Did Anderson Know

[Stewart P Evans]

List

I don't see that we're in a position to say that, given the records we have. Considering Swanson's statement that the police had investigated more than 300 people by 19 October, the contemporary suspects whose names we know must be a tiny fraction of those who were under some kind of suspicion.
...
I think it's very difficult to reconcile these conflicting accounts. I don't know which is closer to the truth regarding the timing, but I don't think we have enough evidence to rule out the possibility that Kozminski came to the police's notice much closer to the period of the murders than is generally assumed.

And I have never ruled out the possibility that Kosminski's name came to the notice of the police at the time of the murders.

Indeed I have stated that during the house to house enquiries when they investigated 'the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret' there is every possibility that Kosminski fell into these criteria and was added to the list of very many names. It would, in fact, explain the comment 'And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.' In other words, when Kosminski finally emerged (probably in 1890) as a suspect (as per Macnaghten's 1894 report) the 1888 notebooks were checked and Kosminki's name was found listed in them as a man fitting the suspect criteria.

However, there were indeed hundreds of persons investigated and many 'suspects' in name only. But what I am stating is that he was not considered a serious, specific, suspect at the time of the murders as the extant reports show.

More germane to this debate, however, is the question of whether Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' claim is correct or not. Hence the gallons of ink expended in lengthy debates over Anderson's character and veracity. The pro-Anderson lobby are the ones, after all, who claim that he could not lie in a published work and, as late as 2004 in The Facts we have Paul Begg quoting Martin Fido, and stating that "...the author Martin Fido rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest: 'Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster . . . and would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation...'..."

Does anyone actually believe that? I certainly don't and as a result of these sustained claims about Anderson we have seen many debates, such as this one, trying to draw a true picture of Anderson's character and the value of his writings. The two sides are polarized and it seems there never will be any real middle ground. Setting out the various writings and arguments does, I hope, lead to a better understanding and gives the objective reader the opportunity to assess all that is available and then to draw his own conclusion. The old saying goes that 'there is none so blind as he who cannot see', and personal prejudices, agendas, theories, experience, etc. all conspire to vex the issue even further. In the final assessment it is a question of whether or not Anderson was right because, and make no mistake about it, if he was wrong then the Kosminski theory has no more going for it than the case for Druitt, or any other similar suspect.

[Hunter]

I'm sorry for appearing redundant as I've made this point before, but to elaborate on Stewart's post a little... As Anderson stated, he was away when the first murder took place. Even when Abberline was called in to coordinate the various divisions' investigation after the Nichols murder, Anderson appears as a man who has other fish to fry (Fenians, other subversive groups, etc...) When Chapman was killed, the whole WM business blew up in his face. He never dreamed of the public outcry to follow and was forced to play catch up. Then, there's the double murder and Matthews' curt little communication. Now enters Dr. Bond, on Anderson's request, but he too vacilates until Mary Kelly is murdered. He gives Anderson a "profile" which Anderson accepts and runs with it. I believe the "insane Polish Jew theory" is a result of that profile and Anderson spends the rest of his life trying to put the peices of the puzzle together in some cohesive way to rationalize his behavior during the autumn of 1888.

As I've stated before, as far as the contemporaneous placement of suspects, the fact that Sadler was suspected in the Coles murder and an effort was made to link him with the others, shows where the investigation was- nowhere.

Even Abberline's sudden acceptance of George Chapman after his murder trial was a "Oh yea, he looks like he could have been JTR"- based on no real evidence- just a gut feeling. None of these guys had any real evidence on anyone.

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
Point accepted,
Norma

[Chris]

Natalie

I didn't say anything about the likelihood of Kozminski being Jack the Ripper. (As I thought you knew, I don't believe he is likely to have been the murderer.)

I just said that the sources we have contain contradictory evidence about when he was investigated.

[Natalie Severn]

I'm simply saying that the sources we have contain contradictory evidence about when Kozminski was investigated.

Regarding observations by the City CID, we know that they observed many suspects (Cox says as much). So I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw from Smith's silence.

