Seaside Home?

[Jonathan H]

That Anderson and/or Swanson came to believe, in early 1891 or later, on perhaps quite compelling evidence that an incarcerated 'Kosminski' was likely the Ripper, but already beyond their reach -- sure.

That's entirely plausible.

That there was no official investigation would explain the howler about thinking he is deceased when he is alive, and it would explain why other significant police figures are in the dark about this suspect -- sure.

But an elaborate investigation before he was sectioned, involving transporting Aaron Kosminski to a police convalescent hospital (?) and then the City Police exhaustively watching the same man, and no other significant police figures have ever heard of all this, not even a rumour? No way! It would leak, instantly, if not eventually, certainly inevitably.

In all my years reading and watching politics and the media I have never known of such a tale where, when it does finally get told by a top player, nobody corroborates it, except Swanson privately not publicly -- if that is what he was doing -- in fact quite the opposite.

Not only does Macnaghten (who also knows 'Kosminski' is not dead) not back up the Polish Jewish suspect as even viable, in 1914, he specifically rejects the notions that the real Ripper had ever been sectioned or that he was ever seen by anybody who could make it stick. His memoirs are written partly to debunk Anderson (eg. I found the journalist-hoaxer!) and he is backed by every other significant police figure in the case on this issue.

It's one thing to keep close-mouthed regarding what you might be told about an anguished family's suspicions in a gentleman's club, quite another to keep quiet the official transportation, confrontation and surveillance of nothing less than Jack the Ripper?!

[The Good Michael]

Paul and Monty,

You hint at a long bureaucratic process here that many people don't take into consideration when looking at a case against Kosminski or someone like that. Veracity and believability of witness statements; actual identification made by witnesses long after the fact; signing of statements; accumulation of other evidence; statements by family, friends, neighbors, and finally a case being brought before a magistrate based upon all this fact-finding. There are so many possible snag points along the way.

People often simply suggest something to the effect of, "If the police thought so and so guilty, they never would have let him go." This is the same black and white thinking that leads to much political polarization in the United States, though that's not a topic for this thread. People need to understand the entire process and realize that the ideas behind a legal process is just as much about protection of rights as it is about punishing the guilty.

If one follows this logic, the idea of a man locked up in an asylum as an alternative to seeking prosecution through a tedious and not always just legal process, is actually not such a bad thing.

Mike

[lynn cates]

circs

Hello Mr. Begg.

"it seems safe to assume that some sort of other evidence existed and that the suspect would have been questioned."

In other words, Sir MLM's "many circs"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

little white lie

Hello Jonathan. Is it possible that the "suspect is dead" is a little white lie designed to:

1. Reassure the public.

2. Warn away news people who might seek an interview with the killer?

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

I don't believe that Anderson and/or Swanson ever knowing told untruths.

I think it's a flat-out lie told by Macnaghten to them, just as he told a variation of this tale to Tom Divall.

Yet he did not repeat it to Griffiths and Sims, and through them the public, as he did not want any competing fatal suspects for his drowned doctor -- who must be best because he was so unable to cope with his 'awful glut' he drowned himself immediately.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs,
Yes, but my reading is that the witness did and could swear to the suspect being the man he'd seen, but subsequent to the initial confrontation, and for reasons which may or may not have been genuine, he refused to say so in court.

After all, they had a witness, they had what they believed was a positive eye-witness identification, yet an action by the eye-witness subsequent to the identification was evidently blamed by Anderson for preventing the police from bringing charges. Since a flat out refusal to appear in court is unlikely, though not impossible, and could have been remedied with a subpoena, albeit at the risk of having a hostile witness, it seems to be that a refusal to positively identify the witness in court is far more likely (and actually not uncommon) and not easily remedied. Anderson's wording seems to be to sustain that interpretation.

So what reason would the police have for releasing a positively identified suspect? Aside from other speculated reasons, such as the Met having "snatched" a City suspect, they had to bring charges within a specified period of time of release the suspect. This latter is what Anderson appears to be referring to when he said that more crimes would be solved in Britain if the British police had recourse to the methods of their French counterparts - holding on to a suspect almost indefinitely being allowable there. So I suggest that the police released the suspect and kept him under close 24-hour surveillance, intending to persuade the eye-witness to give evidence, but that the suspect's family had him certified before charges could be brought.

Dunno how that pans to you, but I think it's a scenario which fits the wording.

Paul

Ah, so there was no uncertainty? The witness refused to swear to the suspect in court after swearing to them previously to police? Yes, that would seem to fit. Thanks, Paul.

Apologies for butting in with this little blip...

[PaulB]

That Anderson and/or Swanson came to believe, in early 1891 or later, on perhaps quite compelling evidence that an incarcerated 'Kosminski' was likely the Ripper, but already beyond their reach -- sure.

That's entirely plausible.

That there was no official investigation would explain the howler about thinking he is deceased when he is alive, and it would explain why other significant police figures are in the dark about this suspect -- sure.

