Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[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!

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[Chris]

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.

Again, that is something you are reading into what Adam said, which was simply this:
"All I can say is that research is underway which has thrown up some interesting facts which I'm following up with a view to publication in the future."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=200160&postcount=18

Nothing about those facts suggesting that Swanson meant a different Kosminski.

[robhouse]

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

If you want to quibble over "Police" versus "former police officials" etc, thats fine. It does not change the fact that Anderson probably knew as much about Kozminski and the Ripper case as anyone. As I have written before, it is entirely possible that some of the other police you list did not know all the facts about Kozminski, especially if Anderson undertook to handle the situation with discretion as he may have done. I realize that the response about "fairy tales" etc is the standard tack for those who want to pooh pooh Anderson and the whole Kozminski suspect theory. Fine. Again, but let's not get sidetracked, with this and the marginalia. You said I did not answer your question. OK. Here is an answer:

"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? "

Answer: yes, that is a possibility. Certainly.

However, my whole point here is that this new article fits with a theory I have been expressing for some time—notably, that the police would have gone to lengths to cover up Kozminski as a suspect, for the reasons I expressed. And Also—that the timing of this, along with the timing of the probably related Halifax article fits exactly with Kozminski's first admission to MEOT Workhouse.

So, despite your opinions on it, I thank you for posting an article which fits in precisely with my theory. Could I be wrong? Of course.

As to what Adam Wood wrote... it may come as a surprise to you but I know Adam, and consider him a friend. I also consider him to be a very good and fair researcher. And if he has anything to say on the matter I will listen to it. And if he discovers new information that exonerates Kozminski, I will listen to it then too.

But I don't see what it has to do with this thread. Except that you seem determined to derail it.

What do you think about the fact, as I posted earlier, that the timing of the Halifax article fits almost exactly with the amount of time it would take after say July 15 for a letter to get to Halifax by boat? I haven't heard a peep about that.

Just a coincidence?

RH

[Phil Carter]

If you want to quibble over "Police" versus "former police officials" etc, thats fine. It does not change the fact that Anderson probably knew as much about Kozminski and the Ripper case as anyone. As I have written before, it is entirely possible that some of the other police you list did not know all the facts about Kozminski, especially if Anderson undertook to handle the situation with discretion as he may have done. I realize that the response about "fairy tales" etc is the standard tack for those who want to pooh pooh Anderson and the whole Kozminski suspect theory. Fine. Again, but let's not get sidetracked, with this and the marginalia. You said I did not answer your question. OK. Here is an answer:

"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? "

Answer: yes, that is a possibility. Certainly.

However, my whole point here is that this new article fits with a theory I have been expressing for some time—notably, that the police would have gone to lengths to cover up Kozminski as a suspect, for the reasons I expressed. And Also—that the timing of this, along with the timing of the probably related Halifax article fits exactly with Kozminski's first admission to MEOT Workhouse.

So, despite your opinions on it, I thank you for posting an article which fits in precisely with my theory. Could I be wrong? Of course.

As to what Adam Wood wrote... it may come as a surprise to you but I know Adam, and consider him a friend. I also consider him to be a very good and fair researcher. And if he has anything to say on the matter I will listen to it. And if he discovers new information that exonerates Kozminski, I will listen to it then too.

But I don't see what it has to do with this thread. Except that you seem determined to derail it.

What do you think about the fact, as I posted earlier, that the timing of the Halifax article fits almost exactly with the amount of time it would take after say July 15 for a letter to get to Halifax by boat? I haven't heard a peep about that.

Just a coincidence?

RH

Hello Rob,

Thank you for your open and honest answer to my question. I respect that.

As far as derailing the thread is concerned, I don't think I am doing that as the intrisic part of my point is related directly to said thread. And it is MY thread.. I started it.. so I should know if I am derailing it or not? Just a suggestion...we all know that it is nigh on impossible to not diversify into other connecting parts here.. agreed, it should be limited, but as far as I can see no-one has derailed anything per se up until now.

