtual twins?)

Described as a tall and gaunt man and wild haggered-looking he was 5' 10'', with grey eyes, a pale complexion, black mostache and tattoes on his arms and hands....

The only description this could possiby match is pipeman.

I am not for a moment suggesting that Grant was 'Jack the Ripper', despite his indiscreet lawyer thinking so, and saying so, in public, years later (he wrongly thought this suspect was deceased too?)

I do not think Swanson muddled any of this up, as I keep writing much good it does me.

No but your trying to make him Andersons patsie...and there is no evidence for this what so ever. Swanson was a shrude reliable copper. He simply made notes in the margin as he had done all his carrier.

I think that later, much later, Anderson's memory muddled this all up.

There is no evidence for this apart from one incident long after he had started his caged lunatic story.

When Swanson recorded his ex-chief's account he wrote that 'Kosminski was the suspect' because the one detail he recognized from that scrambled egg was that this suspect was deceased soon after the final murder -- which Aaron Kosminski wasn't anyhow.

Theres a scene in the life of Brian where a spaceship swoops down catches a falling Brian and takes him on an interstella space trip before crashing...

Of course its NOT impossible.......but highly highly improbable.

At the time, Abberline, Reid, Smith, Anderson and Swanson (though his opinion, if it was his opinion, remained private) were sources all crushed under the wheels of Mac's 'Drowned Doctor' juggernaut. It is a modern revision that this was an entirely empty chariot, and that it was these flattened and battered sources which deserve to be rescued, nursed back to health and treated with greater reverence.

As suspects Kosminski is simply a better fit than Druit. What you require is evidence that Druit had a reason to only kill prostitutes in Whitechapel?

Why? It doesnt make sense.

Yours Pirate

[Jonathan H]

No, no, you're quite confused, mate.

I know it took place in 1895 -- that is what I keep writing -- which shows how Swanson and Anderson were not certain as to the true identity of the fiend to be still investigating Ripper suspects with Ripper witnesses, well the witness in Lawende.

If Lawende had already said yes and no to Kosminski why is being wheeled out for this gentile sailor so many years later -- to whom he says yes by the way. Ahh, but you think the key witness was Schwartz. Then why are they not using him?

And you call my theory (actually a variation on Evans and Rumbelow) confusing ...?

The grant episode makes it very unlikely that Anderson knew the slightest thing about a Polish Jew suspect.

For example, Griffiths under his pseudonym Alfred Aylmer in 1896, wrote that there was some speculation at the Yard about a man with two distinct personalities -- but there was not a shred of evidence for such a belief.

So much for a slam dunk witness identification!

When Griffiths would shift ground in 1898 towards just such a Jekyll-and-Hyde solution (he calls it 'probable') it will be about the un-named Druitt not the un-named 'Kosminski', at that point still bereft of a witness identification, though we can see the strands being woven towards such a myth with him being possibly seen by a beat cop with the fourth victim.

After this acute disappointment with Grant, Swenason makes his commect about a deceased chief suspect. This could refer to Druitt, but I think it more likely refers to a fictionalized version of 'Kosminski' -- which we know first emerged in Mac's Report the previous year.

William Grant is a perfect fit for Lawende's 'Jack the Sailor', except for the tattoos and scars. That is presumably why the witness affirmed, if the newspaper has that detail correct (if only we had a photo of Druitt from 1888 and one of Grant -- would they be virtual twins?)

I am not for a moment suggesting that Grant was 'Jack the Ripper', despite his indiscreet lawyer thinking so, and saying so, in public, years later (he wrongly thought this suspect was deceased too?)

I do not think Swanson muddled any of this up, as I keep writing much good it does me.

I think that later, much later, Anderson's memory muddled this all up.

When Swanson recorded his ex-chief's account he wrote that 'Kosminski was the suspect' because the one detail he recognized from that scrambled egg was that this suspect was deceased soon after the final murder -- which Aaron Kosminski wasn't anyhow.

At the time, Abberline, Reid, Smith, Anderson and Swanson (though his opinion, if it was his opinion, remained private) were sources all crushed under the wheels of Mac's 'Drowned Doctor' juggernaut. It is a modern revision that this was an entirely empty chariot, and that it was these flattened and battered sources which deserve to be rescued, nursed back to health and treated with greater reverence.

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate, I am referring to the arrest and investigation of William Grant (aka Grainger) for the assault, with a knife, on a prostitue in the East End, and the police thinking he might be the fiend.

One newspaper refers to him being seen by a witness, who must be Lawende as it is the 'Jack the Sailor' description with Eddowes.

Apparently and remarkably the witness said 'yes', and yet it went nowhere. In the same issue Swanson is quoted -- out of the blue -- about a dead chief suspect.

I theorize this is when Mac deployed 'Kosminski' unrecognizeable to the real Aaron Kosminski as he was redacted back into the 1888 investigation, and his incarceration in early 1889, and he was supposedly deceased.

