No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Chris]

Phil

Of course it makes a difference. You suggested that Swanson might have "lied to the press." It's not clear that Swanson even spoke to the press.


Trevor

I was simply pointing out what was actually said (and what was not said) in the press reports Phil and Jon referred to - in the Pall Mall Gazette of 7 May 1895 and the City Press of 7 January 1905. You can find the text of the first of them here - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...39&postcount=9 - and that of the second by following the link I included in my post above.

As for your question about the Seaside Home, obviously this has been keenly debated for more than 20 years. Personally, I doubt that it refers to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Hove.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Then I suggest he may have lied to the person who gave the information to the press. Same difference. The simple point is this...

Swanson still played hunt the Ripper in 1891 and 1895. He wouldn't do that if he knew Kosminski, his "suspect" that Anderson said was the culprit, was safely caged in an asylum.

At the time of the murders until 1895, Swanson apparently did not believe that any suspect called Kosminsky was the culprit of the murders. Swanson was in charge of the investigation. ALL the paperwork went through him. If Kosminski was a suspect when the paperwork went through Swanson, then he would have known Kosminski was in an asylum AT THAT TIME. Therefore, he would KNOW that Kosminski didn't die "shortly afterwards" as he wrote in the marginalia.

kindly

Phil
He would also know

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil

Of course it makes a difference. You suggested that Swanson might have "lied to the press." It's not clear that Swanson even spoke to the press.


Trevor

I was simply pointing out what was actually said (and what was not said) in the press reports Phil and Jon referred to - in the Pall Mall Gazette of 7 May 1895 and the City Press of 7 January 1905. You can find the text of the first of them here - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...39&postcount=9 - and that of the second by following the link I included in my post above.

As for your question about the Seaside Home, obviously this has been keenly debated for more than 20 years. Personally, I doubt that it refers to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Hove.

So which one was it then in 1890 there were 69 seaside convalescent homes nationwide to choose from ?

[Chris]

Then I suggest he may have lied to the person who gave the information to the press. Same difference. The simple point is this...

Swanson still played hunt the Ripper in 1891 and 1895. He wouldn't do that if he knew Kosminski, his "suspect" that Anderson said was the culprit, was safely caged in an asylum.

But as I've said, whoever spoke to the press in 1895 only described it as a theory. Do you really accuse people of "lying" when you think their theories are wrong? And do you think police officers don't have a duty to carry on investigating other possibilities, once they have a theory?

Actually, I do think it is interesting that Swanson's theory is described in the past tense in that article, in a way that almost suggests it has been superseded.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Ok.. he didn't lie. He told the truth to the person who spoke to the press.
If true, Swanson told the person the Ripper was dead, who passed it on.

That makes me wonder who died between Feb 1895 and May 1895.

Guess what.

It wasn't Kosminski.

Turn this anyway you want. I don't mind. It cannot have been Kosminski that he was talking about IF IT WAS TRUE... when he spoke to the person who spoke to the press.


kindly

Phil

[Wickerman]

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.

True, we can't be certain. As Sagar may not have been directly involved with the attempted identification his only knowledge of the result may have been that it failed due to an impossible situation, that is, the witness refused to identify him on specific grounds.
However, as you rightly point out, Sagar could have been referring to someone else entirely.

Thankyou for the reminder (the link). I couldn't recall where I had read of a story which mentioned Macnaghten's "PC witness in Mitre Square", that was it - thankyou.
Though, if that wasn't Watkins, where on Earth was he when this PC stumbled over the body?

...some apparent confusion in the reports over whether the fleeing perpetrator was a "well-known" Jewish man, or more likely, "well-dressed" Jewish man.
If he had been well-known, he should have been easy to trace.
Another hint at a well-dressed Jewish man, is it an anachronism, or is it accurate?

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

That makes me wonder who died between Feb 1895 and May 1895.

Nothing in any of this implies that any suspect died between February and May 1895.

All the article says is that Swanson had a theory that the Ripper was a man now dead, but latterly the police have been investigating Grainger.

