Home office report

[Jeff Leahy]

I should also mention that the Macnaghten memo and the Swanson Marginalia do not stand up to close scrutiny either

They appear to contain factual errors...

Ho9wever throwing the baby out with the bath water has never made much sense to me.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

There has to be more than a name. In the case of the officers who later named some of these one has to ask what their real motives were. If they were regarded as any form of a suspect in 1888 where is the proof from the time of the murders. If they were looked upon in any way as suspects at that time it would have been recorded somewhere.

The old excuse of saying evidence was lost or stolen is wearing thin now the truth is there was none in the first place to be stolen or lost.

The truth is that Swanson,Anderson, Macnaghten ,Abberline all came up with different names doesnt that say something for their credibilty and the evidnetial value of what they said

Well yes its frustrating. But there must have been files on Kosminski, Ostrog and Druitt....We dont have them, they are gone, no more...

And your wrong in saying that Swanson and Anderson didnt agree....it would appear from any obvious reading of the Marginalia that they did..

And the story swanson tells is pretty clear also...

A suspect taken with difficulty and positively identified...

I dont see how much clearer that could be?

And of course we have the possibility that someone did witness one of the victims being murdered....a possibility that what they are saying did indeed happen...

And yes its problematic.....but considerably less so than anyother Jack teh Ripper theory you care to mention. Including Sailors.

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

Well your an ex policeman Trevor so perhaps you have more specific interpretation of the word 'Suspect'?

But Kosminski, Druit, Chapman and Tumbelty were 'contempary suspects' in that they were considered by those that investigated the murders.

We have documention to suport those claims. The Macnaughten memoranda, The Little Child Letter, TLSOMOL, Abberlines press reports about Chapman (a known serial killer) and of course the Swanson Marginalia...

THis is real evidence. And if they fit into either catigory we dont know because so much information has been lost or destroyed.

Pirate

I should also mention that the Macnaghten memo and the Swanson Marginalia do not stand up to close scrutiny either

[Trevor Marriott]

Well your an ex policeman Trevor so perhaps you have more specific interpretation of the word 'Suspect'?

But Kosminski, Druit, Chapman and Tumbelty were 'contempary suspects' in that they were considered by those that investigated the murders.

We have documention to suport those claims. The Macnaughten memoranda, The Little Child Letter, TLSOMOL, Abberlines press reports about Chapman (a known serial killer) and of course the Swanson Marginalia...

THis is real evidence. And if they fit into either catigory we dont know because so much information has been lost or destroyed.

Pirate

There has to be more than a name. In the case of the officers who later named some of these one has to ask what their real motives were. If they were regarded as any form of a suspect in 1888 where is the proof from the time of the murders. If they were looked upon in any way as suspects at that time it would have been recorded somewhere.

The old excuse of saying evidence was lost or stolen is wearing thin now the truth is there was none in the first place to be stolen or lost.

The truth is that Swanson,Anderson, Macnaghten ,Abberline all came up with different names doesnt that say something for their credibilty and the evidnetial value of what they said

[Chris]

Doesnt it also depend on whether Swansons.. "Kosminski was the suspect"... was genuine or a forgery? (as has been suggested by some)

Well, I don't believe it is a forgery, but even if it were, we would still have Macnaghten's statement that 'Kosminski' was put into an asylum, and no one has ever managed to find an alternative asylum inmate with that surname either.

On a side note,can anyone give an opinion why Kosminski (according to Swanson) would have had his hands "tied behind his back" when taken for the supposed identification?Surely if taken by the Police ,he would have been handcuffed,not hogtied?And wouldnt the usual practice be to take the witness to the suspect,not the other way round?

That referred to his being sent to the workhouse, not to the identification. I don't think it's ever been suggested that the police took him to the workhouse.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think you ought to define suspect when talking about some of these candidates for JTR as in "likely" and "prime" there is a big differnece between the two catergories and most dont even fit into any of the two.

Well your an ex policeman Trevor so perhaps you have more specific interpretation of the word 'Suspect'?

But Kosminski, Druit, Chapman and Tumbelty were 'contempary suspects' in that they were considered by those that investigated the murders.

