Did Anderson Know

[Jonathan H]

Natalie, you are missing the point.
That post is written from the point of view of how
Anderson may have remembered, and misremembered, bits and pieces Kosminski.

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
Thats fine but it sometimes gets difficult to distinguish fact from fiction anyway so when I read it I didnt know whether you thought those things too.

Best
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

It is quite obvious that the police in 1888 did not have any clue as to the real identity of the person/persons responsible for the murders.

i would have imgained that anyone involved in a knife incident or found carrying a long bladed knife would have been looked at in greater detail.

Some of these persons were clearly eliminated and it does not follow that a written record would have been kept of those persons, and in any event that would not have made them a suspect, so again no record may have been kept or even made for that matter.

The Kosminski and Cutbush episodes follow a similar pattern. Cutbush was arrested for his misdemanours so the matter was recorded and the press got to know about it.

Kosminski came to notice for a similar incident which was not publicised and beacuse it was presumbaly a mental health issue no police records were made. I have no doubt he was perhaps looked at tentativley by the police but nothing more than that.

I personally belive this whole seaside home fiasco is a fabrication by somebody.

If Kosminski was supposed to be insane I doubt he would not go to a seaside home. In any event the police would have realised that even in those days there was no evidential value to be gained by carrying out an identification procedure which would have no real evidential value for a number of differnet reasons and not stand up in court, having regard to the passage of time and all the factors needed to make such an idetification safe.

Furthermore the evidence the witness could have given in court would only be circumstantial. he would have been told that. he would also have been told that it would be for a jury to decide the fate of the man in court. I am sure if it happened with such a high profile case the police would have found some way of getting the witness to court to testify.

So there we are folks cue the "Casebook Jury"

[Natalie Severn]

Excellent post Trevor----Thanks for that.
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

It's nice to know that most of you are content with clairvoyant guess work and blind faith as a principle form of detection.

I know its old fashion in Ripper circles but how about just sticking to the facts?

Pirate

PS I've heard better conclusions from Derek Acorah, and thats saying something?

[Natalie Severn]

Now Jeff....when did you ever "stick to the facts"?

[jason_c]

It is quite obvious that the police in 1888 did not have any clue as to the real identity of the person/persons responsible for the murders.

i would have imgained that anyone involved in a knife incident or found carrying a long bladed knife would have been looked at in greater detail.

Some of these persons were clearly eliminated and it does not follow that a written record would have been kept of those persons, and in any event that would not have made them a suspect, so again no record may have been kept or even made for that matter.

The Kosminski and Cutbush episodes follow a similar pattern. Cutbush was arrested for his misdemanours so the matter was recorded and the press got to know about it.

Kosminski came to notice for a similar incident which was not publicised and beacuse it was presumbaly a mental health issue no police records were made. I have no doubt he was perhaps looked at tentativley by the police but nothing more than that.

I personally belive this whole seaside home fiasco is a fabrication by somebody.

If Kosminski was supposed to be insane I doubt he would not go to a seaside home. In any event the police would have realised that even in those days there was no evidential value to be gained by carrying out an identification procedure which would have no real evidential value for a number of differnet reasons and not stand up in court, having regard to the passage of time and all the factors needed to make such an idetification safe.

Furthermore the evidence the witness could have given in court would only be circumstantial. he would have been told that. he would also have been told that it would be for a jury to decide the fate of the man in court. I am sure if it happened with such a high profile case the police would have found some way of getting the witness to court to testify.

So there we are folks cue the "Casebook Jury"

I agree with the first half of your post.

As for the second part I am more doubtful. On one hand you underplay the value of the witness identification, then you go on to suggest the importance of this witness.

One value of an identification would be personal curiosity by the police, a positive identification would also mean less cost to the police by "closing" the Ripper investigation.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree with the first half of your post.

As for the second part I am more doubtful. On one hand you underplay the value of the witness identification, then you go on to suggest the importance of this witness.

One value of an identification would be personal curiosity by the police, a positive identification would also mean less cost to the police by "closing" the Ripper investigation.

Jason.

Regarding your last para the police dont just simply close a case. Before a case can be mothballed (not closed) a report of some description would have to be compiled setting out all the enquiries which had been carrried out together with the results of those enquiries. This would then be endorsed and signed off by a senior officer. I would suggest that perhaps Macnagthens memo was possibly compiled from such a report.

If the Id had taken place and police were certain Kosminski was their man and having regard to his mental status the Ripper file could have been closed marked "detected no proceedings". However with only one murder relative to the Kosminski ID thats unlikely to have happened, and in any event with such a high profile case they would have wanted it made public to gain some credibilty and recognition. It would not have been silently mothballed.