Isnt it obvious? If Smith ,the man in charge of these City policemen busy watching a City Police Suspect was so unimpressed by their findings
that he didnt even bother to mention it,and in fact was totally dismissive of Anderson"s claims , then this City Police SUSPECT was unlikely to have been Jack the Ripper.

[Natalie Severn]

Oh, but he did.

As I have explained in the past the multiple, high-profile, murders of August 1888 - September 1889 marked Anderson's first year as head of the CID. And, like it or not, would remain 'on the books' as a blot on his early police career, and on the reputation of his beloved (?) CID. Indeed a mere mention of the Whitechapel murders in press interviews with Anderson resulted in comments about this very stigma. In an interview published in November 1889 we have Anderson stating, "...But I don't think you will be disappointed in the district [Whitechapel]. After a stranger has gone over it he takes a much more lenient view of our failure to find Jack the Ripper, as they call him, than he did before."

In a further interview in June 1892 Anderson commented, "I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man, for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred." And, "There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."

In 1895 Anderson's friend Major Arthur Griffiths stated, "Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum."

Points to note are the fact that Anderson, and the CID, suffered great press criticism over the failure to solve the Ripper murders and despite an apparently good subsequent record with the CID Anderson remained painfully aware, and resentful, of the disparagement heaped upon him and his department for this perceived failure. Also, Kosminski was incarerated in February 1892, a long time after the last claimed Ripper murder, but just after the last unsolved Whitechapel murder (Coles). So when Anderson states that the Ripper's "hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum" he appears to be dating it to the Coles murder.

This post of Stewart"s is so important.Here we can see exactly the damage that had been caused,professionally and in the press to Anderson, during the Autumn of 1888 in particular.Matthews had in fact been scathing over his prolonged absence abroad that September and demanded that he returned to his desk .

[Chris]

So can you then explain to us why the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police was not informed?

The very idea that a City of London Police Suspect was being watched by the City of London police yet these observations were unbeknown to the most senior City of London Police Chief is just ridiculous----it really is.

I'm simply saying that the sources we have contain contradictory evidence about when Kozminski was investigated.

Regarding observations by the City CID, we know that they observed many suspects (Cox says as much). So I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw from Smith's silence.

[Natalie Severn]

To Roy,

I totally agree about the Crawford Letter. I just cited it as a genric example of how a Ripper suspect could bypass other police, and go straight to Anderson's desk.

Our meager records on Kosminski begin with Macnaghten -- for now -- and therefore I think the CID Deputy found him, perhaps via the scum hovel search list and discovered that a madman, somewhat suspected by his family, had been incarcerated years, or months before. I think that one of the reasons Mac did not take this all that seriously is that the suspect had been out and about way too long after the Kelly murder, and he was already convinced -- rightly or wrongly -- that Druitt was the Ripper.

Jonathan,
Macnaghten ,a " tea planter" in India until 1888, may have been "convinced" but the more experienced police, who had been in the police force a lot longer and had seen evidence of many family members going to the police stating they were certain a disturbed relative was a murderer or was Jack the Ripper might have been a bit more discerning?

[Natalie Severn]

I don't see that we're in a position to say that, given the records we have. Considering Swanson's statement that the police had investigated more than 300 people by 19 October, the contemporary suspects whose names we know must be a tiny fraction of those who were under some kind of suspicion.

Regarding Kozminski, I think it's difficult to know when he was investigated, because there is conflicting evidence. On the one hand, according to the Marginalia, he was sent to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch "a very short time" after being watched by the City CID. Because of that and the reference to the "Seaside Home", most people do seem to favour a later date.

But on the other hand we have Macnaghten's statement that he was committed to an asylum about March 1889. That does seem to be an error, but at least it shows that Macnaghten believed that Kozminski's incarceration (and, presumably, investigation) pre-dated his own appointment in June 1889.

I think it's very difficult to reconcile these conflicting accounts. I don't know which is closer to the truth regarding the timing, but I don't think we have enough evidence to rule out the possibility that Kozminski came to the police's notice much closer to the period of the murders than is generally assumed.

