Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thank you. I'd forgotten about Grainger.

Honestly, have you ever heard more nonsense than the "Kosminski was the Ripper" argument?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Simon,

and 4 years later they tried to identify Grainger.

Amitiés,
David

[robhouse]

"On 14th February 1891 why would Chief Inspector Donald Swanson have embarked upon an investigation into the possibility that James Sadler was ‘Jack the Ripper’ in the sure and certain knowledge that just seven days earlier ‘Jack the Ripper’ had been locked up in Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum?"

I would guess it is because Swanson was not entirely convinced that Kozminski was the Ripper. He may have thought he was a good suspect, but the fact that they could not prove it must have left ample room for doubt, conjecture etc.

Natalie,

I think it is relevant to point out that in the marginalia Swanson wrote "known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID", underlining "head". It has been suggested that this sentence referred to Anderson's comment about the "Jack the Ripper letter." But it seems at least as likely, if not more so, that it instead referred to the previous sentence... the one which was underlined and highlighted by Swanson (with a vertical line). The sentence about "subordinate officers of the department" and not violating the unwritten rule of the service. In other words, I think Swanson may have underlined this phrase, and then added the remark about "head officers" in the next available space.

If this conjecture is correct, then it seems to imply that the whole Kozminski affair may have been a secret, known only to certain "head officials" at CID. In other words, it is entirely possible that "Abberline, Dew, Reid and others such as Godley" did not know much of anything about Kozminski, or at least not the details. The same might go for Smith.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

The fact remains that Swanson at least appears to have supported Anderson in private. And thus Aaron Kosminski will remain the leading suspect in the case.

On 14th February 1891 why would Chief Inspector Donald Swanson have embarked upon an investigation into the possibility that James Sadler was ‘Jack the Ripper’ in the sure and certain knowledge that just seven days earlier ‘Jack the Ripper’ had been locked up in Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum?

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Pirate,
Its very strange to me how selective Ripperology can be when it comes to attempting an evaluation of the behaviour and writings of the senior police officers involved.
To my mind there is ,as Winston Churchill pointed out in the House of Commons at the time of publication, an extreme form of boasting employed throughout Anderson"s memoirs.No less in Major Smith"s in my opinion.Both these men- and even Walter Dew years later, appear to have recollected a their own variation of the facts from time to time,especially when recording their recollections of what happened during the Ripper Investigation.For example, Anderson blithely recorded that it was a," definitely ascertainable fact" that the Ripper"s identity and even where he lived, was well known among police at the time,whereas Major Smith categorically refutes this and says he "had us all completely beat"-and that they were all still no nearer knowing who he was or where had lived twenty years later!
With Abberline, Dew, Reid and others such as Godley all singing from the same song sheet as Major Smith over this,it seems to me that on this question they were not only united but absolutely to be believed;for if the Ripper"s identity had been known then and was not a figment of Anderson"s imagination,then Abberline,Macnaghten and Major Smith -who was the Chief Commissioner of the City Police at the time and as such would certainly have known as much as Anderson about any "City Police Suspect",these men,had there been any truth in Anderson"s assertions would have known.
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

NAT

Yeah, I have no problem with Traditional Jewish family. I was simply drawing a difference in dress and appearance from what we call or refer to as Orthodox, which I don’t believe the Kosminski’s were.

However we are again back to Anderson. And perhaps I should be a little more clear about Martin Fido’s position seeing that I’m standing behind him on this one: I don’t think Martin has ever tried to paint Anderson as a holier than thou character who would never lie. He clearly acknowledges that Anderson would lie to achieve the greater good. He’s even acknowledged that Anderson could probably be hair splittingly pedantic when distinguishing between truth and untruth.

But his conclusion was that lying in public for personal kudos or to save salvage his personal reputation is NOT something Anderson would have done.

More importantly Anderson was Not a Stupid man. So we need to ask whether he would have lied about something that his superiors and colleagues knew to be untrue and which he would be unable to substantiate if challenged? and I just don't see it

While I appreciate Abberline, Reid, Drew expressed different conclusions (we’ll forget Smith): The fact remains that Swanson at least appears to have supported Anderson in private. And thus Aaron Kosminski will remain the leading suspect in the case.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Pirate,

I never said the family was orthodox.I used the word "traditional" in the sense of a conventional Jewish family,observing Jewish traditions and behaving in a conventional manner.
Before they realised poor Aaron was so seriously mentally ill ,he may have seemed to them to be behaving in a deliberately provocative and unconventional way.The family oddball so to speak.

But nobody else apart from Swanson and Macnaghten seems to have leapt to the conclusion that Aaron was Jack the Ripper.
It wouldnt surprise me in the least to learn that Aaron went missing from time to time and was spotted lurking around alleys and behaving very oddly by the police.
But when I see BOTH Inspector Abberline and the City Police Chief ,Major Smith [and other police like Dew and Littlechild who were around at the time]ridiculing the notion that anyone knew who the ripper was,then I am pretty sure Anderson"s "definitely ascertainable fact" was nothing more than Anderson having a bit of fun with the fairies.

[Jeff Leahy]

As far as I am concerned Pirate,the family behaved in an utterly conventional manner with regards to taking care of their dead brother Aaron"s funeral arrangements.Aaron was buried according to Jewish tradition,by a Jewish funeral parlour in Aldgate.

I'm not disputing that Norma. I'm simply saying observing a tradition funeral or Wedding come to that (And I have been to Two) doent make you orthodox.

As far as I'm aware orthodox Jews in the Eastend are very strict about dress codes, diet, and observing traditions/prayer etc.

Most of the jewish families I know are pretty much ike you or I for most of the time, dress wise etc.