But an elaborate investigation before he was sectioned, involving transporting Aaron Kosminski to a police convalescent hospital (?) and then the City Police exhaustively watching the same man, and no other significant police figures have ever heard of all this, not even a rumour? No way! It would leak, instantly, if not eventually, certainly inevitably.

But it didn't.

In all my years reading and watching politics and the media I have never known of such a tale where, when it does finally get told by a top player, nobody corroborates it, except Swanson privately not publicly -- if that is what he was doing -- in fact quite the opposite.

But nobody did.

Jonathan, there are other instances of policemen claiming to know who a criminal was and being unable to prove it, maybe not in cases of this magnitude, but it happens.

Not only does Macnaghten (who also knows 'Kosminski' is not dead) not back up the Polish Jewish suspect as even viable, in 1914, he specifically rejects the notions that the real Ripper had ever been sectioned or that he was ever seen by anybody who could make it stick. His memoirs are written partly to debunk Anderson (eg. I found the journalist-hoaxer!) and he is backed by every other significant police figure in the case on this issue.

It's one thing to keep close-mouthed regarding what you might be told about an anguished family's suspicions in a gentleman's club, quite another to keep quiet the official transportation, confrontation and surveillance of nothing less than Jack the Ripper?!

Yep, and if it was otherwise I wouldn't be doing what I am doing now. But it appears to be what happened - unless you start violating the source material to force fit it into some other scenario, such as it all being confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home.

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg.

"it seems safe to assume that some sort of other evidence existed and that the suspect would have been questioned."

In other words, Sir MLM's "many circs"?

Cheers.
LC

A good point and, yes, one would assume so.

[PaulB]

Ah, so there was no uncertainty? The witness refused to swear to the suspect in court after swearing to them previously to police? Yes, that would seem to fit. Thanks, Paul.

Apologies for butting in with this little blip...

Hi Debs,
You make it sound a lot blunter than I intended, but that's basically how I'd read it. I don't know that the witness necessarily swore to the police that the suspect was the man he saw, then refused to swear to him in court. I can imagine a witness seeing someone who looked like the person they saw and expressing an initial and immediate certainty, but afterwards on sober reflection having doubts, and if you believe somebody's life hangs in the balance then I'd think those doubts would be pretty weighty. But take that account by "Mentor" where he says that the Ripper crimes were not in the nature of a Jew and that he'd have a hard time believing that a Jew would have committed them. If he'd identified the suspect, do you think he'd have revised his opinion on learning that the suspect was a Jew? That's what he seems to claim. Maybe the witness thought along the same lines?

What may have been convincing to the police, however, was the suspect's reaction, expressed by Swanson as the suspect knowing he'd been identified. That's always struck me as a superfluous comment unless it means something specific, namely that the suspect reacted to the witness in some way. But that's another question.

Paul

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Forgive me if I feel that there is such a strong pro Kosminski influence being exerted here. It seems already accepted that it was kosminski we are talking about.

I have only one thing to say. Aaron Davis Cohen, aka David Cohen.

Younf Jew, Dec, Thames Magistrates Court.. lunatic wandering at large.
Committed to Workhouse infirmary for observation.
Age 23.
Dangerous to others
Patient bought in by Police.
Very violent u nder submission.

"Violent about the ward".-Warden, Whitechapel Infirmary.

Destructive to clothing, tore down lead pipe, wire mesh, Dirty habits occasionally (masturbation?), kicks passers by, habitually destructive, (notes made by Doctors Seward and Swanton.

D.21st Oct 1889.

He could be confused with Robert Anderson's Polish Jew..easily. (As can Kosminski)
He loosely matches the differing comments of Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. (as does Kosminski)
Incarceration dates match the ending of the murders.(Kosminski doesn't)
Death is soon after committal, as per Swanson. (Kosminski lives on and on)
Identification timing in Blackwoods indicate after commital (Kosminski doesnt because of date of committal.)
Swanson names Kosminski (not Cohen)
Macnaghten names Kosminski(not Cohen)


The problem for both of them, or anyone else, is that Anderson CONTINUED to hunt the Ripper after Cohen was dead and Kosminski was encarcerated.

That is the main problem for anyone believing Anderson. Was his memoirs just a "we had everything under control" boast?

Sounds like the most likely alternative, otherwise why would he continue to chase down the Ripper after either or both of these men were locked up or dead?

And if dear old Anderson is playing silly games, what price Swanson's views then?. Sounds to me that they were ANDERSONS views that Swanson was underlining with details. But hey, what do I know? I'm just an un-educated pleb who can't think with common sense or logic.

kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello all,

Forgive me if I feel that there is such a strong pro Kosminski influence being exerted here. It seems already accepted that it was kosminski we are talking about.

I have only one thing to say. Aaron Davis Cohen, aka David Cohen.

Younf Jew, Dec, Thames Magistrates Court.. lunatic wandering at large.
Committed to Workhouse infirmary for observation.
Age 23.
Dangerous to others
Patient bought in by Police.
Very violent u nder submission.

"Violent about the ward".-Warden, Whitechapel Infirmary.

