No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Heinrich - the police clearly didn't think Barnett did it so the fact that you think he did isn't really relevant to this thread! He wasn't a suspect although he was known (and 'checked out').

[Heinrich]

Heinrich - the police clearly didn't think Barnett did it so the fact that you think he did isn't really relevant to this thread! He wasn't a suspect although he was known (and 'checked out').

The police record on attempting to solve these murders is a thundering disgrace.

[Wickerman]

The police record on attempting to solve these murders is a thundering disgrace.

By which standards, todays?
You easily forget, the police at the time knew more about those murders, suspects & witnesses, than we do today.

Jon

[Hunter]

There are still, many unsolved murders, including serial murders that stretch into the dozens and encompass many more years than these did. A murderer of strangers is the most difficult to apprehend and always will be.

[Heinrich]

By which standards, todays?

By any standards, Jon.
They neither protected the victims nor made even a single arrest!

You easily forget, the police at the time knew more about those murders, suspects & witnesses, than we do today.

You could have fooled me, Jon.

[Jonathan H]

Case Closed?

Plus, arguably the police did identify the Ripper -- all three of him!

But he could not be broiught to justice because he was dead ... or mad, or fled.

I subscribe to the argument that he was identified only posthumously in 1891.

'That remarkable man was one of te most fascianting of criminals. Of cours ehe was a maniac, But I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me.

[Emphases mine]

Sir Melville Macnaghten
'The Washington Post'
4th June, 1913

[Trevor Marriott]

Plus, arguably the police did identify the Ripper -- all three of him!

But he could not be broiught to justice because he was dead ... or mad, or fled.

I subscribe to the argument that he was identified only posthumously in 1891.

'That remarkable man was one of te most fascianting of criminals. Of cours ehe was a maniac, But I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me.

[Emphases mine]

Sir Melville Macnaghten
'The Washington Post'

4th June, 1913

"Clear Idea" hardly damming evidence would you not think

[Jonathan H]

I think what Mac is getting at is that he is preparing to dump two notions which had disseminated in the Edwardian era.

That he, Macnaghten, had nothing to do with the Ripper case.

And, that the 'Drownbed Doctor' being exhaustively chased by the police in 1888 was true.

A year later his memoirs upended both these notions.

It was Mac who had 'alid to rest the ghost' of the fiend, that is identified him as a protean maniac from his own repsectable class. And all the features about this un-named figure: affluent, unemployed, once a phycician, middle-aged, no family only friends, idling his time on public transport were gone/

Unable to put into print, under his own name, the silly story of the Ripper stagerring the Thames the same moening as he eviscerated Kelly, he keeps the -aful glut- but drops the wtatery grave. That way he can say the killer killed himself on, or about the 10th of Nov 1888 -- when the body tutned up seven weeks later but having only been in the watre for a month.

All very awkward.

Unless you drop the method of suicide from the tale? If you drop the river and the date the body was retrieved. It Was dec 31st but Mac had Sims claiming it was Nov 9th by 1907.

All very wakward.

If you know the Thames destination from Sims' writings then you know it cannot be about the tenth, it has to be the tenth!

But if the river death is excluded then it might the same morning, or the next day, or the day after that -- if the killer was just sitting in his home taking poison or slitting his own throat.

[Heinrich]

....
'That remarkable man was one of te most fascianting of criminals. Of course he was a maniac, But I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me.

Yeah, right.

[Phil Carter]

'That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course he was a maniac, But I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me.

Sir Melville Macnaghten
'The Washington Post'
4th June, 1913

Hello Jonathan,

Ok.. I'll walk with you a little way here. The above quote, from 1913. This was 3 years after Anderson's famous book comments, and 3 months before the Littlechild letter to Sims.

Let's say, for the sake of this discussion, that Sir MM, writing in 1913, is telling us the complete and utter truth.

1) The man committed suicide.
2) He was of course a maniac.

OK. Now that makes very interesting reading. Because IF this is the complete and utter truth, then Sir Robert Anderson either

a) knew nothing whatsoever, or
b) was deflecting away from the truth with a story that could not be proven nor dis-proven, or
c) was deliberately lying because he knew the truth or
d) was mixing and matching to confuse.

Now if any of the above is the answer for Anderson.. where in heaven's name does that leave Swanson? Because Swanson, in 1891, was still playing catch the Ripper. In May 1895, he said the Ripper was dead, only 3 months after playing catch the ripper with Grainger. Then, at some time between 1910 and 1924, he writes in his annotations that the suspect that ANDERSON wrote of, was named Kosminski. He also said he was dead, after dying in an asylum, according to Swanson..