So Aaron,with his belief in a Universal Instinct and his obedience to his voices as well as his obstinate refusal to work,eat conventional meals or keep himself clean,must have caused a great deal of tension within his particular family.Small wonder it all ended up in tears and him going for his sister with a knife.Everybody was probably close to breaking point by the time they got Aaron sectioned.

Schizophrenia would cause a large amount of strain and friction in any family house hold reguardless of religeon.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_movements

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm

It would appear that rather than the word Sect, I should have used the word ‘Movement’ and would like to apologuise if I have caused any offence to anyone.

However this interesting BBC article decent and divorce highlights some of what I was rather clumsily trying to get at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/orthodox_1.shtml

ie that there are different movements within jewish communities with different ideas on dress, observence and diet in particular.

Yours Pirate

As far as I am concerned Pirate,the family behaved in an utterly conventional manner with regards to taking care of their dead brother Aaron"s funeral arrangements.Aaron was buried according to Jewish tradition,by a Jewish funeral parlour in Aldgate.
So Aaron,with his belief in a Universal Instinct and his obedience to his voices as well as his obstinate refusal to work,eat conventional meals or keep himself clean,must have caused a great deal of tension within his particular family.Small wonder it all ended up in tears and him going for his sister with a knife.Everybody was probably close to breaking point by the time they got Aaron sectioned.

[DVV]

Hi Pirate,

that's good stuff, indeed.
It confirms (if ever it was necessary) Rob's claim.

However, I doubt there were criminals exclusively. Treatment of criminals was certainly the primary function of Broadmoor. Then it must have been a matter of theory and practice.
In any case, "criminal" is a very vague term.

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_movements

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm

It would appear that rather than the word Sect, I should have used the word ‘Movement’ and would like to apologuise if I have caused any offence to anyone.

However this interesting BBC article decent and divorce highlights some of what I was rather clumsily trying to get at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/orthodox_1.shtml

ie that there are different movements within jewish communities with different ideas on dress, observence and diet in particular.

Yours Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Strangly enough the question of Broadmoore came up over the Summer and as my nephew had just completed his law degree I thought I'd put him to good use on the question of whetehr or not Aaron might have been sent to Broadmoore? Unfortunately I cant now access the whole document but this is what was pasted in rough:


"Insanity is a legal term for a legally defined state of mind which will lead any criminal offence to a verdict of not guilty for a reason of insanity. The burden of proving insanity lies on whoever wishes such a finding to be made by the jury. In accordance with the provisions of S.2(1) of the trial of Lunatics Act 1883 it is only required to be proved that the accused ‘did the act or made the omission charged’.

The side bearing the burden of proof must prove (M’Naughten rules) there was a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the quality of the act he was doing.

Broadmoor prison history: Broadmoor was one of the first custom-built criminal lunatic asylums; it opened on 27 May 1863 to house 95 female patients.The male section opened the following year. The institution was "intended for the reception, safe custody and treatment of persons who had committed crimes while actually insane or who became insane whilst undergoing sentence of punishment" . In 1864 the possible causes of insanity were listed as: anxiety, epilepsy, intemperance, vice, poverty, religious excitement, fright, and exposure to hot climates.

Before 1800 there was no special sentencing of criminals who were mentally ill. This changed when a man named James Hadfield attempted to murder King George III at the Theatre Royal in London. Hadfield claimed that he had been acting on the orders of God. The jury acquitted him on the grounds of insanity, which caused public outcry. Nobody knew what to do with Hadfield, so parliament quickly passed a new law, the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800.
This Act allowed judges to give a custodial sentence to mentally ill criminals. They could be detained ‘until His Majesty’s pleasure be known’ – in other words indefinitely. Hadfield was detained in Bethlem Royal Hospital, an asylum in London, for the rest of his life.

The government felt that neither ordinary asylums nor prisons were suitable places to keep the criminal lunatics. They built separate wards at Bethlem and Fisherton House Asylum near Salisbury, but these were soon full. In 1860 the government finally took action and passed the Criminal Lunatic Asylum Act. This Act allowed
the government to create England’s first purpose-built criminal lunatic asylum - Broadmoor.
The asylum was "intended for the reception, safe custody and treatment of persons who had committed crimes while actually insane or who became insane whilst undergoing sentence of punishment".

In 1880 seriously dangerous people who were found criminally insane were sent to bethlam (bedlam) institute for the insane then transferred into broad moor at a later stage. I am confident that if Aaron Kosminski had faced trial over ripper murders he probably would have been found criminally insane and sent to one of these two institutes (which one depends on the type of treatment he would of needed). Kosminski was committed by his family and was not facing punishment for criminal offences. This is why he was not sent to the criminal institution of broad moor, the fact that he could not be the ripper as the ripper would of been sent to broad moor is narrow minded in my opinion. "

Thought this might be of interest in the current conversation.

Pirate

[Debra A]

Cutbush I believe was known to be a criminal. Kozminski was apparently suspected, but there was insufficient proof.

“The author of those murders [i.e. the Whitechapel murders] was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor." Anderson, 1908.

RH

Cutbush was never convicted of any crime, in fact he didn't get to stand trial at all because he was deemed unfit to plead. Maybe the difference is that Cutbush was actually charged with a violent offence?

[Chris]

That is if you are not continuing to ignore my posts, or seeking to have me banned again for responding to you?

The suggestion that I sought to "have you banned" is completely untrue.

But obviously I made a mistake in responding to your post. I'll ask the administrator to remove my post.

[DVV]

Hi Rob,

according to Paul Begg, Tottie Fay ended her days in Broadmoor, where she had been committed in 1894. The reason given is "maniacal fits".

Amitiés,
David