And of course we don't know that Swanson's theory concerned Aaron Kozminski. If we didn't know about the marginalia we might well be assuming he meant Druitt - or else the insane medical student who was supposed to have died in an asylum around 1893, and who was alleged in December 1894 to have been identified by the police as the Ripper:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3934

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

My theory is that Anderson and Swanson never lied, but that Macnaghten sure did when it suited him -- but never under his own name for the public, hence the value of his memoirs (even his 1913 comments are full of fibs in that he had not destroyed anything and nor had he kept his mouth shut as he had briefed cronies)

You keep writing that Swanson had to have seen every scrap of paper about this case, and so on.

I subscribe to the theory that Mac made a thorough investigation of Druitt in 1891, but none of it was written down. Form that moment he knew that Coles was not a Ripper victim and that Kelly, over two years before, was the final one.

In 1894 he felt compelled to out Druitt on an official document in case the story leaked again, in Dorset in response to 'the Sun' alleged revelations about Cutbush, but he concealed in that 'Report' that Druitt was the fiend and that he was an entirely posthumous suspect.

Then he archived it and sat there unknown to Swanson and Anderson, or anybody.

To me it is highly significant that Macnaghten knew that Kosminski was still alive in the madhouse, but Swanson and/or Anderson did not know.

It is highly significant that Mac knew that 'kosminski' had been out and about for a long, long time after the Kelly murder (Sims, 1907) yet Anderson and/or Swanson do not seem to know, as he, or they, are stuck with the false information of the Mac Report(s) -- that he had been sectioned in early 1889 -- perhaps conveyed to them verbally.

When the 'Drowned Doctor' appeared in 1898 Littlechild, eventually, thought this must be Tumblety, or should be Tumblety. If he thought that, then why not Anderson and Swanson?

When you focus too narrowly on the 'memo' (which version?) you miss the overall that Mac's fingerprints are everywhere.

For example, the 'theory' that Swanson agrees with in 1895, about the fiend being deceased, sounds like Macnaghten and his 'awful glut'. That the Polish Jew was seen by a witness, a police witness who had a look at him later (Sims, 1907) sounds like the origin of the alleged identification of this suspect involving police, or a police location, which only enters the extent record in 1910.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon S (Wickerman),

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.

Thank you Jon, kind of you to say so... I actually put it on here too, 1st posting, and followed it up with posts 27, 28 and 29.

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.

I agree. Well, there are those that do rely on recollective comments as evidence, mostly, I am afraid, to bolster a suspect theory. Without those recollections, suspect theories fall apart. The Kosminski problem in the marginalia is a prime example. According to Swanson, he was dead, and died in an asylum shortly after some sort of identification (which can't be proved). We are supposed to accept the presumption that the suspect is taken all the way to Brighton, which must have been under heavy escort if he was suspected of being the dangerous homocidal maniac called Jack the Ripper, to meet the witness.
Now, that's totally backwards-witnesses are taken to the suspect for identification purposes... ALL policemen know that.. so why did Swanson get it backwards?... and how many miles is it from the asylum to Brighton? 60 miles maybe?

These inaccuracies are quietly either brushed under the carpet with comments like "he mis-remembered". There were 69 Seaside homes in 1888, yet for some reason, at some time, one suggestion was that it was probably the Police Seaside Home in Hove.. and hey presto!.. it must be so. That's an example of how possibilities have become accepted as gospel truth.

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.

That's how I generally see it, yet for those who rely on a suspect theory, such as Kosminski, then it relies on the absolute of three things being all above board true. The Memoranda, the Marginalia and Anderson's comments. If one of those is wrong, the three card trick fails. Now the problem is simple. For the three card trick to work, none of the three must be seen to go against the other. As I have (hopefully) shown, in the recent reply to Jonathan, if Sir MM told the truth in the 1913 newspaper interview, that the Ripper committed suicide.. then bye bye the marginalia. Kosminski didn't commit suicide. It's that simple. If Sir MM's comments are false, then questions must refer back to his memoranda, from which his 1913 comments must be based upon. That means a preference for Druitt, the ONLY one in the memoranda that DID commit suicide.. And if Druitt is the truth, Anderson's Polish Jew is out of the question. Exit Anderson's book and comments, Swanson's marginalia that for Polish Jew/Kosminski suspect theorists, supports it.

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.

Very possible indeed. My opinion? They didn't know. Reid was probably correct, and he dismissed Anderson's comments as rubbish, as well as other theories, including a late burst in the spotlight from Abberline.

