Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official, convalescent home official, or asylum official as I
have said previous something of this magnitude done under this scale would
have resulted in someone talking then and one or some of their relatives
talking in the interim time. This suggests to me that Para 1 in itself
corroboartes the suggestion that it didnt take place.

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

There have been so many theories discussed about this Komknski issue and the "
difficulty involved and the question where he was taken from his home or an asylum. If it be the latter I think you can rule that out because if he had been in an asylum it is unlikley that the doctors whose care he was under would have allowed him to be removed, especially if he was as mad and homicidal as is suggested. The more likely scenario would have been to go and bring the witness to London and conduct an ID parade either at a room in the asylum or at a police station. If he had have been removed from the asylum he would have been taken straight back to the asylum not to his brothers house

I seem to recall in the case of Ischensmidt that the doctors would not allow the police to do something with him whilst he was under their care.

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do ou say happened to them ?

There is no point in continuing to constantly argue the same points over and over again at the end of the day what will be will be.

The points you make do not just arise from your police experience, they have also occurred a very long time ago to other people and for the most part they have been satisfactorily answered. For example, the absence of corroboration in the official files is meaningless because only a fraction of the official files exist. They also don't refer to any suspects except in passing, and despite your efforts to argue that suspect files didn't exist, we know they did. You make not like it, you may not want to accept it, but if you don't know what a bag of sweets contained you can't say it didn't contain any soft centres. If you don't know what the files contained, you can't say what they didn't contain.

I have never said that lost, stolen or destroyed papers are not an option. I have simply and accurately stated that the case papers have been severely culled and that what we possess is a fraction of what once existed.

Look, I pointed out many posts ago that one argument advanced by those who do not think Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him is that there is no reference to him ever having owned a book. Bill Bryson's response was to point out that there is no evidence that he ever wore trousers either, but we don't assume he spent his life naked from the waist down. With certain caveats, Bryson is right and his example not only points out why we can't base conclusions on an absence of corroboration in paucity of evidence, it also shows that reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probability. You know and I know as a fact that any investigation of a suspect would have generated paperwork, so there would have been paperwork in the files relating to suspects, if only a summary of the results of the investigation, so just as it is reasonable to assume Shakespeare wore leg coverings, so it is reasonable to deduce that there would have been paperwork about Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog and so on. When it is logical and probable that something existed you need to prove that it didn't, hence it is not enough to say Shakespeare never owned a book or that files on the suspects never existed simply because the sparse records we possess don't corroborate it.

This is history, not police work.

[Jonathan H]

I was just trying to be objective, and let people see whether the values outweigh the limitations.

To do that you have to to try and see how this source measures up against other primary sources.

If Swanson is repeating what Anderson told him, trying to clarify the discrepency between the two versions of his memoirs, then much makes sense -- at least to me.

The melodramatic pantomime of the suspect, the sectarian witness refusing to send to the gallows a fellow member of the tribe, the irritated criticism of somebody with 'with difficulty', the telescoping of the events of 1891 into 1888/9 -- all sure sound Like Anderson's voice, and what he wrote elsewhere.

The counter-argument that two good cops are not going to misremember the same events cuts both ways, a factor not fully appreciated by those who advocate 'Kosminski'.

If this is Swanson's own opinion then he too suffered from a memory malfunction: that Kosmsinki' was not safely caged soon after Kelly. In fact, he himself thought Coles two years later was likely to have been murdered by 'Jack'. That Sadler might even be the fiend?

Swanson too, arguably, suffered from the memory malfunction that 'Kosminski' was deceased.

Anderson writes, sincerely but wrongly, as if the Ripper saga was wrapped up in early 1889. In an entirely private notation to himself, Swanson does not disagree with this mistaken notion.

Either because his memory is also mistaken, or he is simply repeating his beloved ex-chief's opinion.

Or, were one or both men misled by somebody else on that score ...?

Except for the last flat, provisional line, which sounds like the writer's implied criticism of what has come before.

After all, he maybe adding to what Anderson has written with more words from Anderson -- ones which were spoken.

