Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

1892 Interview

Anderson again made reference to the 'still undiscovered crimes' of 1888 in this June 1892 interview in Cassell's Saturday Journal -

[Stewart P Evans]

Deserving of the Gallows

Anderson felt that habitual criminals (recidivists) were 'deserving of the gallows', again from his 1891 piece -

[Stewart P Evans]

Booth

In his 1891 piece Anderson makes an interesting reference to "General" Booth and his "cab-horse charter", raising the fallen -

[Stewart P Evans]

Crime

Anderson was publishing his ideas on crime and punishment as early as 1891 and felt that organised and systematic 'might be stamped out in a single generation.'

[Stewart P Evans]

R. Harding Davis

In August 1889 the American journalist R. Harding Davis was granted an interview with Anderson. This appeared, over here, in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889. This interview has never been quoted by Martin, even to dismiss it, in any of his books but its relevance to his theory is apparent and surely subscribers to his theorising should be aware of it in order to take it into consideration as Anderson speaks of "our failure to find Jack the Ripper" in it -



Surely students and scholars of the case are entitled to draw their own scholarly conclusions from this.

[Chris]

And after Kosminsky had been confined, somebody in the Met learned about the City's poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel who went into Colney Hatch, and assumed this was the same person. Since the City had watched him at his brother's house, they knew the name (again, as Don pointed out to me), and so the Met accepted this piece of the jigsaw, accidentally confusing the man who they knew had died with the man who would live until 1917 [1919].
...
Anderson and Swanson plumped for the Polish Jew who, as Macnaghten's reference to his visual similarity suggests, had been given some sort of witness identification, and who they now believed wrongly was the man called Kosminsky who had been followed by the City Police.

So the idea, basically, is that Anderson and Swanson had solved the Whitechapel Murders by having Cohen identified by a witness. But unfortunately both of them had forgotten his name (or perhaps had never bothered to ask what it was). And at some later date somebody from the City Police mentioned a Polish Jew they had had under surveillance - no doubt one of dozens, or perhaps hundreds. So Anderson and Swanson immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must be the same man they had had identified - despite the fact that their man had been arrested by the Met without City involvement, and had had no relatives, whereas the City suspect had been watched at his brother's house.

Rather than postulating such a bizarre sequence of events, wouldn't it be simpler to suppose that Swanson merely made a mistake about when Aaron Kozminski died?

(Cohen, of course, ws the ONLY Whitechapel Jew to die prematurely during the period).

I was going to ask about your previous statement that Cohen was the only "poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel" who died in Colney Hatch before 1895. Now apparently he is the only Whitechapel Jew "to die prematurely during the period" - which I'm afraid obviously isn't true.

I'm sure it would be very helpful to future researchers if you could put on record exactly what you did check in this regard. For example, did you check the dates of death of all the Jews with an address in Whitechapel who were committed to Colney Hatch in the period 1888-1895, and find that Cohen was the only one who was dead by the time of Swanson's statement? (I think I'm right in saying that the Colney Hatch records don't note the country of birth, or the social class of inmates.)

[Jeff Leahy]

On a separate question, one thing that has always puzzled me is Macnaghten's statement about Kozminski that "he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889". As far as we know, Aaron Kozminski wasn't.

While this statement is undoubtedly true...is there not also the possibility..given what is known about the condition of schizophrenia, TODAY.

That Aaron could have been going through, 'Psycotic episodes'

Perhaps he went 'in' and 'out'

And, as yet we have found NO evidence...

Martin did after all, miss Aarons record at first..and let me say I find Aarn kosminski far MORE convincing as a Ripper suspect than 'Cohen'.

Kosminskite.

[Jeff Leahy]

PS Martin

For those of us that suffer from dyslexia..would you please, please put gaps in your paragraphs before some of us keel over with epileptic fits.

Ta Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

But as far as Ripperology goes I believe that I have read more than anyone, bar none, and I have much material that will never see the light of day. And that is not a teaser, it is material that is better left unseen. What authors in this field should realise is that there are no icons, no single fountain-head of knowledge and no all-knowing authority - and if you set yourself up on a pedestal you will soon be knocked down. As I get older I seek Ripperological solace with very dear friends, older and wiser than I, friends like Richard Whittington-Egan, Don Rumbelow and Phil Sugden. They are honest and dispassionate and I consider myself very lucky to know them.

Stewart are you saying you have moved to the darkside?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYfibSaDHrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gvqpFbRKtQ&feature=related

Have you finally gone over? have you left us Stewart?

What is this mysterious evidence you keep hinting at?

Are we, the posters of casebook, unworthy to see this material?

What mysterious evidence are you hinting at???

Are you using the ‘force’ or are you now ‘Evan Vader’ ?