Can you imagine Sir MM's reaction to Ex- C.I. Abberline to in effect publically rubbish(via the newspaper) the long pasted idea well promoted by Sims & Co. over many years? Or Anderson's reaction? Or Swanson's?

My my, they really were very together in their theories and thoughts. How well did they actually WORK together all those years ago, with all these differing conclusions and recollections in later life?.. it doesn't bode too well as to how it was in 1888, does it?


kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

If you really run with the theory the Macnaghten knew exactly what he was talking about, and knew exactly what he was doing, then we can imagine his reaction to Abberline's comments of 1903.

It did not phase him one bit, as he expected it because he was hustling his cronies and via them, the public, with a Scotland Yard-friendly version of what really happened in terms of the Ripper.

Th problem was not the identity of the fiend. It was when his identity had been ascertained and how, eg. it was the dead Druitt in 1891 via the family, via an MP. It involved no 'police' investigation at all.

Therefore from 1898 until 1914, Macnaghten concealed both the timing of police cognition, redacting it into 1888, and the real identity of Druitt as a young barrister who killed himself three weeks afrter the Miller's Court atrocity. Also, the family were shielded, right from the start, by being turned into 'friends'.

Of course Abberline doesn't know about Druitt -- how could he (I think the same applies to 'Kosminski' too)?

When Abberline says 'we' never thought much of the drowned medical student and the locked-up lunatic suspects he is clearly ignorant that the former was backed by the Commissioner of 1903, by then Macnaghten -- whom Abberline wants to tell about Chapman unaware that the Drowned Doctor' begins with him -- and that the latter is the preferred suspect, by 1895, of Anderson and perhaps Swanson.

We can also infer, from Sims' haughty respone to Abberline in 1903, that Mac assured the famous writer that the truth was in a 'Home Office Report', written by himself, and that this was regarded as definitive by the Yard and the government. Sims writes that Major Griffiths, eg. an unimpeachable, establishment worthy and officer of the state, had seen the 'Report' and thus it must be true.

What a game Macnaghten played.

In terms of posterity, however, it robbed him of his modest and discreet claim in his memoirs to have posthumously identified the fiend; to have laid his ghost to rest 'some years after' he had taken his own life.

These memoirs are routinely ignored in many secondary sources. As eliminated from the historical record as Mac, himself, in those same memoirs, dumped 'Kosminki', Michael Ostrog, Cutbush, Tumblety, Sadler -- and even the Ripper as a Dr. Jekyll figure.

Some might argue that this is a kind of comeuppance for being too clever-clever?

[robhouse]

A few comments.

First, Phil, it seems to me very simple and clear to simply assume that different police officials had different theories on who was the best suspect. So I do not understand your comment: "For the three card trick to work, none of the three must be seen to go against the other. " What does that mean exactly? Why shouldn't any of the three go against each other? Perhaps I am missing your meaning. You say "if Sir MM told the truth in the 1913 newspaper interview, that the Ripper committed suicide.. then bye bye the marginalia." It is fairly obvious that Macnaghten was simply expressing his opinion that Druitt was the Ripper. But this sort of disagreement is common in such serial murder inquiries. Different people wortking the inquiry would often support different theories and different suspects. I do not really see how anyone could think that Macnaghten would know more about the case than Swanson and Anderson anyway.

Second, as I have stated on many occasions... if the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict a person, then the case was still open and the police were under an obligation to follow up new leads and new suspects. Let that sink in for a minute. We do not know what Swanson believed about Kozminski's guilt. And as I have argued on many occasions, I think it is clear that Anderson's certainty over Kozminski's guilt should be seen as more accurately a "moral proof." In any case, it is beside the point, because if they were actually certain, Kozminski would have been convicted. This means that there must have been some room for doubt. Anderson would have accepted this obviously, from a legal perspective and probably also philosophically, despite his apparent conviction that Kozminski was guilty. In any case, the police would not have been in a position to not follow up future leads despite what anyone at the MET believed. Again... look at the Ridgeway inquiry for a clear example of this. The head of the taskforce was convinced that Ridgeway was guilty, but did that stop the taskforce from following up other leads? No, of course not. Indeed, it would have been gross negligence if they had not done so.