I have tried to give a fair assessment of both scenarios.

1. The facts that the Kosminski issue did happen and the problems with the identification.

2. Is my personal view hence the two different standing you refer to.

i hope this clarifies matter with you

[Jonathan H]

I don't think Macnaghten is quoting from any files at all regarding his Report, 1894 version.

Druitt and Kosminski were never contemporaneous suspects, and Ostrog never a suspect at all.

Also this idea of 'mothballing' the Report??

From 1895 Anderson began alluding to the Polish Jew suspect, and Macnaghten in 1898 showed a copy to Griffiths and probably Sims claiming it was a definitive and 'final' Home Office Report on the subject.

Mac's 1914 memoirs are another adaptation of the same Report in which only the un-named Druitt remains.

Plus, its not a 'memo' in any version.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Trevor for such valuable information.It is such a help to have people
like yourself on these boards with a such thorough and first hand knowledge of how the police force operates .
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think Macnaghten is quoting from any files at all regarding his Report, 1894 version.

Druitt and Kosminski were never contemporaneous suspects, and Ostrog never a suspect at all.

Also this idea of 'mothballing' the Report??

From 1895 Anderson began alluding to the Polish Jew suspect, and Macnaghten in 1898 showed a copy to Griffiths and probably Sims claiming it was a definitive and 'final' Home Office Report on the subject.

Mac's 1914 memoirs are another adaptation of the same Report in which only the un-named Druitt remains.

Plus, its not a 'memo' in any version.

Jonathan

You really should get this Kosminski bee out of our bonnett.

Isnt memo short for memorandum ?

The police procedure of "mothballing" I referred to is still current today and i have no reason to beleive that a similar process did not operate in 1888. The met police now say that the Ripper case is officially closed but thats due to the passage of time. In 1888 the case would not have been officially closed hence when Cutbush was arrested it was reviewed yet again as it was suggested he could have been the Ripper.

Machnaghten was not even a police officer in 1888 so in 1894 when he prepared his memo and it is called a memo he would have to had got the information for that from somewhere. That somewhere was from The Ripper file. he would have asked a subordinate to view the file and come back to him with details of the police investigation into likely suspects. Because there were no prime suspects what finished up in the memo were names of persons who had been put forward by every tom dick and harry. hence Ostrog appearing on that list.

[Jonathan H]

Trevor, you really have to get this 'memorandum' bee out of your bonnet.

1888?

What makes you think I fall for that mythos?

I am one of the few posters who goes on, and on, and on, and on, about the length of the Ripper hunt extending for years but hardly anybody notices because it goes against the 'conventional wisdom' -- which just calcifies here.

Macnaghten was there from from June 1889, would have been briefed about everything -- eg. Pizer, Dr. Tumblety, Lawende -- which he had missed, and then the Ripper hunt extended into 1891 with the Sadler debacle, and beyond that to 1895 and the Grainger fizzer.

The idea that the Ripper stopped with Mary Kelly is Macnaghten's theory of the case, first put to the surprised public/press/ex-detectives in 1898.

Whilst there undoubtedly were files to do with the Ripper hunt, they did not include Druitt or Kosminski or Ostrog.

It's ironic the way Mac is dismissed as a minor, fumbling figure and yet many people in RipperWorld are enthrall to the myths he set up about the case -- although he had tried, and failed, to debunk these myths in his own unread memoirs.

It is Lady Aberconway who called the family-held version a 'memo' essentially because she did not know what it was, just that it named her father's choice for the Ripper. Macnaghten is careful never to refer to this document(s) at all, and Sims called it the rewritten version a 'Home Office Report' in 1903.

[Chris]

According to the A-Z, the Aberconway version is headed:
"Memorandum on articles which appeared in the Sun re JACK THE RIPPER on 14 Feb 1894 and subsequent dates".

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
Its not very likely that Sir Melville Macnaghten would have obtained the post of Assistant Chief Constable of CID ,Scotland Yard , had it not been for James Monro.
It could surely not be very helpful to one"s "credentials" or CV,today for example ,to have "Tea planter in India" for most of your working life experience .Neither this nor being an "old Etonion" would have been thought of surely as "good relevant previous experience " to equip him for his later detective work or catching murderers?

[Jonathan H]

To Chris

See my previous post, re: Aberconway.

To Natalie

Yes, I agree, but since we do not fundamentally agree about Macnaghten I must be missing your overall here?