Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[Robert]

Hi Mr Lucky

Well, if the story originated from Halifax, Yorks, then it's very odd that, as far as I am aware, the only report of it that we have from a British newspaper, so far, is the Edinburgh report that you found. They had the story in Canada, and they had it in America, but as far as England goes - zilch.

This woman wasn't Wallis Simpson, was she?

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Ok.. I will walk along with you a little here.....so WHEN exactly is it then safe to divulge ALL of this information to the public? What could so SO historically horrific about this man and his antecedants that ensure he and they are never known to the public? We cannot surely be talking about a hopeless wreck like Aaron Kosminski.


However...it is equally likely that the information needed not to be supressed and was just TRUE. (The Tamworth statement) You know Rob, a TRUE statement by the police, in response..

I keep being told that we have no reason to disbelieve them.. yet here you are telling me that they were making cover up stories?

Hang on a minute... we seem to have suddenly switched places! That's normally what I get thrown at me!

Try..the police knew nothing at this time Rob. And this was the truth. No cover up stories of any kind.

Where does that leave Kosminski in the frame now? Framed, long afterwards. That is where. And I wonder why.....well, actually, I don't.




Phil

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

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Ok.. I will walk along with you a little here.....so WHEN exactly is it then safe to divulge ALL of this information to the public? What could so SO historically horrific about this man and his antecedants that ensure he and they are never known to the public? We cannot surely be talking about a hopeless wreck like Aaron Kosminski.


However...it is equally likely that the information needed not to be supressed and was just TRUE. (The Tamworth statement) You know Rob, a TRUE statement by the police, in response..

I keep being told that we have no reason to disbelieve them.. yet here you are telling me that they were making cover up stories?

Hang on a minute... we seem to have suddenly switched places! That's normally what I get thrown at me!

Try..the police knew nothing at this time Rob. And this was the truth. No cover up stories of any kind.

Where does that leave Kosminski in the frame now? Framed, long afterwards. That is where. And I wonder why.....well, actually, I don't.




Phil

[robhouse]

ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION.
RIDICULOUS CONCOCTION

That seems to put an end to all speculation catagorically. Night night all suspects up to this date.

Phil

Phil,

If the incident with Kozminski happened as stated in the sources—ie. Anderson became convinced he was guilty, witness refused to testify, police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him—(and it likely happened around July 1890), do you not think the police would have wanted to suppress this information from getting out to the public? Wouldn't they would have tried to squash the story, stop any leaks? If so, then "absolutely no foundation" and "ridiculous concoction" would do the trick.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Obviously, it's a denial of the specific story that the killer had been arrested in (or shortly before) July 1890.

It doesn't mean people hadn't been suspected before that date, or that suspects hadn't been arrested. We know they had. Logically, it doesn't even imply that the police were unaware of the killer's identity.

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply. I have replied with the answer in the postings above. My apologies for referring to posts in response back to front, as it were.

Hope you are well? Long time no see.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Observer,

I have a feeling, although perhaps mistaken, that Cutbush and Collicott are once again being mixed up here. But like you say, and I agree, the case for Thomas Cutbush being locked away far outweighs the case for Aaron Kosminski. But the wheels mustn't be allowed to fall off the bandwagon, must they?.. It has to keep rolling along. Myth upon myth perpetuated by? and for what reason?

One or two of us have seen the light a long time ago. We are no longer in darkness.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

When the story breaks , the authorities then deny it, as they would.

Hello Mr. Lucky,

Indeed, the authorities deny when the story breaks.. and let us just take that one step further.

Why would they need to deny this, or any story, unless it were true?

If it were true, then "Jack the Ripper" had not been caught, arrested, locked up, covered up, written about in secret, or killed himself.

The plain fact of the matter is that by this date, "Jack the Ripper" had still not been caught. Which means?.. Well, we both know what it means. The hunt is still ongoing.

Like I said, all previously thought of suspects are therefore, by this act (and others) made redundant.

People can argue with that as long as they wish.

I hear people saying "no, no cover up theories allowed..."...and yet, in order to keep some people's own suspect in the frame... and it is a framing....the police "must have" covered up the arrest of "Jack the Ripper"!... that way it fits in with the memoranda (and the marginalia) stories.

Paradox upon paradox.

The simple answer to all suspect theories is that IF you are going to believe the police at all, then believe that there was no known locked away, drowned or dead, previously arrested or wide travelling suspect before 1896 when the OFFICIAL police answer, upon closing the file was... and still is... CASE UNSOLVED.

If anybody wants to twist the Tamworth article or any other article around in order to keep X in the frame or Y in the frame...it will happen.

I personally just cannot see the problem here. If this story has "absolutley no foundation" and is a "ridiculous concontion".. it tells me that the police are in actual fact, still looking for JTR.