Re: the identification. We do not know why it was conducted at the Seaside Home, whatever that is. One possibility that has been suggested is that the witness was perhaps convalescing from an illness.

About Swanson's belief that the Ripper had died in an asylum by 1895. This nugget of information was released to the press (apparently) after the killing of Augusta Dawes by Reginald Saunderson sparked a new panic that the Ripper had returned. As reported in the Bangor Daily Whig and Courier (Jan 17, 1895) "In connection with young Saunderson's insane crime and the Kensington stabbings the authorities have been extremely alarmed lest another Jack the Ripper scare should seize upon the popular mind. "

It was reported in several papers in early 1895 that the Police "made the important announcement" that Jack the Ripper had died in an asylum. The original reports of this followed close upon the heels of the Saunderson murder (ie around December 1894., and apparently reported that Jack the Ripper had died in an asylum "a year ago"... ie. in late 1893. Then in May 1895, the PMG reported that "The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead."

So these reports came out a) as a result of the police wanting to supress the public excitement after the killing of Augusta Dawes that the Ripper had perhaps returned, and also b) just about 7 months after Aaron Kozminski had been transferred to Leavesden asylum.

It is also interesting to note that the first appearance of Druitt and the "Ripper suicide by drowning" theory came out just 4 days after Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch in 1891.

And that the Macnaghten Memorandum was clearly written as a sort of internal response to the Sun articles on Cutbush... which incidentally, came out just BEFORE Aaron's transfer to Leavesden.

Admittedly, there is no clarity to exactly what happened. But in my mind, it is entirely plausible that the Police (at a minimum) released some false statements to the press about the Ripper being dead, simply to calm the public's fears and quell future public excitement when any Ripper-like murder occurred. In addition, this would keep nosy people from finding the real man the Police believed was the Ripper.

It also seems possible to me that Swanson's later belief that the Ripper had died, somehow originated from Aaron's transfer to Leavesden. But I am not clear at all about how that might have happened.

I do not see that any of this should be very hard to believe or understand.

I do not believe that the Police had absolute proof of Kozminski's guilt. I simply think that Anderson and perhaps others, strongly believed that he may have been the Ripper. And they may have tried to hush up the whole matter, for reasons that are fairly obvious.

What does frustrate me, is the continual and rather pompous posturing of modern day theorists who seem to have no qualms at all in declaring themselves to be more knowledgeable about the Ripper inquiry than the people who actually were in charge of it.

RH

[DVV]

I simply think that Anderson and perhaps others, strongly believed that he may have been the Ripper. RH

Hi Rob,

True. But as you know, more police officials (more than "Anderson & others", I mean) strongly believed that he was not the Ripper.

Amitiés
David

[Hunter]

I don't subscribe to any suspect theory; either contemporary or current... Never have, but I don't understand this vindictiveness towards some of these men who played a major role in this. They came to believe what they believed for what they thought were sound - or at least plausible - reasons. I believe they were probably all wrong too, but so what? It doesn't make them bad, liars or incompetent. They did the very human thing of attempting to reckon with something that was a part of their professional lives and had been unresolved by any consensus.

Its been done since. There was disagreement amongst law enforcement officials over the Zodiac murders. And there were differing theories about the Green River Killer until more modern forensics proved one of them right. None of that suggested that they didn't work together for a common goal. As Rob stated, they continued their investigation despite a strong belief in one suspect.

And Swanson...He may have had a theory that the killer was dead and he still investigated Grainger. It was his job. He was the man in charge. No matter what his opinions may have been, he was not willing to jeopardize public safety for it. No matter what he wrote in the margin of a book that he owned, he never publicly commented on anyone's theory about who Jack the Ripper was. He lived up to the maxim that Anderson preached about. Outside of that marginalia, he carried what he knew to his grave. He was the one man that I wish had written something.

Outside of a very few fanatical suspect theorists, most of us understand that this is an unsolved mystery and probably will remain so. Nevertheless, it remains a very interesting part of history... and the people involved - all the way from Fanny Mortimer to Sir Charles Warren - contribute to the colorful mosaic that makes the whole saga so riveting. And, it is totally proper to study and consider the individuals mentioned by the very people who were involved in the case. The only real bad guy or guys in this are the person or persons who killed these poor women.