Now Swanson's Kosminski suspect wasn't "dead" in May 1895. But he was in an asylum. However, that makes no sense as Sir MM said the suspect (killer) had committed suicide.

So plainly, if Sir MM is telling the complete truth, then both Swanson and Anderson are not. That totally devalues any comment made by Anderson in his book, and totally devalues any comment made by Swanson in his annotations in the same book.

That makes the three card trick of the memoranda, the marginalia and the Anderson book fall apart. They do not back each other up.
Therefore it doesn't matter one iota when Swanson wrote the annotation, or whether it was written in two bursts, or anything. If Sir MM is correct 3 years after Anderson wrote his book, goodbye Kosminski.

(i) If Sir MM was telling the truth, the marginalia is worthless as a piece of fact, because it would be untrue.

(ii) If Swanson is telling the truth, then Sir MM's words in 1913 are worthless, because according to Swanson it was Kosminsky, who apparently died in an asylum. (Which we know he didn't)

(iii)If Anderson is telling the truth, then Sir MM is not, 3 years after Anderson wrote his book.

Theorists can try to put this house of cards together as much as they like, but on the known and given facts, presented by the three policemen, we cannot say that Anderson, Swanson and Sir MM were ALL telling the truth. The facts do not match, they contradict each other. Historical record shows this.

And as far as Sims in 1913 is concerned, he had been pushing the suicide story all the way up to that time. He must have known about Sir MM's views in June 1913 that the man committed suicide, so why write a letter to Littlechild to get the answers he asked for from him?

So if Sir MM is right in 1913, then

(iv) Littlechild knew nothing of it, or
(v) Littlechild deliberately told a lie to Sims and/or
(vi) Littlechild knew that Anderson, Swanson and Sir MM were not telling the truth.

Whichever way one looks at all this, all of them cannot be telling the truth.

It is impossible in my opinion that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing to THAT extent. Swanson had access to EVERY paper, document, statement and photograph.

Are we are supposed to believe that he didn't tell Sir MM about Kosminski? And Littlechild didn't know either? And Monro, the Commissioner, and his successor, Bradford, didn't know either?, And Arnold didn't know what was the truth going on surrounding things on his own patch, as Superintendent of H division either? And Abberline didn't know about Kosminski either?

That tells me something quite simple. Combined, all of them, they either didn't really know anything, or they were all making up stories after the fact.

That is why the question about Swanson's marginalia is so heated. If Swanson really KNEW the truth, he writes factual falsities about Kosminski in that book. Simple errors. And he also told the newspapers in May 1895 the Ripper was dead, ipso facto, if Kosminsky was the Ripper, Swanson lied to the press.

Two simple questions.

WHO is telling the truth?

WHO is not telling the truth?


Hope all is well with you "down under"?


kindly,

Phil

[Chris]

That is why the question about Swanson's marginalia is so heated. If Swanson really KNEW the truth, he writes factual falsities about Kosminski in that book. Simple errors. And he also told the newspapers in May 1895 the Ripper was dead, ipso facto, if Kosminsky was the Ripper, Swanson lied to the press.

No. Someone told the press that Swanson had (or had previously had) a theory that the Ripper was dead.

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil.
Incidently, your compilation of Anderson quotes over at JTRForums was well done, very intuitive and equally necessary. In fact that should be done for all 'after-the-fact' recollections by principal police officials.

.
Theorists can try to put this house of cards together as much as they like, but on the known and given facts, presented by the three policemen, we cannot say that Anderson, Swanson and Sir MM were ALL telling the truth. The facts do not match, they contradict each other. Historical record shows this.

I was completely surprised to say the least that there are still a 'handful' of members on Casebook who actually use those recollections as evidence. The inaccuracies are stunning, which does not take away from them as interesting curio's, but cannot be relied on by way of evidence with respect specific details.

Whichever way one looks at all this, all of them cannot be telling the truth.

It is impossible in my opinion that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing to THAT extent. Swanson had access to EVERY paper, document, statement and photograph.

Are we are supposed to believe that he didn't tell Sir MM about Kosminski? And Littlechild didn't know either? And Monro, the Commissioner, and his successor, Bradford, didn't know either?, And Arnold didn't know what was the truth going on surrounding things on his own patch, as Superintendent of H division either? And Abberline didn't know about Kosminski either?

That tells me something quite simple. Combined, all of them, they either didn't really know anything, or they were all making up stories after the fact.

What I see are individual officials offering their own pet theories many years after the fact, none of which can be supported by contemporary evidence.
I would not go so far as to accuse any of them of lying.
Promoting your theory while not offering a balanced view of all the other principal suspects is not essentially 'lying' per-se.