So can you then explain to us why the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police was not informed?

The very idea that a City of London Police Suspect was being watched by the City of London police yet these observations were unbeknown to the most senior City of London Police Chief is just ridiculous----it really is.

[Natalie Severn]

If Kosminsky was indeed the person the City CID was trailing then Smith would have to know. If he wasn't, then Swanson got it wrong and maybe he got Kosminski wrong as well. There's too many former policemen getting things wrong to pick and choose what might be credible.

I have to agree with Phil Carter on this. This is either a veiled attempt at subterfuge or some effort to throw some suspect names out there in the hope that one will stick to pad their immortal resume.

Moreover,with all due respect, I dont think we can just make it up as we go along because we don"t know.

These are FACTS:

By 1910 when both Robert Anderson and Henry Smith were publishing their memoirs, both men had been in very senior positions as police chiefs ,one for the met one for The City of London . This was at the time,Autumn 1888.

One of these chiefs of police declares it had been known for some time as a definitely ascertained fact who the ripper was, a Polish Jew, since placed in an asylum and therefore unable to be brought to justice.

The other,just weeks after this definitely ascertained fact was made public in 1910 roundly denounced Anderson and the mere idea of it , as a complete and utter nonsense.
All this was 22 years after the Autumn of terror.

Moreover, Abberline also, told journalists nobody ever knew who the ripper was and Macnaghten clearly did not accept it as any kind of fact stating he believed it had been a "40 year old drowned doctor" in his 1894 memorandum.And there were several other police who rubbished the notion that the identity of the ripper had ever been known----Dew, Reid etc. It fascinated the police then as it does some of us today, and there is no reason whatever that Macnaghten or Smith would have kept it a secret.Both men,had they really known ,would have let it be known they really did know----and backed each other up.

Those are the facts.Nothing has been added to them.No guess work, no suggestions.Just the bare facts

[Jonathan H]

Yeah, we do.

[Chris]

Unless you subscribe to the patent nonsense that only Swanson and Anderson knew of the Polish Jew suspect then the official police and Home Office files clearly show that there was no such police suspect until a few years after the murders.

I don't see that we're in a position to say that, given the records we have. Considering Swanson's statement that the police had investigated more than 300 people by 19 October, the contemporary suspects whose names we know must be a tiny fraction of those who were under some kind of suspicion.

Regarding Kozminski, I think it's difficult to know when he was investigated, because there is conflicting evidence. On the one hand, according to the Marginalia, he was sent to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch "a very short time" after being watched by the City CID. Because of that and the reference to the "Seaside Home", most people do seem to favour a later date.

But on the other hand we have Macnaghten's statement that he was committed to an asylum about March 1889. That does seem to be an error, but at least it shows that Macnaghten believed that Kozminski's incarceration (and, presumably, investigation) pre-dated his own appointment in June 1889.

I think it's very difficult to reconcile these conflicting accounts. I don't know which is closer to the truth regarding the timing, but I don't think we have enough evidence to rule out the possibility that Kozminski came to the police's notice much closer to the period of the murders than is generally assumed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unless

Jonathan,
Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that "Kosminski was not a contemporaneous suspect," and all this stuff about backdating and later confusion. As far as I can tell, this is something you have assumed to be true... From your assumption, you extend the logic to saying that Anderson failed to grasp that Kozminski was not a contemporaneous suspect. You are essentially basing this critique of Anderson, what you call "The biggest hit that Anderson takes over his preferred suspect," on an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. Unless I am missing something.
Rob H

Unless you subscribe to the patent nonsense that only Swanson and Anderson knew of the Polish Jew suspect then the official police and Home Office files clearly show that there was no such police suspect until a few years after the murders.

[Stewart P Evans]

He Did

Hi Stewart
This argument has been going on for yonks as you well know.
Why do I believe him?
Because he had no need to say what he said if it wasn't true.
No need at all.

Oh, but he did.