[Phil Carter]

To Phil Carter

If you really run with the theory the Macnaghten knew exactly what he was talking about, and knew exactly what he was doing, then we can imagine his reaction to Abberline's comments of 1903.

It did not phase him one bit, as he expected it because he was hustling his cronies and via them, the public, with a Scotland Yard-friendly version of what really happened in terms of the Ripper.

Th problem was not the identity of the fiend. It was when his identity had been ascertained and how, eg. it was the dead Druitt in 1891 via the family, via an MP. It involved no 'police' investigation at all.

Therefore from 1898 until 1914, Macnaghten concealed both the timing of police cognition, redacting it into 1888, and the real identity of Druitt as a young barrister who killed himself three weeks afrter the Miller's Court atrocity. Also, the family were shielded, right from the start, by being turned into 'friends'.

Of course Abberline doesn't know about Druitt -- how could he (I think the same applies to 'Kosminski' too)?

When Abberline says 'we' never thought much of the drowned medical student and the locked-up lunatic suspects he is clearly ignorant that the former was backed by the Commissioner of 1903, by then Macnaghten -- whom Abberline wants to tell about Chapman unaware that the Drowned Doctor' begins with him -- and that the latter is the preferred suspect, by 1895, of Anderson and perhaps Swanson.

We can also infer, from Sims' haughty respone to Abberline in 1903, that Mac assured the famous writer that the truth was in a 'Home Office Report', written by himself, and that this was regarded as definitive by the Yard and the government. Sims writes that Major Griffiths, eg. an unimpeachable, establishment worthy and officer of the state, had seen the 'Report' and thus it must be true.

What a game Macnaghten played.

In terms of posterity, however, it robbed him of his modest and discreet claim in his memoirs to have posthumously identified the fiend; to have laid his ghost to rest 'some years after' he had taken his own life.

These memoirs are routinely ignored in many secondary sources. As eliminated from the historical record as Mac, himself, in those same memoirs, dumped 'Kosminki', Michael Ostrog, Cutbush, Tumblety, Sadler -- and even the Ripper as a Dr. Jekyll figure.

Some might argue that this is a kind of comeuppance for being too clever-clever?

Hello Jonathan,

I admit on this occasion to really enjoying this posting of yours. Others might say "that Jonathan paints an intricate, but well-intertwined picture, almost spell-bindingly clever.."

Well, I don't. I am left smiling of and postulating uopn the line below..

What a game MacNaghten played.

Had you written the last word, "played", thus... "played!" I would almost, almost have been tempted to mention that it was as clever as Jack the Ripper, so full of guile and cunning he is.

However, as you probably realise, the theory of the possible, is drowned by the probable. I simply cannot see that Swanson, in charge of the case, would not have been privy to Druitt. All papers pertaining to any suspicion must have passed his eye. And that Sir MM kept so many at arms length with this "truth" , I just cannot take in.

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Thank you for your posting.

So I do not understand your comment: "For the three card trick to work, none of the three must be seen to go against the other. " What does that mean exactly? Why shouldn't any of the three go against each other?

It means each of the three, for suspect Ripperologists conforming to Kosminski theory, (not the police themselves, please note) need the three to dovetail.
That Sir MM mentioned Kosminski in the memoranda as a suspect more plausible than Cutbush, this allies itself to interpretation of Kosminski being a reliable suspect as being the Ripper. That Anderson's Polish Jew theory is almost certainly meant to mean Kosminski, and that Swanson actually mentioned Kosminski as being that suspect.

I do not really see how anyone could think that Macnaghten would know more about the case than Swanson and Anderson anyway.

I agree, as I purposely said that Swanson had ALL the paperwork on the case in front of him at all times. I was answering Jonathan when saying the above.

We do not know what Swanson believed about Kozminski's guilt. And as I have argued on many occasions, I think it is clear that Anderson's certainty over Kozminski's guilt should be seen as more accurately a "moral proof." In any case, it is beside the point, because if they were actually certain, Kozminski would have been convicted.

No, we do not know. We also do not know why Swanson maintained in the marginalia that Kosminski died shortly afterwards in the asylum either. An error I find incompatible with the man having every piece of information at his fingertips at the time of the investigation. He would have known Kosminski, IF a suspect at all, was still alive. As far as Anderson's moral guilt line, the supposition there is non-provable and only, surely, an interpretation, much like someone saying Anderson wasn't likely to lie.