You see it is too much of a coincidence for me; a Jewish witness who said 'yes' (Grant) and it went nowhere (the same Jewish witness having said 'no' to Sadler four years before) and in another alleged incident with a Polish Jew suspect, a Jewish witness who said yes and no and it went nowhere ...

That is why I believe the Anderson tale is the mythological version-fusion of Lawende, Sadler/Grant, with the first sailor being 'confronted' a few days after a Kosminski had been sectioned, and a few days after that another young and pretty harlot had been brutally killed.

Well i've check the entry on Grant in the A to Z...this incident doesnt take place until 1895...And grant looks nothing like the man described by Schwartz or Lawende...

Actually at 5' 10'' hes a better fit for Pipeman..

Certain doesnt match Mrs Longs suspect...

You seem to be making your confusion theory more and more complicated.

I really dont think Swanson would have confused this case. He investigated hundreds why this one in particular?

He was training with the Cork City Artillary in 1888 which surely provides an alibi? (at least for Tabram and Nichols)

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Pirate, I am referring to the arrest and investigation of William Grant (aka Grainger) for the assault, with a knife, on a prostitue in the East End, and the police thinking he might be the fiend.

One newspaper refers to him being seen by a witness, who must be Lawende as it is the 'Jack the Sailor' description with Eddowes.

Apparently and remarkably the witness said 'yes', and yet it went nowhere. In the same issue Swanson is quoted -- out of the blue -- about a dead chief suspect.

I theorize this is when Mac deployed 'Kosminski' unrecognizeable to the real Aaron Kosminski as he was redacted back into the 1888 investigation, and his incarceration in early 1889, and he was supposedly deceased.

You see it is too much of a coincidence for me; a Jewish witness who said 'yes' (Grant) and it went nowhere (the same Jewish witness having said 'no' to Sadler four years before) and in another alleged incident with a Polish Jew suspect, a Jewish witness who said yes and no and it went nowhere ...

That is why I believe the Anderson tale is the mythological version-fusion of Lawende, Sadler/Grant, with the first sailor being 'confronted' a few days after a Kosminski had been sectioned, and a few days after that another young and pretty harlot had been brutally killed.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Pirate

Fair enough you do not agree about the disparity between the pantomime aspect and the flat conclusion.

No. But then I grew up on Dixon of Dock Green, and my step dad was an ex-copper. So it just reads like police speak to me.

But could not Swanson's notations in Anderson's book all come from Anderson? The latter reminisced, and Swanson later recorded those comments. That still makes them Swanson's additions, with Anderson as his source -- for Anderson's book.

The answer to that is 'I dont know'. However I think it unlikely. Swanson was a caney and clever man in charge of the case. I think, personally that Anderson was visited by Matilda and Anderson asked Swanson to sort it out for him and keep it quite.

For example, Swanson asked for clarification about the hoax letter, he asked for clarification about the police official disturbed about a threatening letter, and he asked for clarification about the Polish Jew who was positively identified ... but when -- before or after he was sectioned into a madhouse?

Firstly I'm not certain he asked for clarification, he was in charge, he was the man to ask? But Before or after works on the premise that someone is insane and stays insane. Schizophrenia doesnt work like that, its a cyclicur illness.

And what happened to that 'suspect'?

Oh, he died 'soon after' in the asylum.

At that moment, Swanson remembered whom this must be.

Unless Swanson was correct and Kosminski went into a Private asylum in 1889? which would tie in with claims made by Harry Cox.

It must be the suspect 'Kosminski' (first name lost) who first came to their attention via Macnaghten in 1895, and who could not recall his first name.

I personally don't think MacNaughten new diddly squat.

Macnaghten, the officer who turned to jelly over the letter, had discovered this suspect from some 1888 search list, and that he was 'safely caged', and that his family 'suspected the worst', and that he had attacked a female member of his family, and that he hated harlots, and that he had worked in a Polish hospital, and that he masturbated like there was no tomorrow.

Personally I think Anderson met the suspect and witnessed him Masterbating and was shocked. I'm not convinced Aaron Kosminski was a compulsive masterbator. Schizophrenics tend to have a low sex drive. Its possible his hormones went out of control durring psychotic attacks, but thats just guess work on my part I'm afraid?

Even now, in 1910, Anderson in front of Swanson zeroed in on the chronic masturbation, the 'unmentionable vices', as evidence of the Ripper's brutish disposition.

This Polish Jew, apparently dead 'soon after' being sectioned, was the man to whom Swanson alluded, in 1895, in the aftermath of a successful identifiication of Grant, as the man seen with the victim Eddowes, by a Jewish witness --a breakthrough which went nowhere.

Now your confusing me...Who is Grant? When was he seen with Eddows?

For if Swanson had been given a date about all this, say Feb 7th 1891 for 'Kosminski's incarceration, and he recalled that Frances Coles was killed a few days later, then he would have known that the tale was some kind of scrambled egg?!.

Yes I agree. And he didnt. He clearly describes a completely different incident in great detail. The suspect taken with difficulty to 'the seaside Home' he new he was recognised, the witness (also a jew) refused to give evidence.