Most concerned

Pirate

[Chris]

On a separate question, one thing that has always puzzled me is Macnaghten's statement about Kozminski that "he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889". As far as we know, Aaron Kozminski wasn't.

I can understand somebody getting a date wrong, but what I can't understand is why Macnaghten should have thought Aaron was committed to an asylum before he joined the force, if in reality Aaron was brought to the attention of the police and investigated while Macnaghten was a senior police officer.

[fido]

Oh, in response to Paul's observations (cited by Stewart) about the data on Cohen's records which psulsays the Met "knew". I cannot fathom how anybody knew anything about a raving maniac babbling in Yiddish, with no known relatives or witnesses (like Jacob Cohen in Kosminsky's case) to give testimony about him. Aaron Davis in police hands in the morning becomes David in the same police hands in the evening of the same day. Cohen - the constant - is not necessarily the real name of any immigrant to whom it is attached... of course it's postulation, and until the emergence of the Swanson marginalia it might indeed be regarded as thin. But then there appear these notes saying Kosminsky who lived with his brother in Whitechapel(true of Kosminski), but not Cohen died in the asylum having been taken into incarceration under restraint (true of Cohen, but not Kosminsky). At this point Paul's assertion that the details recorded on Cohen's asylum and infirmary papers must all have been accurate information known to the Met looks a lot shakier, and to me at least is very far from conclusive.
All the best,
Martin F

[fido]

As I have long suggested, Chris, I take it that Swanson' confused and in one respect inaccurate notes point to the truth because I noted Swanson's saying that the City police watched Kosminsky. This I took to be probably true. I had even earlier (before we knew anything about Swanson's notes) postulated that the Met saw to Cohen's confinement though they were not sure of his name and knew of no relatives (Cohen's changing forenames between the court and the infirmary; his records listing no known relatives; the fact that living Cohens know their surname was foisted on ancestors by immigration authorities who couldn't be bohered with long middle-European names) and Anderson and a few others sooner or later decided that he was the Ripper (a recent posting somewhere of a memo or recollection referring to "those who knew" confirms my impression that "need to know" restrictions meant some information was held by senior or very senior officers only. And long before the margnalia mergeed I had noted correcly that Swanson, not Abbeline as almost all writers before 1987 averred, had been in charge of the case as far as ordinary coppers were concerned). Meanwhile the City had been watching Kosminsky - covertly on Met territory (just as the Met had probably used the City's witness covertly to identify their suspect). Don Rumbelow told me when the Swanson marginalia first emerged that in a case this prestigious both forces would cheerfully have poached on each other's territory. And after Kosminsky had been confined, somebody in the Met learned about the City's poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel who went into Colney Hatch, and assumed this was the same person. Since the City had watched him at his brother's house, they knew the name (again, as Don pointed out to me), and so the Met accepted this piece of the jigsaw, accidentally confusing the man who they knew had died with the man who would live until 1917.
Swanson's notes simply ARE confused by anyone's standards. Even in accepting Paul Begg's arguments for Kosminsky as a major suspect, Cosgrove-Muerer, to his frustration, kept insisting, "But Swanson said he was dead". (Cohen, of course, ws the ONLY Whitechapel Jew to die prematurely during the period). Interestingly, over on How's board people who have never seen my argument are asking some of the questions it answers - can one believe that Kosminsky's family took him for treatment with his hands tied behind his back? No, but Cohen was definitely delivered to Colney Hatch under restraint (his records say so) and may well have been restrained when delivered to the Infirmary, as he threw himself on the floor on arrival, and only stasrted trying to tear the place apart later.
A very good question that no one seems to ask is, "Why wasn't the Commissioner told?" I mean, they might keep it from Abberline or even Littlechild (though he seems to have known what Anderson thought), but surely not from the Commissioner. Well, if Cohen was the suspect, the Commissioner was Monro, and he was quickly out of office and keeping mum about the difficult case for the rest of his life. And I doubt whether he agreed with Anderson. If Kosminsky was the suspect, then the Commissioner was Bradford, and one would expect this to be filtering down along the "Commissioner" level of belief as relected in Warren's and Home Thompson's recollecions. But there one finds instead something that seems to derive from Macnaghten's Druitt ideas.
I've no difficulty in accepting that Anderson didn't firm up his conclusions until later: Swanson's 1895 belief coupled with the writing Stewart notes above suggests that they were starting to get fixed by or around that time, when, I suppose, it became clear that the murders really had stopped, and it was time to go back and see which of the earlier serious suspects was most likely. And around then (or a little earlier), Macnaghten, looking at the files and somehow muddling a lot of details of Druitt (if he was on them, which I suspect he was) plumped for Druitt. Anderson and Swanson plumped for the Polish Jew who, as Macnaghten's reference to his visual similarity suggests, had been given some sort of witness identification, and who they now believed wrongly was the man called Kosminsky who had been followed by the City Police.
I have never asserted that because Anderson believed or came to believe it it must be true. I have always said that Anderson was the most reliable historical contemporry witness naming a suspect, because his opportunity to know details was at te highest level, and nothing in his writing or record suggests that he would have been lying (as almost everyone said he ws before 1987, without having studied him at all!) and therefore his suspect must be given priority. Thus far Paul Begg agrees with me. Then I observe that Kosminsky is impossible, and suggest that the proposal I had already put forward before I even found Kosminsky, that Cohen was Anderson's Ripper suspect, and had somehow inexplicably become confused with a Jew called K-something-sky, was confirmed by the later diiscovery of the Swanson margnalia. Paul demurs that if i'd found Kosminsky first I'd never have gone looking for anyone else, which is quite true. I should have rested on the lauresl of all I had discovered, and contentedly joined Don and Paul and Stewart as an expert commentator who is declining to suggest that any known suspect was the Ripper. Don protests that the explanation for Swanson's confusion must be simpler - and I agre that I wish it were, and invite anyone to put forward a hypothesis that covers as much of it. American Police officers, familiar with ovelapping jurisdictional competition find it extremely convincing rather than over-complicated. Stewart, I think, is trying to say it must be wrong because Anderson is far from a perfect historical witness. Well, of couse I agree with that. But the reason for taking him seriously is that all the others are so much worse except for Littlechild and Abberline. And their proposals fall to the ground because their candidates are as or more unconvincing than Kosminsky. I don't object to Tumbletonians and Chapmanites unless they set up elaborate arguments to suggest that Anderson and Swanson are so unreliable that their testimony must be set aside in favour of Abberline or Littlechild. In Abberline's case, we have a witness with as many drawbacks as there are to RA and DS - and Philip Sugden, while following Abberline, is forced to a Beggian conclusion : "This is the best historical candidate, but I don't really think he did it." Tumbletonians have a witness about whom I at least don't as yet know enough to compare him with the other officers. I hope to learn a lot more from Alan Sharpe this weekend. And a desperately unconvincing Ripper candidate (though I agree at once, that as in the cases of RB, DS and MM, at least one senior officer with more information than I had enough information to think him a very promising suspect).
And if anyone can PROVE to me that Cohen couldn't have been the Ripper, I shall delightedly join the Olympian group of "experts' who say, "Well, at present nobody knows, but here are the proposals under investigation, none of whom seems right."
All the best,
Martin F