That's why Swanson wrote them down. Anderson had amplified, and Swanson went to the relevant section of Anderson's book and added them, followed by the anti-climactic 'Kosminski' was the suspect. Because if he did not there would be no record of them.

With no first name for the mere 'suspect', exactly like Macnaghten had recoded it in his Report(s).

Yes, the same police administrator who had backdated the incarceration of 'Kosminski' to early 1889. The same one who knew that 'Kosminski' was really alive, and knew that tiny detail about 'self-abuse'.

The same one who knew that he had an egocentric, puritanical boss who had proudly brought the full force of the law against a man for masturbating on a train (to Macnaghten, the eternal Old Etonian, they were merely 'solitary vices' whereas to Anderson they were 'unmentionable vices' which utterly degraded and brutalised the perpetrator).

[Jeff Leahy]

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents..

On interviewing Don Rumblow I was described a story when Don was asked to go up into a Police Attic and simply throw everything away. There was no conspiracy in this. No one was trying to cover anything up, just get the place tiddy..And like Monty my own experience researching the Stripper case which isnt even 50 years old is that 90% that is available has been destroyed.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years
from any police official,

Its been pointed out to you on several occassions that this isnt TRUE. Both Cox and Sagar gave interviews to News Papers claiming that they followed suspects. Cox's story gives details about a big police surveylance operation.
The idea that this opperation produced no paper work is quite frankly in the world of fairyland..it simply must have done so. And the only logical conclusion is that it is now missing

3. There is nothing to corroborate what Anderson wrote in his book other than
perhaps the marginlia..

Yes but it is corroborated by the Marginalia which has been examined by Two Home Office experts and declared 'Probably written by Swanson' getting Paul the Octopus to state 'conclusively' if you pay him enough money will mean absolute diddly squat. Indeed it would be a simple matter to find another graphologist to counter your claims. At least I have decent copies.

4. With regards to the marginlia because of the doubt there is in my mind at this
time I personally cannot rely on its autheticity to corroborate any of the
above as far as my own personal investigation is concerned which I have been
conducting from a police persepctive.

.

Well that is your Prerogative.

However you did the same thing on the apron when you claimed Cathrine Eddows had torn the discovered apron in Goulston Street to use as a sanitary towl or bottom wipe. And you didn’t know that Kate was carrying small pieces of clothe probably for that very purpose. The only reason you made this claim was because you didn’t want Jack heading East after the Eddows murder.

So is it a case of come up with a theory and make the evidence fit?

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

If the marginalia is authentic, then the only corroboration of Anderson are some few, personal and private words, quickly scribbled on a slow day.

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

Yes Phil your theory that if you scream long and hard enough that the world is FLAT that everyone will believe you is an admirable exercise in self delusion. However I believe Abraham Lincoln Said:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

PS Give your humble greeting to Master Copperfeild

[Trevor Marriott]

The points you make do not just arise from your police experience, they have also occurred a very long time ago to other people and for the most part they have been satisfactorily answered. For example, the absence of corroboration in the official files is meaningless because only a fraction of the official files exist. They also don't refer to any suspects except in passing, and despite your efforts to argue that suspect files didn't exist, we know they did. You make not like it, you may not want to accept it, but if you don't know what a bag of sweets contained you can't say it didn't contain any soft centres. If you don't know what the files contained, you can't say what they didn't contain.

I have never said that lost, stolen or destroyed papers are not an option. I have simply and accurately stated that the case papers have been severely culled and that what we possess is a fraction of what once existed.

But if what you argue is correct its mighty convenient that what is now no longer in existence just so happens to be one of the most important parts of this mystery and all the insignificant material got left behind. I am sorry I cant accept your argument that clearly props up you rapidly diminshing theories. No one would clear out such important information in any cull, if anyhting all the insignificant material we are left with would have been the first to go.

I have looked at many files in great detail and if I were culling there is much which could be safely culled i.e files relating to police manpower, expenditure etc etc why keep this ?.No one in their right mind would dream of destroying (culling) such an important file as you suggest it is.

Are there any other importants documents in this case which you can suggest were culled ?