One possibility that has been suggested is that the witness was perhaps convalescing from an illness.

Well, I would think that the witness, NOT being a policeman, would not be residing at a Police Seaside Home. However, the possibility of witness illness is pure conjecture, even if we accept the incident happened there, as there is no corrobarative evidence from anyone, ever.

About Swanson's belief that the Ripper had died in an asylum by 1895. This nugget of information was released to the press (apparently) after the killing of Augusta Dawes by Reginald Saunderson sparked a new panic that the Ripper had returned. As reported in the Bangor Daily Whig and Courier (Jan 17, 1895) "In connection with young Saunderson's insane crime and the Kensington stabbings the authorities have been extremely alarmed lest another Jack the Ripper scare should seize upon the popular mind. "

Excuse me for being slightly puzzled, but that means that in January 1895, Swanson connected THIS stabbing case and purpetrator with the Ripper in his mind, who subsequently died in an asylum (have you a date?) then keeping the Ripper in mind, chased after Grainger in February, then in May the article claiming Swanson had said the Ripper was dead actually referred to the purpetrator of the crimes in January?

So these reports came out a) as a result of the police wanting to supress the public excitement after the killing of Augusta Dawes that the Ripper had perhaps returned, and also b) just about 7 months after Aaron Kozminski had been transferred to Leavesden asylum.

What has Kosminski being in Leavesdon to do with any killing of Augusta Dawes if the purpetrator (released info from the police) was to supress any excitement that the Ripper had returned? I'm sorry but I cannot see what Kosminski being in Leavesdon has to do with this? He could be in Tokyo and it would mean just as little.

It is also interesting to note that the first appearance of Druitt and the "Ripper suicide by drowning" theory came out just 4 days after Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch in 1891.

Coincidence, as I keep getting told every time I bring up something of interest to note. No offence, it's a common comment on here.

And that the Macnaghten Memorandum was clearly written as a sort of internal response to the Sun articles on Cutbush... which incidentally, came out just BEFORE Aaron's transfer to Leavesden.

More coincidence. See how unfortunate coincidence becomes when one is trying to make interesting connections? As Kosminski was locked up anyway, it doesn't matter if he was moved from anywhere at anytime to anywhere else.

Admittedly, there is no clarity to exactly what happened. But in my mind, it is entirely plausible that the Police (at a minimum) released some false statements to the press about the Ripper being dead, simply to calm the public's fears and quell future public excitement when any Ripper-like murder occurred. In addition, this would keep nosy people from finding the real man the Police believed was the Ripper.

Thank you for that candour and those thoughts. But its all speculation Rob, like it or not. You could say, if you were of that mind to, that they knew it was Prince Eddy and used the same trick with the Press. Or Druitt (as Jonathan no doubt would like- no offence Jonathan)

It also seems possible to me that Swanson's later belief that the Ripper had died, somehow originated from Aaron's transfer to Leavesden. But I am not clear at all about how that might have happened.
I do not see that any of this should be very hard to believe or understand.

I understand it, no problem.. I understand it as pure supposition and speculation without any straw of factual evidence. That things happened when they did doesn't make a case any stronger for Kosminski's guilt. What is possible is not fact, as I am constantly told.

What does frustrate me, is the continual and rather pompous posturing of modern day theorists who seem to have no qualms at all in declaring themselves to be more knowledgeable about the Ripper inquiry than the people who actually were in charge of it.

And yet when theorists speculate on possibilities and use that interpretation of occurrances as a basis of their suspect ripperology, that is any better?
With all due respect, I don't think so. (Nothing personal).

Rob, I have read your book. A really good book, congratulations, with a fair analysis of the case against Kosminski. But you probably realised yourself that there isn't enough evidence to actually call this man a viable suspect without a document from the police, as I did. The marginalia just isn't a police document. Its an opinion written at least 22 years after the murders, possibly 36 years after the murders, scribbled in a pencil in a privately owned book on an unknown date, perhaps at different times, with at least one very large discrepancy and at least one unproven comment. That is not evidence. Sorry.

(Incase you wonder, I don't happen to be a fan of profiling, and am not convinced by the methodology..as many others)

Thanks for your posting. Very interesting.


kindly

Phil