[Dave O]

Thank you for the reply, Martin--much appreciated.

Dave

[Chris]

And Swanson's alleged formation of his theory in 1895 is rel;egated to an endnote where it is likely to be missed; an endnote, too, which describes Swanson's erroneous belief that Kosminsky had died in Colney Hatch prior to 1895 while scrupulously avoiding any mention of the fact that this fact is uniquely true of one poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel - David Cohen - who had already been described ass probably confused with Kosminsky before anybody but Jim Swanson knew anything about the marginalia.

Isn't it ironic, though, that while you berate others for suggesting that Anderson was confused, your own theory requires an almighty confusion on Swanson's part?

If I understand correctly - and I must admit I've never found the Cohen/Kaminsky/Kozminski theory easy to understand - you suggest that well before 1910 both Swanson and Anderson had concluded that Cohen was the murderer.

Yet when Swanson came to comment on Anderson's description of the identification of Cohen - you would have us believe - Swanson inexplicably says the suspect's name was Kosminski, and describes how he was watched at his brother's house - which obviously fits Kozminski but not Cohen. That's despite the fact that you assure us that "everything recorded about Kosminsky suggested that he couldn't possibly have been the Ripper".

Why on earth should Swanson have suddenly regurgitated this irrelevant information about the non-suspect Kozminski from more than 20 years before, if both he and Anderson had a long-standing conviction that Cohen was the murderer? It makes no sense.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cohen Theory

Whilst Martin cannot accept Aaron Kosminski as the murderer, Martin's Cohen theory is roundly rejected by Paul Begg who says, "The confusion hypothesis depends on the Metropolitan Police not knowing the name of 'David Cohen', but research has shown that they did know his name: he was charged at the Thames Police Court under the name Aaron Davis Cohen, and the police knew enough about him to know his age, that he was unmarried and had no family, and that his occupation was that of a tailor..." and "On top of all this, there is abundant evidence that the police of all ranks, including Anderson and Swanson, continued to believe that the Ripper was at large long after Cohen's committal and death." That sounds pretty conclusive.