Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[Chris]

Hello Chris, I too am sorry, because I believe you may be reading the article with blinkers on. Why not take it as it reads.. quite simple, the police are denying that any person has been...etc etc... now that means up to that point in time, and if someone had been held either in an asylum previously to this, then they are actually telling porkies by helping to cover up the actual fact.

Yes, we'll have to differ, because I think it's absolutely clear that the report is denying the truth of a particular "story" which had been reported in the press, not making a general statement.

[Phil Carter]

I'm sorry, but I think you're reading something into the report that just isn't there. It doesn't say anything about whether the real culprit is known, unknown, dead, alive, free or in captivity. It simply denies a specific story that the Ripper had recently been arrested.

Hello Chris, I too am sorry, because I believe you may be reading the article with blinkers on. Why not take it as it reads.. quite simple, the police are denying that any person has been...etc etc... now that means up to that point in time, and if someone had been held either in an asylum previously to this, then they are actually telling porkies by helping to cover up the actual fact.

We beg to differ, it seems.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

You said you would "walk along with me". Did you? Really? Try actually thinking this through.

You ask "when exactly is it safe to divulge all the information to the public"?

The answer to this is twofold:

1. The police could never, I repeat NEVER divulge all the information... ie. the suspect's name, etc. This would be a) pointless, b) a security threat to his relatives, asylum staff, etc, and 3) quite probably illegal.

2. The police could—and did (Anderson 1910)—divulge enough information to tell the story in brief without revealing details, for reasons that Anderson gave in his book, so I won't bother giving here.

Now, what part of that do you disagree with?

RH

Hello Rob,

Pointless? ahh, I see. Pointless, ever.... that I do not see.

First of all, point 2 of yours.... the police did not do anything of the sort.

A FORMER policeman, retired and ageing(Anderson), wrote of the incident in his autobiography. He did not name anyone. THE POLICE, as an active unit, an existing unit, have NEVER done anything of the sort Rob.

If you count that(Anderson) as an official Police statement, count in Reid. He said nothing was known at all. If you count Anderson, count in Abberline, who named another man as likely. If you count Anderson, count in MacNaghten, who named another as more likely than yet another the Sun mentioned. If you count Anderson, count in Littlechild, who named yet another "suspect".

No Rob, THE POLICE did nothing of the sort. FORMER policemen said what THEY, individually, believed.And when it comes to Anderson, his credibility at the time was as clear as daylight. The self same man was referred to by Winston Churchill, MP, in making up "fairy-tales".

That's why I disagree with your too comments Rob.

I said I'd walk a little with you. But let's be honest.. when you start saying "The POLICE said...." you really are stretching the cause. Fact. FORMER, RETIRED POLICEMEN said.... and they all said different. Fact.

As for the "explanation" with the name in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.... we all know that there are more holes in that story than in Swiss cheese. It has been pointed out more times than Liberace tinkled his ivories.

I have to say that the Tamworth article is yet another example of an instance telling us clearly that the idea of anyone having been caught is poppycock.

You didnt answer my point Rob, from before.. I will repeat it.

Why can't THIS article be the Police telling the public, through an official statement, that "JTR" was still not caught.. why can't the police actually be telling us the truth? I'm told that we must trust our eyes with the police. I'm told that we must read what we see as is..yet when it comes down to it, people are now starting to try to call this a police move for a sort of cover-up, and even, in one case, that we don't have to believe it was a statement from the police at all!

Yet when the boot is on the other foot and we others who have no "prime suspect" in mind, tell you the police are pulling a fast one, doing a cover-up to save face etc... we are told that we are "conspirationalists" of sorts.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And what is more, I suggest you'd like to comment on Adam Wood's comment from a couple of months ago that research was now going on to suggest that although "Kosminski" was written down in the marginalia, that was not exactly whom (as in Aaron Kosminski) Swanson meant. I think you will find the thread here, on JTR Forums.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=18239

In particular, post 10, in which we are informed that "You don't know that DSS's indelible memory had failed... just because Jim is trying to explain why the fate of Aaron Kosminski's date of death doesn't tally with the marginalia, it doesn't meant that's who DSS was writing about."

and same post...

"You're assuming he was writing about Aaron Kosminski. "

and post 18.. which is just as revealing in it's nature. If not moreso.


I walked with you a little Rob, but sorry, stating that the "police" did so... when clearly they did not, only individual retired policemen given their best guess...then I stopped walking.



Phil

[Chris]

It does however, leave the distinct impression that the "JTR suspect" was still on the loose and mentions nothing in any form to impress upon us anything to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but I think you're reading something into the report that just isn't there. It doesn't say anything about whether the real culprit is known, unknown, dead, alive, free or in captivity. It simply denies a specific story that the Ripper had recently been arrested.

[Phil Carter]

It doesn't, though. It just says that particular story - about the Ripper having been arrested - has no foundation.

Hello Chris,

No, it doesn't say it in words. It does however, leave the distinct impression that the "JTR suspect" was still on the loose and mentions nothing in any form to impress upon us anything to the contrary.


Phil

[Chris]

Also remember Swanson and Andersons account conflict with each other.

That is what I had stated in the post you were replying to, and which you quoted!

[Cogidubnus]

Yes Jeff, that's the one...

All the best

Dave

[Mayerling]

Hi Dave,

Was the "Cable Street" Riot of 1936 the confrontation with Mosley's Fascists?

Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Rob

The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

I think that folk underestimate the traditional cussedness/bloody mindedness of the Londoners...London was historically something of a hotbed...and we're talking just over twenty years after the Hyde Park Railings affair, and Bloody Sunday was only 1887 after all.

It ain't stiff upper lip and dignified protest in 19th century London...and the readiness of the East End to rise up and take on all comers can be readily seen as late as the Battle of Cable Street in 1936, maybe even in the 1990 poll tax riots.

All the best

Dave

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

Nope, not Magda Lupescu either. Well, we're gradually shortening the list.

Poor Magda, "As the gentleman came to her rescue...."

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

Nope, not Magda Lupescu either. Well, we're gradually shortening the list.

[Mayerling]

First of all, I think you seem to be lacking a sense of how much hysteria surrounded the Ripper murders. It is not the victim's relatives who would do the attacking, it is the East End working class people in general. Are you aware how many people turned out to see the funeral of the victims, all prostitutes with little f any family in the area... tens of thousands of people.

Now imagine the police releasing a statement saying, "Well, we believe the Ripper is this guy named Kozminski over on Providence Street". The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

Also... in the eyes of the law, he was innocent. The police cannot make a public statement that such-and-such person is probably guilty. It would be libel. Imagine if someone made such a statement about you.

It is incredible to me that people still don't seem to get this.

RH

Hi RH,

I'd agree with your about the risk of mob response in the East End in 1888 and early 1889. But after that I think it could be somewhat discounted. Yes there would be at least three more killings ascribed to the Ripper in the period from Mary Kelly's death to 1891, but they were few and far between (not five or six within a four month period). There were also rumors that the Ripper was dead - possibly a suicide. It would have required more intensive homicidal acts to set a mob going again (and the Tamworth news item is from July 1890 - already at a point that other crimes and events are gaining more notice).

As for the anti-Jewish riots, I will grant that to you - but if the name of the perpetrator was not Jewish (like Deeming or Druitt or Gull or Stephen or Bury) there would not be an anti-Jewish mob. However I can't see a mob from the East End headed to Gull's home in the West End without facing real force - like Warren called out in the Trafalgar Square riots.

I still feel that the more likely reason was what you mentioned - the legal ramifications regarding slandering the "good name" of the suspects.

Jeff

[Mr Lucky]

Actually I realized it was a joke, but my pedantic side got the better of me. Sorry about that.

Hi Jeff

So you realised it was a joke, so you edited the smilies out, so that everyone else would think I'm being serious ?

Pedantic? That isn't being pedantic, that's not the right word at all.

[robhouse]

Hi RH,

I have to ask, what is the security threat to the relatives, asylum staff, etc. from anyone by divulging the name of the suspect? We have here (as far as we can surmise - short of wild speculations concerning "the highest in the land" a la Stephen Knight) that the victims are (with apologies to those victims) common prostitutes. Even Mary Kelly is a common prostitute. For members of their circles of friends or relatives (mostly on the bottom stratum of society) to go out of their way to wreak vengeance on relatives of say Kosminski, Osrog, Druitt, Cutbush, etc. is hard to believe. First the police would be supposedly keeping tabs on the suspects and note people who came around to their addresses too frequently. Secondly, while Kosminski and Osrog might reside nearby, the Druitt family are in Wimborne, and Cutbush is middle class - how would denizens of the East End approach them to do harm to them or their families. And assaults on asylums and their staffs? How about an attack reminiscent of the "Clerkenwall Outrage" of 1868? You might recall you needed a well organized group to pull off that one, with enough money to cover the expenses. This from the relatives of "Long Liz" or or Annie Chapman?

I may mention that some of the suspects would be extremely dangerous to approach with hostile intent. Imagine looking murderous with a weapon at Bury, Cream, Deeming, or Chapman. Who do you think would end up being hurt or killed.

On the other hand your third reason: "probably illegal" is more likely the reason. The Yard had enough headaches from the case to wish to bury it and go on with more current events and problems. They did not need to fight off slander suits from various families or even the named suspects regarding what were technically still wild allegations of identification. That is most likely to be the reason for police reticence.

Jeff

First of all, I think you seem to be lacking a sense of how much hysteria surrounded the Ripper murders. It is not the victim's relatives who would do the attacking, it is the East End working class people in general. Are you aware how many people turned out to see the funeral of the victims, all prostitutes with little f any family in the area... tens of thousands of people.

Now imagine the police releasing a statement saying, "Well, we believe the Ripper is this guy named Kozminski over on Providence Street". The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

Also... in the eyes of the law, he was innocent. The police cannot make a public statement that such-and-such person is probably guilty. It would be libel. Imagine if someone made such a statement about you.

It is incredible to me that people still don't seem to get this.

RH

[Bridewell]

"The Press Association is authorised to state that there is absolutely no foundation for a report that "Jack the Ripper" has been arrested in London.

Whilst it's tempting to conclude that the authorisation came from Scotland Yard, this is not overtly stated. If Scotland Yard was the source, why would the article not specifically make that attribution and thus give the statement much greater weight. By wording it as they have done, the article invites the reader to assume that the authorisation was given by Scotland Yard. By not making that specific attribution they don't invite Scotland Yard to refute it.

As for the timing, vis-a-vis Kosminski, the article alludes to a medical student which Aaron Kosminski certainly wasn't, so I don't see the relevance.