Look, I pointed out many posts ago that one argument advanced by those who do not think Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him is that there is no reference to him ever having owned a book. Bill Bryson's response was to point out that there is no evidence that he ever wore trousers either, but we don't assume he spent his life naked from the waist down. With certain caveats, Bryson is right and his example not only points out why we can't base conclusions on an absence of corroboration in paucity of evidence, it also shows that reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probability. You know and I know as a fact that any investigation of a suspect would have generated paperwork, so there would have been paperwork in the files relating to suspects, if only a summary of the results of the investigation, so just as it is reasonable to assume Shakespeare wore leg coverings, so it is reasonable to deduce that there would have been paperwork about Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog and so on. When it is logical and probable that something existed you need to prove that it didn't, hence it is not enough to say Shakespeare never owned a book or that files on the suspects never existed simply because the sparse records we possess don't corroborate it.

This is history, not police work.

You are wrong I dont need to prove it exits the burden of proof lies with you because you are saying it did and you are using that to corroborate your theories about all of this. I am on the outside saying I dont belive you and so prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You quote reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of probabality well in my opinion the reasonable conclusion I draw is that there was never a main suspect file which included Kosminki which was culled.

You also have to look at it another way what was it that brought Kosminski onto the radar, whatever it was there would have been a police report. Now that report and any follow up reports would probablay have not formed any part of any subsequent suspect file so we would have expected to see somewhere in a general police occurence files some entry relating to this. Even the CID crime register for that period of time shows no mention of Kosminski.

In the absence of this it only adds to the fact that there was nothing. I stand to be corrected but it seems that so called incident invloving his sister with a knife was also never reported to the police. If that is correct then where and how did the suspicion fall on Kosminski for him to suddenly be public enemy No 1 several years later, did he win a raffle ?

I guess you will be quoting shakesapere next can we expect to hear "friends ripperologists and countrymen lend me you ears for I wish to tell you a story of great magnitude surrounding a much maligned suspect in a murder mustery"

[Jeff Leahy]

You are wrong I dont need to prove it exits the burden of proof lies with you because you are saying it did and you are using that to corroborate your theories about all of this. I am on the outside saying I dont belive you and so prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

"[/I]

Another historian thought like you Trevor his name was David Irving

"The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary."

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello David,

You know that, I know that, Trevor knows that, infact many know that- but some don't look at it in that way.

The ONLY verification of any of the marginalia is the name KOSMINSKI- which is memtioned in Step 2- the Macnagthen Memoranda
Step 3, the MM, mentions Kosminski in 2 main ways, firstly in company of 2 other names more likely than Cutbush to have been the Ripper, and secondly, when in the writer's opinion (Macnagthen) Koswinski is exonerated of this title and crime (i.e. Being Jack the Ripper) .

And there, simply, it stops.

NOWHERE is 'Aaron' mentioned.
NOWHERE is there corroberation for this event with a KOSMINSKI being identified shown.
NOWHERE has there been shown ANY proof of WHICH Seaside home was used.
NOWHERE is there evidence of the SUGGESTED Seaside Home being used for identification purposes.
NOWHERE in known police AND Home Office Records is there mention of the alleged event.
NOWHERE in any known AARON Kosminski story is there any mention of ANY official link to the RIPPER murders.
NOWHERE has this marginalia story been corroberated despite 25 years of searching from just about every researcher, historian or expert,

The answers to all of this has been primarily based on two arguments,

1) there MAY have been files etc, so we cant say there werent
2) we dont know any of the events didnt happen. Therefore we must keep an open mind and keep searching.

From the point of view of the facts, they do NOT lend themselves to giving any credance to the marginalia ever having occured re AARON Kosminski, and very very little if any to ANY Kosminski.

The simple conclusion is, from this poster's viewpoint, that the time has come to put the AARON Kosminski link to the marginalia to bed. Any other Kosminski link MUST be backed up with facts that correspond with the marginalia's details.

The argument that because there isnt corroberration doesnt mean it didnt happen is a weak one, in the light of 25 years of frantic searching with no result.

It is high time to draw a line.