As far as me not answering the "Halifax" comment and link to the Tamworth article, I am still reading through the thread and considering it, as it seems to have come to a slight impasse at this juncture?

If one is going to sling stones about not answering, I noticed that you have again chosen not to comment on the fact that you are now trying to tell us that the police were indeed involved in a cover-up in order to explain the tie-in with your own suspect theory. When we outsiders, who have no suspect theory as such, do the same to explain police behaviour, suddenly we are called "conspiratorial".

This isnt personal Rob, but you can see that it doesnt wash that some people can be accepted to use that line "cover-up" but others can't. Goose and gander.

Like you say... I could be right. It could be just the police saying it as it is. Like you say, there is a possibility that it was part of some sort of cover-up operation. So what do you say to those who don't even think this article originated from the police in the first place?

As far as Adam is concerned, as a person (whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking with as well, btw) I know his dedication to the genre is very genuine. However, like I would say to others, anything that anyone is going to be put forward has to be regarded with a neutral viewpoint as starting point...and Adam will have to accept, for or against, the questions that come from his comments and eventual revelations.

My own personal thoughts are stated clearly on that thread, and are simply this.

The genre, imho, will not be benefitted with more faded scribble in books and the like. What is needed is bona-fida official paperwork, when it comes to suspect information. We all know how much acrimony is caused by the marginalia. We really don't need more of that sort of thing thrown at us. Because the marginalia itself has proved to be a source of unfathomable speculation based on comments written that are either false or unprovable, or unknown, or in contrast to known procedure.

WE don't need more of that. Clouding the issue is all it does. There is no evidence of any person being guilty of the Whitechapel murders per se. Unless we get official papåerwork on any name, we cannot consider the so-called presentational evidence of a few former policemen as evidence of certain knowledge. Morelike evidence of certain thought on the matter.

Hello Chris,

If you look through the comments of Mr. Wood in that thread on jtrforums, the comments are as clear as daylight. You have highlighted only one. There is ongoing research into the possibility that although the name Kosminski was written down by Swanson, it may not have pertained to Aaron Kosminski after all. That comment is on that thread. Even Mr Wescott's last posting of the thread refers to the same said thing.



Phil

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Thank you for your open and honest answer to my question. I respect that.

As far as derailing the thread is concerned, I don't think I am doing that as the intrisic part of my point is related directly to said thread. And it is MY thread.. I started it.. so I should know if I am derailing it or not? Just a suggestion...we all know that it is nigh on impossible to not diversify into other connecting parts here.. agreed, it should be limited, but as far as I can see no-one has derailed anything per se up until now.

As far as me not answering the "Halifax" comment and link to the Tamworth article, I am still reading through the thread and considering it, as it seems to have come to a slight impasse at this juncture?

If one is going to sling stones about not answering, I noticed that you have again chosen not to comment on the fact that you are now trying to tell us that the police were indeed involved in a cover-up in order to explain the tie-in with your own suspect theory. When we outsiders, who have no suspect theory as such, do the same to explain police behaviour, suddenly we are called "conspiratorial".

This isnt personal Rob, but you can see that it doesnt wash that some people can be accepted to use that line "cover-up" but others can't. Goose and gander.

Like you say... I could be right. It could be just the police saying it as it is. Like you say, there is a possibility that it was part of some sort of cover-up operation. So what do you say to those who don't even think this article originated from the police in the first place?

As far as Adam is concerned, as a person (whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking with as well, btw) I know his dedication to the genre is very genuine. However, like I would say to others, anything that anyone is going to be put forward has to be regarded with a neutral viewpoint as starting point...and Adam will have to accept, for or against, the questions that come from his comments and eventual revelations.

My own personal thoughts are stated clearly on that thread, and are simply this.

The genre, imho, will not be benefitted with more faded scribble in books and the like. What is needed is bona-fida official paperwork, when it comes to suspect information. We all know how much acrimony is caused by the marginalia. We really don't need more of that sort of thing thrown at us. Because the marginalia itself has proved to be a source of unfathomable speculation based on comments written that are either false or unprovable, or unknown, or in contrast to known procedure.