The witness I beleive was Schwartz who witnessed the murder of Liz Stride and had very good sight of BSM.

Aaron Kosminski lived only yards from this murder in Green Feild Street...I've walked it in about 2-3 minutes. Aaron Kosminski a man who occupied several premises in the east end and from time to time became insane.

The lack of dates (giving the impression that this is taking place much earlier than 1891) is not just a missing element, it is what makes the tale possible if not plausible.

Dates are easily forgotten and confused. The story of a positive identification is Not.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

Fair enough you do not agree about the disparity between the pantomime aspect and the flat conclusion.

And, I see what you are saying and this line of argument has been put to me before.

But could not Swanson's notations in Anderson's book all come from Anderson? The latter reminisced, and Swanson later recorded those comments. That still makes them Swanson's additions, with Anderson as his source -- for Anderson's book.

For example, Swanson asked for clarification about the hoax letter, he asked for clarification about the police official disturbed about a threatening letter, and he asked for clarification about the Polish Jew who was positively identified ... but when -- before or after he was sectioned into a madhouse?

And what happened to that 'suspect'?

Oh, he died 'soon after' in the asylum.

At that moment, Swanson remembered whom this must be.

It must be the suspect 'Kosminski' (first name lost) who first came to their attention via Macnaghten in 1895, and who could not recall his first name.

Macnaghten, the officer who turned to jelly over the letter, had discovered this suspect from some 1888 search list, and that he was 'safely caged', and that his family 'suspected the worst', and that he had attacked a female member of his family, and that he hated harlots, and that he had worked in a Polish hospital, and that he masturbated like there was no tomorrow.

Even now, in 1910, Anderson in front of Swanson zeroed in on the chronic masturbation, the 'unmentionable vices', as evidence of the Ripper's brutish disposition.

This Polish Jew, apparently dead 'soon after' being sectioned, was the man to whom Swanson alluded, in 1895, in the aftermath of a successful identifiication of Grant, as the man seen with the victim Eddowes, by a Jewish witness --a breakthrough which went nowhere.

For if Swanson had been given a date about all this, say Feb 7th 1891 for 'Kosminski's incarceration, and he recalled that Frances Coles was killed a few days later, then he would have known that the tale was some kind of scrambled egg?!

The lack of dates (giving the impression that this is taking place much earlier than 1891) is not just a missing element, it is what makes the tale possible if not plausible.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, we sort of agree for my difference with the Evans-Rumbelow theory is that Swanson is simply writing down what Anderson told him.

Yes , I believe Stewart thinks Swanson the more likely source of the story and I would agree with him on that point.

Begg on the other hand seems to prefer Anderson as the source.

The pitiful, desperate, pantomime of the anecdote -- straining to convince -- is reminiscent of Anderson's style, and then the flat, kill-joy ending, 'Kosminski was the suspect' (still no first name) sounds to me like Swanson asserting his own interpretation of the data. It certainly does not match the previous melodrama, hence my provisional belief that it is not Swanson's own opinion.

Well I'd disagree strongly. There are other examples of Marginalia. When we examined it at length I also had a good look at the 'Jounalist known to City CID' maginalia...

Swanson uses what I would call old copper language (dixon dock green) and seems to expand on what he knows.

Pirate

[Phil H]

Glyn

It's debate and discussion that hones arguments and cases and makes them stronger. There's nothing to say that I am right!! I have no more idea of what's going on, perhaps less, than you do. We can only try to pull the facts we have together in a way that makes sense to us.

So I hope you'll go on flying kites here.

There are vested interests on this site - see the current one about the Nichols killing - who will desperately try to knock down anything that contradicts their own (usually over-intricate and wobbly - theory. You sometimes have to "shout" quite hard to make your voice heard, but my advice is PERSIST.

Phil

[glyn]

Phil,
Thanks for your reply earlier.Your answer does appear to make my "reasons to believe"post seem rather weak,I admit. Again thanks for taking the time.
Regards

[Jonathan H]

Yes, we sort of agree for my difference with the Evans-Rumbelow theory is that Swanson is simply writing down what Anderson told him.

The pitiful, desperate, pantomime of the anecdote -- straining to convince -- is reminiscent of Anderson's style, and then the flat, kill-joy ending, 'Kosminski was the suspect' (still no first name) sounds to me like Swanson asserting his own interpretation of the data. It certainly does not match the previous melodrama, hence my provisional belief that it is not Swanson's own opinion.

[Jeff Leahy]

Having had the pleasure of a pint with Nevill Swanson before Xmas I'd be most surprised if Donald wasn't in full posession of his facaulties.

Better get some work done

[Jonathan H]

Fair enough, Pirate.

I see it the other way round. That their claims, or one person's claim and the other repeating it, proves -- for me -- that there was a fading memory muddle involved.

Their, or his, very claims are the proof of the element you regard as unlikely.

Could I be wrong? Of course. I usually am.