Destructive to clothing, tore down lead pipe, wire mesh, Dirty habits occasionally (masturbation?), kicks passers by, habitually destructive, (notes made by Doctors Seward and Swanton.

D.21st Oct 1889.

He could be confused with Robert Anderson's Polish Jew..easily. (As can Kosminski)
He loosely matches the differing comments of Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. (as does Kosminski)
Incarceration dates match the ending of the murders.(Kosminski doesn't)
Death is soon after committal, as per Swanson. (Kosminski lives on and on)
Identification timing in Blackwoods indicate after commital (Kosminski doesnt because of date of committal.)
Swanson names Kosminski (not Cohen)
Macnaghten names Kosminski(not Cohen)


The problem for both of them, or anyone else, is that Anderson CONTINUED to hunt the Ripper after Cohen was dead and Kosminski was encarcerated.

That is the main problem for anyone believing Anderson. Was his memoirs just a "we had everything under control" boast?

Sounds like the most likely alternative, otherwise why would he continue to chase down the Ripper after either or both of these men were locked up or dead?

And if dear old Anderson is playing silly games, what price Swanson's views then?. Sounds to me that they were ANDERSONS views that Swanson was underlining with details. But hey, what do I know? I'm just an un-educated pleb who can't think with common sense or logic.

kindly

Phil

As you know, the Cohen-Kosminski debate has been going on for over two decades and is fully dealt with elsewhere. Anyway, what is your evidence for Anderson continuing to hunt down the Ripper after Aaron Kosminski's committal?

[lynn cates]

puzzle

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

One piece of the puzzle (at least) remains--what was Farqy's EXACT story/theory and why did Sir MLM accept it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

circs

Hello Mr. Begg.

"A good point and, yes, one would assume so."

Thanks. Wish we knew:

1. What, precisely, those circs were.

2. Why Sir MLM found them less compelling than Druitt's.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

As you know, the Cohen-Kosminski debate has been going on for over two decades and is fully dealt with elsewhere. Anyway, what is your evidence for Anderson continuing to hunt down the Ripper after Aaron Kosminski's committal?

Hello Paul,

Oh, I'm not quoting evidence Paul... clever answer that you had... I'm just going to show what some commentators suggest, as I did.

The words in your book.

The Jack the Ripper A-Z, by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner, published by John Blake, 2010, page 99, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence..

" Anderson's continued vigorous investigation of further Ripper alarms after Cohen's incarceration and death has suggested to some commentators that he continued to believe the Ripper was at large."

Note the words "continued vigorous investigation of further RIPPER crimes"
(my emphasis in bold and capitals)

This clearly suggests the man was looking still for the Ripper..i.e. Jack the Ripper.


What evidence from official sources have you got that shows any use of the Seaside Home in Brighton for identification purposes from this era?

What official evidence have you to support the claims of some commentators that Swanson's scribble outweighs the views of all the other policemen? Especially as two of those policemen, clearly knew of the Polish Jew story and openly pooh-poohed it?

What evidence have you to show what official or unofficial reason other policemen investigating the case such as Reid and Abberline and Littlechild (for example) were kept unaware of the "real" story if proposed as such by Swanson? If Swanson's story be true, then you have evidence to cast doubt on the direct and detailed words shown in the Littlechild letter, for example? (Far more detailed than the marginalia annotations, I might add)

If no evidence can be shown either way for any suspect, then the weight of comment from officials at the time must be considered of great import. Many policemen disagree through their comments and actions with the identification of any Polish Jew, locked up. Swanson himself chased the Ripper after Kosminski was locked up. Now please tell this uneducated, illogical man with no common sense...

WHY would the Cheif Inspector of Police STILL be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that Jack the Ripper was locked up?


That is why I think the marginalia is worthless. There is far too much outweighing contradiction, INCLUDING from the actions of Swanson, himself, far nearer the time of the murders and during the ensuing murders.


Have a lovely afternoon.

kindest regards

Phil

[robhouse]

I have only a minute to reply...

Why would the police continue to look for the Ripper after Kozminski had been incarcerated (Note: I am not sure they did, as they concluded Coles was not a ripper murder). However, as I have stated before, I think Anderson and Swanson strongly suspected Kozminski was the Ripper, Anderson probably more than Swanson. However, they could always have been wrong, and must have paused to consider this possiblity when Coles was murdered.

Lynn - I do agree it is a very likely possibility that the Police released the misinformation about the Ripper's being dead just to calm the public's fears, especially as this statement was released in the aftermath of the PUBLIC ALARM over the killing of Augusta Dawes by Reginald Saunderson, in Kensington in late 1894.

See for example the following:
"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. This led them recently to make the important announcement that they have reason to believe that the author of the Jack the Ripper crimes has been several years in his grave." - January 17, 1895 - Bangor Daily Whig and Courier (Maine, U.S.A.)

Related to the above example perhaps is that the first public mention of Druitt in the newspapers happened just 4 days after Kozminski was incarcerated at Colney Hatch. Is that a coincidence?

Rob H