Night night all suspects up to this date. Period. It isn't rocket science. But you'll see that it will get turned around, and has already been, infact. Now, I wonder why that could possibly be?.. Oh ye of little faith, they cry. Poppycock, I cry back. Utter poppycock.



Phil

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Mr Lucky,

Indeed, I published it on here a while ago (just over a year ago infact) and it just seemed to get lost in a storm of other postings at the time. I sort of bumped it up, because I thought it was important and needed bringing to the table.

Hi Phil

Yes, I must have missed it first time round. I personally think its likely that the story is connected to the one from the week before;-

'DEATH OF "JACK THE RIPPER."

For about two years past there has been a man whose name has never been ascertained, but who has been termed "Jack the Ripper," living in the neighbourhood of Upper Holloway. He was a tall, very thin, and strange individual, and was in the habit of walking at a very fast pace, and in an eccentric way through Highgate and the northern suburbs. It appears that a short time ago he was sent to the Islington Infirmary as a wandering lunatic and died two days after, He was frequently asked why he walked at such a pace and in such a manner, and always replied that he did so for the benefit of his health and that the doctor had told him he must expand his lungs.'

The Sheffield Evening Telegraph and Star, 17 July 1890

This man has been termed "Jack the Ripper", but that's just ridicule/abuse. This man is not the killer or even the letter writer, just a unnamed man who is called "Jack the Ripper" by those who don't know him.

However he has been arrested (I presume so, as he was a 'wandering lunatic') and sent to the infirmary. There is a possibility that due to his nickname, someone could believe that this man was the Whitechapel murderer, particularly someone, not from the area who was writing a letter to someone else not from the area.....

When the story breaks , the authorities then deny it, as they would.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Robert

Yes, good point about the Halifax thing. I think the mention of the English Capital is down to a reluctance to repeat "London" (mentioned originally without any qualification). The writer wanted an alternative designation for London. He couldn't say "has been under arrest there for some time" because one or two people might think that Jack had been under arrest at the home of the high-ranking official.

Ha-Ha, any JtR suspect held in such a manner could only be PAV

I think that if a Halifax NS newspaper publishes an item which mentions Halifax, then the ordinary assumption is that Halifax NS is meant.

And that's how the whole issue could have possibly become confused. This is the point I'm trying to make, if a news agency telegraph which contains a reference to 'Halifax' travels across the Atlantic from England and arrives at Halifax N.S. then anyone further along that line of communication, who receives a version of this telegraph could naturally assume that 'Halifax' was 'Halifax N.S.' but that doesn't necessarily mean that the original message actually referred to Halifax N.S.

Also in one of the items, Halifax is described as a city, which is OK for the Canadian one but the Yorkshire one was and is a town, as far as I know.

Yes, that does indicate Halifax N.S. , but again, like the reference to 'N.S.' it's possibly something that has been edited in to that particular version at a later date.

[Observer]

Do we need any more myths?

Just one question from me.

Why was Tommy Cutbush, who did no more than stab some poor lass around the arse region, which is debatable as his solicitor felt there were good grounds for his innocence, sent to England's high security prison for dangerous, homicidal lunatics; while Aaron Kosminski, aka Jack the Ripper, was allowed to lounge around in a local asylum?

Something's not right there.

The thing is Tommy Cutbush did a whole lot more than stab two young lasses around the arse region. Thomas Cutbush escaped within a few hours of being admitted to the Lambeth Infirmary as a lunatic, he was rearrested four days later. He also threatened to shoot Dr Brooks of Wesminster Bridge Road, for administering him with bad medicine. After he was admitted to Broadmoor he was violent, and struck another prisoner a violent blow. He was also heard to say that if he had a knife he would rip up any attendant, or anyone else who tried to upset him. He said he would see Sir Edward Blackall of Scotland Yard (possibly Sir Edward Bradford Commisioner of police) for it is all a fraud. He added that if he had the knife from the pawnbrokers he would settle the whole damn crew of cutthroats.

Cutbush was a genuine candidate for Broadmoor if ever there was one. The fact that he escaped from a lunatic asylum saw to that. And even if he was not guilty of stabbing Florence Johnston in the backside, the authorities believed he did so. A violent lunatic with a desire for escape, end result Broadmoor.

Kosminski, alleged to have threatened his sister with a knife. It has been suggested that this allegation was trumped up as an excuse to put Kosminski in an asylum. He also attacked an attendant with a chair. However This from the Colney Hatch Admissions and Discharges Book 1892.

"He is not believed to be dangerous to himself or others"

No threats to kill from Kosminski, or a desire to escape, and generally, during the whole of his incarceration showing inactivity, and apathy.

The pieces on Cutbush incidentally were gleaned from David Bullock's excellent book The Man Who Would Be Jack The Ripper.