We have documention to suport those claims. The Macnaughten memoranda, The Little Child Letter, TLSOMOL, Abberlines press reports about Chapman (a known serial killer) and of course the Swanson Marginalia...

THis is real evidence. And if they fit into either catigory we dont know because so much information has been lost or destroyed.

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

What as in credible ripperologist?



Are you arguing that Prince Eddie or James Maybrick was JtR?



Which first point Phil? I simply stated that as Suspects AK seems a better fit than MJD. And I provided fairly solid reasoning for that conclusion.



Why have you come across another possibility in the record base?

Retorical. No you havent



Well yes he could have done. But we do have examples of other serial killers. And while there are examples of serial killers tralling to a specific area or club to pick up victims, they are the exception to the rule.



OK we'll just through all expert opinion out the window and make it all up as we go along.



Well i cant think of any, who did you have in mind the elephant man?

Surely what we are doing here is considering the viability of a suspect.



Yes but my piont was that it didnt apply to Druit where as it does to AK. Admittedly hardly damn in itself. What we are considering is the weight of evidence. Even though in both cases there is not a lot (although better than most)



We do know that AK's family were in Greenfeild street and at the time of teh murders MJD was in Blackheath.



No its only strange to a complete dig bat. To everyone else it seems perfectly logical that if Druit were JtR it seems more feesable to have had a wide spread of kills....the logic for this is simply that prostitution was common in many parts of London not just Whitchapel



You could try and argue that Phil but you'd look pretty silly...but I'm game for a laugh if you are



Kosminski was the suspect

Pirate

I think you ought to define suspect when talking about some of these candidates for JTR as in "likely" and "prime" there is a big differnece between the two catergories and most dont even fit into any of the two.

[glyn]

[B]As for Druitt, I get a vague impression that some here,or at least in "Ripperworld" generally,know far more about Druitt than You maybe right, but without written/documentary support it would remain hearsay. Family "oral" history may be interesting, but it could be challenged.
What proof could the family hold - a hitherto unrevealed suicide note and confession? MJD's bloody overcoat and hunting knife? Otherwise it would just be rumour.

Phil

Maybe confirmation that Druitt was/wasnt a contemporary suspect?

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris - I agree with what you say. My remark, which you highlighted, needs to be seen in the context of Pirate's post. He was comparing Druitt and Kosminski as suspects.

My point was simply that Swanson does not mention a first/forename for his Kosminski, and the details he gives do not wholly tally with what we know of Aaron's life. That DSS is talking about Aaron, I personally do not doubt for a moment, but we cannot PROVE it 100%, thus (IMHO) we should make an assumption without noting the element of doubt.

MM got details of MJD wrong too - but I have not a hesitation in thinking that he was talking about Monty.

In my discussion with Pirate, I was simply seeking to show that there are uncertainties in both the suspects he mentioned, and their suitability - no matter how much we discuss it here - is at present circumstantial.

I hope that explains why I wrote what I did - if explanation were needed?

Phil

Your avioding the question ..Why dont you answer it?

Pirate

[glyn]

I find it a bit difficult to know what people expect when they say things like this. An obvious approach to identifying Swone. Sceptics can certainly respond by saying "But maybe Swanson got the name of the asylum wrong" or "But maybe 'Kosminski' was admitted under a different surname." But that doesn't seem a particularly rational response to me. I think it would be better if they could explain the grounds for their scepticism in the first place - or better still produce a reference to an alternative candidate from any one of the records in which he should be mentioned.

Doesnt it also depend on whether Swansons.. "Kosminski was the suspect"... was genuine or a forgery? (as has been suggested by some)
The details regarding that suspect,or rather the Seaside Home Affair/identification, to be more precise,seem somewhat muddled.
Is there a valid argument somewhere ,whereas one could argue that, similiarly to Druitt being suspected because of his suicide,Kosminski was "pulled out of the hat" mainly because of his committal to an Assylum?
On a side note,can anyone give an opinion why Kosminski (according to Swanson) would have had his hands "tied behind his back" when taken for the supposed identification?Surely if taken by the Police ,he would have been handcuffed,not hogtied?And wouldnt the usual practice be to take the witness to the suspect,not the other way round?