WE don't need more of that. Clouding the issue is all it does. There is no evidence of any person being guilty of the Whitechapel murders per se. Unless we get official papåerwork on any name, we cannot consider the so-called presentational evidence of a few former policemen as evidence of certain knowledge. Morelike evidence of certain thought on the matter.

Hello Chris,

If you look through the comments of Mr. Wood in that thread on jtrforums, the comments are as clear as daylight. You have highlighted only one. There is ongoing research into the possibility that although the name Kosminski was written down by Swanson, it may not have pertained to Aaron Kosminski after all. That comment is on that thread. Even Mr Wescott's last posting of the thread refers to the same said thing.



Phil

Phil,

Thank you for your response. I respect the fact that we are keeping this civil etc.

My point is that I don't see the point in derailing this discussion of the Tamworth article with discussions of the Swanson marginalia, Anderson's fairy tales, Adam Wood, or other points that people contend weakens Kozminski as a suspect. To be honest, it is frustrating to me that whenever new information comes to light, the information itself is discussed for about 5 minutes, then the thread devolves to these same old arguments. So let's stick to the topic at hand, so we don't all get bored.

As far as me wanting it both ways about a police cover up etc... yes, I am aware that it may come across like that. But honestly, I am simply trying to take all the sources and come up with a theory that adequately explains them, in as simple a manner as possible. And my theory does that, IMO, because it is a) simple, and b) logical, given what is known about Kozminski, and the Kozminski investigation.

As to whether the article originated with the police... OK, well, the statement originated with SY did it not? I don't really understand the point actually...

In any case, it is clear that a rumor was going around in July 1890 that a Ripper suspect had been arrested. Do we agree on that at least?

And if so, do we agree that this is most likely the same story that was told to the Halifax lady?

RH

[Chris]

If you look through the comments of Mr. Wood in that thread on jtrforums, the comments are as clear as daylight. You have highlighted only one. There is ongoing research into the possibility that although the name Kosminski was written down by Swanson, it may not have pertained to Aaron Kosminski after all. That comment is on that thread. Even Mr Wescott's last posting of the thread refers to the same said thing.

Phil, I've quoted what Adam said in the comment you referred to previously, and he did not say, as you claimed, that his research suggested that Swanson was referring to a different Kozminski from Aaron.

If he indicated that elsewhere, please quote what he said. But as far as I can see he did not indicate that - he only pointed out to you that in your comments you were making an assumption about the identity of 'Kosminski'.

Obviously you are free to speculate on Adam's unpublished research may or may not show, but that speculation really needs to be clearly distinguished from what Adam has said himself.

[Robert]

I found this online :

http://archive.org/stream/lifelettersofrth02tuppuoft#page/138/mode/2up

Tupper seems to have received a visit from Sir John Thompson at the relevant time. Thompson was married, but I don't know whether his wife accompanied him on the trip.

[Robert]

I haven't traced them coming in but I have a record of Sir John and Lady Thompson departing 14th Aug 1890 on the Parisian from Liverpool bound for Quebec.

[Monty]

Again, that is something you are reading into what Adam said, which was simply this:
"All I can say is that research is underway which has thrown up some interesting facts which I'm following up with a view to publication in the future."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=200160&postcount=18

Nothing about those facts suggesting that Swanson meant a different Kosminski.

It is quite clear what Adam said. Phil barking up the wrong research tree.

Not that it matters.

Monty

[Hunter]

Just a favor, please folks.

The thread would move better if you don't re-post entire posts of people you are responding to - especially long ones that immediately proceeds yours. Just address who you are responding too. Readers will have likely just read it and will know what the response relates to and your reply will be more likely read than passed over because of what becomes a tedious train.

Specific points can be isolated within quote brackets and answers given by progression of addressing points individually. Much easier for others to follow.

Thanks