Aaron Kosminski was NEVER suspected of being Jack the Ripper.
A Kosminski was mentioned and exonerated.
A Kosminski was mentioned in the marginalia, none of which can be shown to have happened.
NO NAME was mentioned in Anderson's book.

The above tells me that all four wheels have fallen off the wagon, and 'it ain't rollin' along- 'the chrokees are after it- but its singing a happy song'

NO DISRESPECT to Paul at all. I humbly respect his admirable devotion to the marginalia. But the facts speak for themselves here.

Kindly

Phil

Phil
You are right I am right others are right but Pinky and Perky cant seem to grasp it i think the time is right to just leave them alone to their own devices or vices !

[Jeff Leahy]

Phil
You are right I am right others are right but Pinky and Perky cant seem to grasp it i think the time is right to just leave them alone to their own devices or vices !

'Fleaing' without answering any of the questions?

Oh no Trevor please come back we cant carry on without you

Perhaps we should run a competition. How many times has Trevor Marriott claimed he was leaving the argument never to return?

So what is it Trevor revisionist or denial History? Or perhaps an old fashioned 'Life on Mars' stitch-up?

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

From Anderson's memoirs, which Swanson had added his annotations:

'However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.* The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date ...

... Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper " scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.

Swanson Marginalia, 1910--:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"[5]


Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson
by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947:

' ... The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.


What makes me feel that the limitation of these sources outweigh their values is that none of them acknowledge that the Polish Jew suspect -- if Aaron Kosminski -- was not sectioned until years after the Kelly murder.

Worse, none of them seem to remember that the investigation went on for years and that the agaitation over Sadler and Coles was profound, and covered in the scathing media (see: Sims).

If we had no other primary sources -- let alone the real data about Aaron Kosminski -- we would never be hunting for the events of a suspect 'safely caged' after 'mere weeks' on the loose, and 'confronted' with a witness as late as 1891?!

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period.

I can see why.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

[PaulB]

Sadly, Trevor, you either can't or won't understand what is being said to you. I don't mind if you disagree with it, if you can state why, but you can't, and I really can't be bothered to argue with somebody who willfully refuses to understand plain English.

(1) I am not wrong because I haven't asked you to prove anything and I haven't said a file on Kosminski did exist. I have told you that there is inadequate source material on which to base any conclusion about what was or wasn't in the files.

(2) As even you acknowledge, an investigation generates paperwork and if Kosminski was the subject of a police investigation (which even Macnaghten indicates he was) then there would have been paperwork, so there would have been documentation. That's a reasonable inference on the basis of known and provable evidence.

(3) I don't have a theory.

(4) I am not using a file I don't know existed to bolster anything. You, however, are using your belief that there wasn't a file to bolster your argument.

(5) Your conclusion that there never was a suspect file - which is a lose term for file or files or otherwise paperwork relating to suspects - is based on nothing. There is evidence, however, that such documentation existed and we even posses transcripts of some of it.

(6) Occurrence files, CID crime registers, the lavatory walls, whatever, don't mention other known suspects either.

(7) The incident involving a knife is not known to have been reported to the police at any time. It was one of the things told to a doctor by Kosminski's family and on which certification appears in small part to have been based.

(8) No he didn't win a raffle.

(9) You can mock my Shakespeare example, but it's noticeable that you don't even attempt to answer the point it makes.

(10) By shouting the same thing over and over and louder and louder, and paying no heed to the very real objections to what you are saying, doesn't do a damn thing, but that's patently obvious to everybody and you are just wasting our time. The fact is that truth is truth. To the end of reckoning.

[Bridewell]

You have hit the nail on the head you are looking at all of this as an historian I and others are looking at it from a police perspective which you agree are as different as chalk and cheese.

As an historian you argue issues about corroboration and use the marginalia and Andersons book as your own personal corroboration.

My corroboration from my own police perspective for suggesting it didnt take place is,

1. No records or files or entries in any official document or documents.

2. Nothing written recorded or said anywhere at the time or in the ensuing years

I think we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree and let those who want to look at it from an historical viewpoint agree with you and those who want to look at it from a police perspective agree or disagree with me.