[Phil H]

As for Druitt, I get a vague impression that some here,or at least in "Ripperworld" generally,know far more about Druitt than they are willing to admit.

Frankly, I doubt it. If someone had managed to obtain such information, a means would have been found to publish it - the possible financial rewards are too great (probably not enormous, but I'm sure someone with some really hot new information would find a publisher soon enough).

I find it inconceivable to think that the surviving Druitt family havent been "grilled"(for want of a better world) by someone.

You maybe right, but without written/documentary support it would remain hearsay. Family "oral" history may be interesting, but it could be challenged.

People will sometimes (often?) hint at knowledge they do not have, or which is simply an extrapolation from existing information made to sound more interesting. As far as I am aware the most recent Druitt stuff relates to his old school (where I seem to recall some new pictures of MJD were found) and the connection between what a Dorset MP was saying and MJD.

But all the MM, MP. MJD links are simply suppositional.

What proof could the family hold - a hitherto unrevealed suicide note and confession? MJD's bloody overcoat and hunting knife? Otherwise it would just be rumour.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

What as in credible ripperologist?

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?

Are you arguing that Prince Eddie or James Maybrick was JtR?

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

So why raise the first point?

Which first point Phil? I simply stated that as Suspects AK seems a better fit than MJD. And I provided fairly solid reasoning for that conclusion.

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.

Why have you come across another possibility in the record base?

Retorical. No you havent

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?

Well yes he could have done. But we do have examples of other serial killers. And while there are examples of serial killers tralling to a specific area or club to pick up victims, they are the exception to the rule.

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?

OK we'll just through all expert opinion out the window and make it all up as we go along.

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.

Well i cant think of any, who did you have in mind the elephant man?

Surely what we are doing here is considering the viability of a suspect.

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.

Yes but my piont was that it didnt apply to Druit where as it does to AK. Admittedly hardly damn in itself. What we are considering is the weight of evidence. Even though in both cases there is not a lot (although better than most)

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!!

We do know that AK's family were in Greenfeild street and at the time of teh murders MJD was in Blackheath.

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.

No its only strange to a complete dig bat. To everyone else it seems perfectly logical that if Druit were JtR it seems more feesable to have had a wide spread of kills....the logic for this is simply that prostitution was common in many parts of London not just Whitchapel

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.

You could try and argue that Phil but you'd look pretty silly...but I'm game for a laugh if you are

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

Kosminski was the suspect

Pirate

[Phil H]

Chris - I agree with what you say. My remark, which you highlighted, needs to be seen in the context of Pirate's post. He was comparing Druitt and Kosminski as suspects.

My point was simply that Swanson does not mention a first/forename for his Kosminski, and the details he gives do not wholly tally with what we know of Aaron's life. That DSS is talking about Aaron, I personally do not doubt for a moment, but we cannot PROVE it 100%, thus (IMHO) we should make an assumption without noting the element of doubt.

MM got details of MJD wrong too - but I have not a hesitation in thinking that he was talking about Monty.

In my discussion with Pirate, I was simply seeking to show that there are uncertainties in both the suspects he mentioned, and their suitability - no matter how much we discuss it here - is at present circumstantial.

I hope that explains why I wrote what I did - if explanation were needed?

Phil

[Chris]

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

I find it a bit difficult to know what people expect when they say things like this. An obvious approach to identifying Swanson's "Kosminski" would be to search the Colney Hatch admissions register from someone with that surname. Of course, that's been done and there is only one.

Sceptics can certainly respond by saying "But maybe Swanson got the name of the asylum wrong" or "But maybe 'Kosminski' was admitted under a different surname." But that doesn't seem a particularly rational response to me. I think it would be better if they could explain the grounds for their scepticism in the first place - or better still produce a reference to an alternative candidate from any one of the records in which he should be mentioned.

[glyn]

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

Thanks for the advice Phil,I guess there are "vested interests" in evidence here,but theres nothing wrong with a little passion.As for Druitt, I get a vague impression that some here,or at least in "Ripperworld" generally,know far more about Druitt than they are willing to admit.I find it inconceivable to think that the surviving Druitt family havent been "grilled"(for want of a better world) by someone. Maybe answers have been given,on condition of silence,I have no way of knowing. Again no evidence to support this,just a feeling.