As I have explained in the past the multiple, high-profile, murders of August 1888 - September 1889 marked Anderson's first year as head of the CID. And, like it or not, would remain 'on the books' as a blot on his early police career, and on the reputation of his beloved (?) CID. Indeed a mere mention of the Whitechapel murders in press interviews with Anderson resulted in comments about this very stigma. In an interview published in November 1889 we have Anderson stating, "...But I don't think you will be disappointed in the district [Whitechapel]. After a stranger has gone over it he takes a much more lenient view of our failure to find Jack the Ripper, as they call him, than he did before."

In a further interview in June 1892 Anderson commented, "I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man, for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred." And, "There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."

In 1895 Anderson's friend Major Arthur Griffiths stated, "Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum."

Points to note are the fact that Anderson, and the CID, suffered great press criticism over the failure to solve the Ripper murders and despite an apparently good subsequent record with the CID Anderson remained painfully aware, and resentful, of the disparagement heaped upon him and his department for this perceived failure. Also, Kosminski was incarerated in February 1892, a long time after the last claimed Ripper murder, but just after the last unsolved Whitechapel murder (Coles). So when Anderson states that the Ripper's "hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum" he appears to be dating it to the Coles murder.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

Thanks for that, mate.

To Robhouse

Re: Kosminsk -- contemporaneous suspect, or not?

This is far and away the absolute epicentre, the San Andreas fault-line of our friendly disagreement about Anderson and Kosminski.

The 'Did Anderson Know?' chapter in Evans and Rumbelow's 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) which argues that Aaron Kosminski was probably not a contemporaneous suspect with relentless logic, and beautiful prose.

I use bits of it to teach my students how to interpret fragmentary sources to create a strong, coherent argument as to what happened -- which can only be a provisional explanation of course. That is the nature of history, as opposed to forensics, or the law.

I am not going to do these authors' argument the justice it deserves, but nevertheless I will try and do my best.

And keep it brief:

Anderson and/or Swanson strongly claim that the Polish Jew suspect, presumably Aaron Kosminski, was somebody being investigated as the best suspect and that once he was luckily incarcerated -- after police were initially let down by a Judas witness -- there were no more murders of this kind in Whitechapel. The last murder must be Kelly, and the suspect himself did not live long in the asylum.

This flies in the face of an objective pirmary source, the medical records on Kosminski, which show him to be out and about until Feb 7th 1891 when he went permanently into the asylum system.

We would expect embarrassed senior police, who were put under pressure about this case, not to volunteer that Kosminski was at large for a considerable time after Kelly and, right on cue, they do not.

In fact, Anderson implies that this over-rated mystery was all wrapped up by early 1889 [whereas Macnaghten admits it went into 1891].

So, already we have primary sources beginning to part company as the medical records, a much earlier record and with no axe to grind about the Ripper, show Kosminski to be at large for over two years and thus not safely tucked away by 1889 -- which is why Fido did not initially find Aaron Kosminski.

Another set of primary sources are the comments/memoirs of other important police figures [Reid, Abberline, Smith] who decisively reject this Polish Jew suspect as somebody who was cornered by police around 1888/9.

Yet again, these late primary sources match the medical records on Kosminski, which, as already noted, Anderson and/or Swanson -- whom we would expect to be biased to the point of distortion -- do not.

The Frances Coles murder of Feb 13th 1891 and the arrest of Tom Sadler for her murder, followed by the investigation into whether he was also 'Jack', matches the medical records on Kosminski, and the later comments by other police, and -- yet again -- does not match the later comments of Anderson and/or Swanson.

If we take Anderson and/or Swanson as being correct over the witness identifying Kosminski prior to his incarceration -- which means prior to the Coles murder -- and then refusing to testify, then they knew by Feb 6th 1891that this was the Ripper: "a definitely, ascertained fact". At the very least that the Ripper was a low-class Polish Jew and not a Gentile sailor, like Sadler.

Then why bother, with all the attendant negative publicity over more failure regarding this murderer, did the police try and nail Sadler for the Ripper crimes too? Why did they have Lawende 'confront' him, who would obviously say no to this burly, bearded bruiser -- and did exactly that?