You ask what corroboration there is to show that the documents never existed I would ask if they did as you suggest then what happned to them, there are only three answers lost stolen or destroyed, yet you say these are not options worthy of consideration what do you say happened to them ?

Hi Paul & Trevor,

As these are unsolved murders from 120+ years ago, I think they can be legitimately described as both police investigations and history.

We can argue forever about what was, or wasn't, in the original police files. The conclusions we can't draw are:
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there but it must have been at one time"
"Evidence to prove a particular issue is not there, therefore it never was".

We can, I think, only argue that evidence to prove a particular issue may once have existed. The level of probability can be debated, but I think the possibility is beyond dispute.

The police are very poor at preserving their own history and have, in my experience, been astonishingly cavalier in their approach to the retention of old documents.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jeff Leahy]

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period. I can see why..

Martin didnt find Aaron until his book was completed. It was pretty much a last minute search and discovered by luck. Martin out lines some of his thinking in the latest Podcast, it would be great to get that reasoning in more detail. But my understanding is that he rejected Aaron because he appears to harmless. And while I agree he was harmless my argument has always been the opposite....thats exactly what a Psychotic Serial killer would look like.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

True. But the fact is that we just dont know. And probably never will. However that is a better place to be than heading towards Denialist Ripperology. We dont know how the Universe was created we dont deny it exists. Not that I would put you in that catigory Jonathon, but I have problems with this whole miss remembered argument..

If I desribe events ten years ago I make mistakes on detail dates times etc However the broad thrust of my memory is pretty good as I beleive Swanson and Anderson's were.

Beside there are theories and arguments that would allow for everything Swanson says including the March 1889 event. I'm not suggesting that Kosminski is lazerous but its possible that Anderson was miss informed by the asylum.

So my advice is keep it simple and stick to what is known or corroborated.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

Again yes its a possibility. But its also possible he thought about writing a book and made notes 'thats why I write in margins anyway..

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

From Anderson's memoirs, which Swanson had added his annotations:

'However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.* The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date ...

... Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper " scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.

Swanson Marginalia, 1910--:

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"[5]


Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson
by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947:

' ... The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.


What makes me feel that the limitation of these sources outweigh their values is that none of them acknowledge that the Polish Jew suspect -- if Aaron Kosminski -- was not sectioned until years after the Kelly murder.

Worse, none of them seem to remember that the investigation went on for years and that the agaitation over Sadler and Coles was profound, and covered in the scathing media (see: Sims).

If we had no other primary sources -- let alone the real data about Aaron Kosminski -- we would never be hunting for the events of a suspect 'safely caged' after 'mere weeks' on the loose, and 'confronted' with a witness as late as 1891?!

No wonder Fido did not find Aaron, as he was searching for where the sources strongly point; to soon after Kelly's murder. In fact, Fido has never given up on that time-frame ditching Aaron Kosminski as a mistake of memory -- of the name -- and sticking with a mad local Hebrew of the 1888-9 period.

I can see why.

It still leaves us with two senior policemen for whom the disappointment of 1891, and the real status of the confinement and the fate of 'Kosminski' has fallen into a memory hole.

Both at the same time, over the same subject?!

Is it not more likely that one has misremembered, and the other is recording that confusion -- and being touchingly discreet about it out of respect for a chief he revered.

Yes, Jonathan, thanks for all that, but you appear to be confusing whether Kosminski was ever suspected with him being Jack the Ripper, and whether Anderson and Swanson are a better source than Macnaghten. As far as the latter is concerned, I think they are, for the reasons already given, but I don't see them as being in competition with Macnaghten. You obviously do, thus a debate about whether or not the marginalia is genuine and, if it is, what we can deduce from it, has to contend with you arguing the supremacy of Macnaghten and your theories based thereon. The only direct relevance Macnaghten has is that he tells us that many circs made "Kosminski" a good suspect. "Kosminski" was therefore a suspect. Whether or not Druitt was a better is neither here nor there, except in the final analysis.

[lynn cates]

informal

Hello Trevor, Harry, Neil. Although I do not fully comprehend police business, is there a possibility of an informal identification? Something like a "feeler"?

Cheers.
LC