[Chris]

ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION.
RIDICULOUS CONCOCTION

That seems to put an end to all speculation catagorically. Night night all suspects up to this date.

Obviously, it's a denial of the specific story that the killer had been arrested in (or shortly before) July 1890.

It doesn't mean people hadn't been suspected before that date, or that suspects hadn't been arrested. We know they had. Logically, it doesn't even imply that the police were unaware of the killer's identity.

[Phil Carter]

The article Phil found was from the Press Association based in London, and 'authorised' was from the 26th July

Hello Mr Lucky,

Indeed, I published it on here a while ago (just over a year ago infact) and it just seemed to get lost in a storm of other postings at the time. I sort of bumped it up, because I thought it was important and needed bringing to the table.

Hello Rob,

To answer your original question,. see the comment above.


Hello all,

I have been away for the weekend, so have not had the chance to reply to all of this.

Let's just get something very straight here shall we?

There is very little chance, imo, that an authorised statement can come from anyone else than Scotland Yard on this matter. We must surely look at this in that light, first and foremost. For me, it is a "given" as I read the article.

Now with that in mind, the contents are very important indeed. The point of interest here affects two, if not more, so-called suspects. One, Druitt, the other, Kosminski, the others speak for themselves.

There are other responses known to us all that "JTR" was not caught, way up towards the time of 1896. Indeed, when certain files were closed on the case, it remained "unsolved" for ever afterwards. That is official. Ask any person presently responsible for such things and you will be told the same as we were once told back in the 1970's...the case remains unsolved. That's an official line, ladies and gentlemen. Whatever anyone has had published since, including the Marginalia and the Memorandum. We have loads of official responses, both through the press and otherwise, from policemen and doctors, that confirm this.

And yes, I am deliberately ignoring the Marginalia. Why? Because the Marginalia and the Memorandum of the two authors cannot BOTH be right.
Both MacNaghten and Anderson cannot both be right. Both Macnaghten and Swanson cannot both be right either. None of these can be right if Abberline is. Abberline likewise vis a vis the three above. Littlechild cannot be right if any of the 4 of the above are right, and if Littlechild is correct, then Swanson, Anderson, Macnaghten and Abberline cannot be right. If Reid is right, etc etc etc ....

So let's just ignore the merry-go-round when dealing with this and get back to basics. It is an authorised statement. We have no reason to doubt that comment.

Here is the original posting...

The following comes from the Tamworth Herald, 26th July 1890.

"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. The whole story is described by the officials at Scotland Yard as a ridiculous concoction"

Well, now we know were we stand 1890. The Press Association were authorised....doesn't that mean.. tell the public it's rubbish, we order you? Now who on earth would give that order apart from Scotland Yard themselves?

ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION.
RIDICULOUS CONCOCTION

That seems to put an end to all speculation catagorically. Night night all suspects up to this date.

Phil

[Chris]

I think that if a Halifax NS newspaper publishes an item which mentions Halifax, then the ordinary assumption is that Halifax NS is meant.

Yes.

Looking at the dates, there was probably an earlier article in one of the other newspapers published in Halifax (N.S.), but those aren't held in England and as far as I know have not been digitised yet, so they would need to be looked for by someone in a library in North America.

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

Assuming that my guess about Sir Charles Tupper being the individual in London is correct I have been trying to find more details about him. In the book, "Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada's Leaders" by J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer (Toronto: Harper Collins Canada, A Phyllis Bruce Book, 1999), there is some more information. Tupper has a low ranking among the Prime Ministers because of the brevity of his term in 1896 (3 months). However, he had been suggested as Sir John MacDonald's successor for years before Sir John died in 1891. There were two reasons he refused the offer that year. He liked the good life in London as High Commissioner (which I mentioned earlier), and the Governor General of Canada and his wife (Lord and Lady Aberdeen) disliked him due to his reputation as a rake. Although he appears to have been happily married (a point I am guessing at), he was known to many as "the Ram of the Cumberland" regarding his sexual habits. They only turned to him after their last choice, the abysmally slow and stupid Sir Mackenzie Bowell botched things badly over a parochial school matter ("the Manitoba School" issue) in 1894-96. Then the Aberdeens reluctantly agreed to ask Tupper to take control.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi Mr Lucky

Yes, good point about the Halifax thing. I think the mention of the English Capital is down to a reluctance to repeat "London" (mentioned originally without any qualification). The writer wanted an alternative designation for London. He couldn't say "has been under arrest there for some time" because one or two people might think that Jack had been under arrest at the home of the high-ranking official.

I think that if a Halifax NS newspaper publishes an item which mentions Halifax, then the ordinary assumption is that Halifax NS is meant.

Also in one of the items, Halifax is described as a city, which is OK for the Canadian one but the Yorkshire one was and is a town, as far as I know.