They want to give the impression in their recollections that they were nearer to the truth than they actually were. Either the judicial system beat them, or circumstances beat them, or a lucky villian beat then, or their allegiance to some code of ethic's prevents them from telling all they know.
Either way, they do not wish to leave the impression that they failed due to incompetence.

That is why the question about Swanson's marginalia is so heated. If Swanson really KNEW the truth, he writes factual falsities about Kosminski in that book. Simple errors. And he also told the newspapers in May 1895 the Ripper was dead, ipso facto, if Kosminsky was the Ripper, Swanson lied to the press.

Some debate has evolved concerning whether the marginalia is genuine or fake. I'm not sure what the basis is for these claims. I don't know anyone who claims the marginalia was put there by someone else to create a fraud. Neither do I see Swanson's notes as intentional lies.

Even if Swanson was mistaken in some details, which undoubtably he may have been, it does not make the marginalia a fake. All police recollections have been shown to have errors, the marginalia may be no different.

What I am not convinced of is that Swanson created the marginalia with the intention of offering support for Anderson. The two issues in the marginalia on page 138 had been put in print before, so Swanson may just have been complementing Anderson's claims by adding what he (Swanson) had recently read elsewhere, not necessarily his beliefs.

In Blackwoods, Anderson had suggested that the witness was also a Jew, this was not included in his book therefore Swanson added this notation.
Likewise, Sagar's recollections had been published five years earlier in 1905, where he claimed that - "an Identification had failed, - suspect was placed in an asylum, - after this the series of murders came to an end", therefore Swanson also added this notation.
Then, on the endpapers, Swanson in his own words, adds what he remembered about Anderson's suspect.

This suspect appears to have been a City CID suspect, Swanson was in charge of the Met. operations. Did partizanship play a role in what they choose to remember?

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Likewise, Sagar's recollections had been published five years earlier in 1905, where he claimed that - "an Identification had failed, - suspect was placed in an asylum, - after this the series of murders came to an end", therefore Swanson also added this notation.

The trouble is that the view attributed to Sagar was actually that "Identification being impossible, he could not be charged," which doesn't necessarily imply that there had been a failed attempt at identification.

Given the fuller picture we now have of Sagar's recollections, it seems much less likely than it did previously that he was referring to Aaron Kozminski. One report of his retirement specified that his suspect was "a butcher who worked in "Butchers' Row," Aldgate."

http://cgp100.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SagarReports.htm

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Someone told the press that Swanson had (or had previously had) a theory that the Ripper was dead.

Respectfully, it makes no difference.

Attributed to him or a direct quote, it still refers to Swanson. He was named in the article.

People can't dismiss that the police were still playing hunt the ripper in 1891 nor 1895. Ipso facto.. the ripper is still at large in the view of the police. And who was in charge of the Ripper investigation? Swanson.

So why play hunt the ripper if the "suspect" in the marginalia, Kosminski, was already in an asylum?

Further, why say in the marginalia the "suspect" is dead when he clearly wasn't?

You can't have it all ways here. Either Swanson was telling the truth or he wasn't. Now when was he telling the truth? And if he WAS telling the truth at any time.. Sir MM wasn't in 1913. Re suicide/being alive.

The three card trick doesn't work.

kindly

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

The trouble is that the view attributed to Sagar was actually that "Identification being impossible, he could not be charged," which doesn't necessarily imply that there had been a failed attempt at identification.

Given the fuller picture we now have of Sagar's recollections, it seems much less likely than it did previously that he was referring to Aaron Kozminski. One report of his retirement specified that his suspect was "a butcher who worked in "Butchers' Row," Aldgate."

http://cgp100.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SagarReports.htm

Chris
If i may first refer to your previous posting and your quote

"Someone told the press that Swanson had (or had previously had) a theory that the Ripper was dead.

and now your latest

"The trouble is that the view attributed to Sagar was actually that "Identification being impossible, he could not be charged," which doesn't necessarily imply that there had been a failed attempt at identification"

Do you have anything to corroborate what you have stated in both of the above ?

I must also comment on the seaside home identification. If the police did take Kosminski to Brighton look at the manpower that would have been needed I would suggest at least 2 constables, I sergeant and one or two senior officers from CID plus perhaps a medical man from the asylum.

Now with all of those people involved in such an important matter how come not one of that group has ever gone public with this or recorded it anywhere ?

Is that because it never happened ?

Is it also police practice to take the witness to the suspect not vice versa look how so much easier that would have been, and besides who was this mystery witness at best it could only have been Lawende or Scwartz beacuse no one else has ever been mentioned and besides with having two possible witnesses in the aforementioned why didnt both of them go with the police.