Why did they muddy the waters and not just focus on Sadler for the Coles murder? Which went belly-up too.

These late primary sources, Anderson and/or Swanson, do not match the primary medical sources on Kosminski, and do not match the [also late] primary sources of Abberline and Reid, and do not match the primary sources on the Ripper hunt for Sadler [or Grainger, for that matter, in 1895].

Unless, of course, Anderson and/or Swanson are mistaken in Kosminski being a contemporaneous suspect [Imagine if all we had were Anderson/Swanson? We would not be aware that there even was a serious hunt for a Ripper suspect as late as 1891].

I think the likeliest explanation is that Anderson is mis-remembering the events of 1891, in effect recasting them as a near triumph and then redacting them back into 1888, and an amused Swanson recorded this jumble.

The other possibility is that the medical records are wrong or irrelevant, that the police detectives are wrong, and that Anderson and/or Swanson are correct.

This is a terribly, illogical and uncovincing line of argument because of the police agitation over Sadler, and because a witness -- any witness -- was brought in to 'confront' this sailor. This is because Anderson and/or Swanson tell us that it was all over for the Ripper mystery PRIOR to Kosminski's incarceration.

That there were no other murders of this kind.

Yes, there was, that of Coles -- for which Kosminski has an unbreakable alibi.

Anderson and/or Swanson are crunching the years into a few months, into /mere weeks', creating a simpler more satisfying story. The added detail of the 'Seaside Home' [misrembering Sadler and the Sailor's Home] places the idenfication of Kosminski too late even by Macnaghgten's timetable.

Which bring us to Macnaghten.

In the official version of his internal report even he has Kosminski sectioned five months after the Coles murder.

Though presumably privy to the same info as Anderson and/or Swanson he totally rejected Kosminski as the Ripper, and he also could not recall his first name [the giveaway that it is all reliant on memory for you don't open a file on an embarrassing 'suspect' who can never be arrested -- like the despicable Frenchies could] yet did know, possibly as late as 1898, that he was still in an asylum.

This matches the medical records source; in 1894 and 1898 Kosminski was very much alive in an asylum, as he would be in 1910 -- if that is about when Swanson pencilled his annotation -- when the suspect is alleged quite wrongly to have 'died shortly afterwards'.

It's just my opinion but for me reading that chapter was just one of those wonderfully clarifying moments when the fog lifts and you see soemthing that was long blurred with crystal clarity.

As in, the reason Anderson and/or Swanson never refer to the Salder hunt is because ... they always do. They always orbit back to it but altered by a fading, self-serving memory.

Why did they have a terrific witness confront Sadler after he, Lawende, or another witness, had positively identified Kosminski?

Simplest answer: they didn't.

There are not two identifications but one [well, actually two and not three, including Lawende 'confronting' Grainger in 1895].

This throughline provides us with a way of piecing together all the sources we have, without loose ends.

I find this the hardest part of Ripper dogma to get people to really face. That Druitt and Kosminski ARE major suspects, about whom a veil fell around to make them into less embarassing suspects.

This is a narrative without a middle.

We have the beginning of the story, the murders.

We have the end of the story: the competing police suspects.

But the middle is the elusive mystery.

Less so since Andy Spallek in 2008 identified the 1891 'West of England MP' who was a Druitt near-neighbour, a fellow Etonian, a fellow officer of state, and a fellow Tory, and who could provide the source-bridge between Druitt's sympathetic obits, and his unexpected surfacing in 1894 as a Ripper suspect.

The reason I go for Druitt is because his patron. Macnaghten, belatedly admitted in 1914 that knowledge about this suspect arrived too late, years too late. This means that everything about the sources on Druitt now makes sense, as it nullifies the Mac Reports, and whatever he told, or didn't tell Griffiths and Sims.

Anderson and/or Swanson never admitted that knowledge about Kosminski came too late, and therefore it severely undermines their claims to have identified Jack the Ripper.