Announcement

**Stephen Thomas** · 03-20-2012, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by PaulB View Post

Well, that presents a problem as there would only be a relatively narrow window when it was likely to have been added, namely after the name "Kosminski" entered the public domain and the date Jim Swanson contacted the News of the World

Hardly, Paul. Kosminski's name was in the public domain from the mid 1960s onwards after the publication of the contents of the Memorandum and it's not rocket science to imagine that someone might equate MMs 'more likely than Cutbush' #2 Kosminski suspect and Anderson's 'definitely ascertained' Polish Jew. I got that immediately and I wasn't particularly interested in the JTR case back then.

**Phil Carter** · 03-20-2012, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by jason_c View Post

Phil,

Its impossible to say who was truthful or correct. Im just wary of the idea that Anderson was the only one who could have possibly lied while Abberline and Reid were both playing with a straight deck.

Hello Jason,

On the same basis then, how does one define the MM comment that 'exonerate' both Kosminsky and Ostrog as 'more likely' than Cutbush? Exonerate is a fairly loaded word. Can it not mean 'to clear of guilt' or 'blame' or involvement in'?
Or does it just mean ' take out of the equation'?.

Now where does that leave the naming of Kosminsky in the Swanson writings if Melville MacNaghten in 1894 exonerates him?

So. If Anderson DIDNT lie (after ammending the wording dramatically from The Blackwoods Article version), and Macnaghten didnt lie when exonerating the only known Kosminsky- a Polish Jew, and Swanson didnt lie when naming Kosminsky and therein backing Anderson's Polish Jew- what price Macnaghtens exonerations? Are they just personal opinion?

Because if so- I quote HL Adam, from his 1908 book CID: Behnd the Scenes at Scotland Yard, when describing Macnaghten says:-
'his extensive knowledge of crime and criminals, quite as extensive as his predecessor, Sir Robert Anderson'.
Arthur Griffiths said that 'he was intimately aquainted, perhaps, with the details of the most recent celebrated crimes than anyone else at Scotland Yard'.

On that basis Macnaghten's exoneration is crucial. This man knew his stuff. And would have had excellent reason to exonerate Kosminsky.

What price Swansons backing of Andersons Polish Jew?

In Blackwoods, Anderson claimed that 'the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum' and then in his book he stated that the suspect being a Polish Jew was 'a definitely ascetained fact'.
But Swanson introduces something that makes it all odd. He states that the suspect 'knew he was identified' after being 'subjected' to identification.

Doesnt that mean that Kosminsky apparently KNEW he had been subjected to identification?
so- if we believe Swansons words- Kosminsky was fully aware that he had been identified by a witness.

Odd that. Wonder if Kosminsky knew what crime he had been identified as being guilty of? And off he is taken back to Whitechapel and carry's on his everyday life as if nothing has happened, whilst, according to Swanson, City Police detectives (not Met Police) kept an eye on him until they carted him off to the asylum.

The implication is that Kosminsky was so tuned in with his surroundings he was aware of being ID'd (as the Whitechapel killer- if Anderson's 'fact' is correct) and so OUT of tune that he just poodles around Whitechapel for a wh�le before getting thrown in a loony bin.

You would have thought someone who knew they were positively ID'd as the notorious Jack the Ripper would scarper sharpish like.

Who is telling little stories Jason?

Kindest wishes

Phil

**PaulB** · 03-20-2012, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post

Hardly, Paul. Kosminski's name was in the public domain from the mid 1960s onwards after the publication of the contents of the Memorandum and it's not rocket science to imagine that someone might equate MMs 'more likely than Cutbush' #2 Kosminski suspect and Anderson's 'definitely ascertained' Polish Jew. I got that immediately and I wasn't particularly interested in the JTR case back then.

No offence, Stephen, but we can all claim to have made the connection prior to Martin doing so in 1987, and I am among those who claim it, but nobody seems to have made it in print until Martin wrote in 1987. If "Kosminski was the suspect" was added to the marginalia or if the whole of the marginalia was forged, then the first publication of the memorandum provides the date after which that must have been done, whilst the sale to the News of the World provides the date after which is was not done. And during that period nobody appears to have connected Kosminski with Anderson's unnamed suspect in print, and the leading Ripper authority at that time and the one whose book was far and away the most accessible, made a very strong case for Anderson suspect being Pizer. So, whilst making the link certainly isn't rocket science, it wasn't one made by the leading authority of the day or by any other commentator on the case, so I still maintain it was not only quite perspicacious by also flew in the face of the leading authority. No big deal, perhaps, except that it points the finger directly at the Swanson family, in whose secure possession Anderson's book was during that time, and whilst one could invent all sorts of fanciful scenarios about guests adding the words to the book without the Swansons' knowledge, it's tantamount to an accusation which, having met and talked with the people involved, I find stupid and offensive. But that's by-the-by.

Just to add, you are perfectly correct, of course, but the bigger the "window" the worse it becomes in some respects because the greater is the gap in which nobody apparently thought to observe in a book, article, newspaper report, or a letter to Don or Colin that Kosminski might have been Anderson's suspect. But there is nevertheless only that window in which the marginalia could have been forged and it points directly at the Swanson family. And they didn't do it.

**PaulB** · 03-20-2012, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks for that explanation.

I admire the phrase--"improbable."

Well done.

Cheers.
LC

improbable but true. I reckon Swanson was even more able to recognise a story that did not conform to standard procedure than we are, yet it seems he accepted the story and told it. So, given that the marginalia is authentic, and given that it was not written for public consumption, how does one explain an improbable story being told by an informed and, one supposes, a reliable source?

**Jonathan H** · 03-20-2012, 10:43 AM

To PaulB

I agree that, of course, the Maginalia is authentic.

But you ask for alternatives to it being thus reliable, because it is by a worthy and critical cop and it was private to himself -- eg. nobody to impress or mislead.

Two possibilities present themselves.

1. If you look at it through the other end of the telescope what you have is evidence that, at times, Swanson was not a reliable source -- not in retirment anyhow.

Not in a document which was not official, and would never have its 'thesis' tested by anybody.

For Aaron Kosminski -- if that is whom he means -- was not dead, and the murders did not stop with his incarceration at least according to Swanson's own actions (and others) at the time of the Coles murder and the Sadler arrest.

Perhaps, therefore, the slam dunk identification is also not literally true but an honest misremembering of Lawende's 'no' to Sadler, and perhaps his 'yes' to Grainger. Eg. The brilliant Evans/Rumbelow 'Sailor's Home' theory of 2006.

Backing for this theory comes from 1895 and Swanson's comment to the 'Pall Mall Gazette' that the best suspect was deceased. If he meant Aaron Kosminski he was quite mistaken (just as Anderson in other sources giving the impression that the mad suspect was 'safely caged' after Kelly was also way, way off the mark, but I think sincerely so).

Whereas Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive in 1894 (see: 'Aberconway') yet Swanson and Anderson have a parallel suspect who they both think is also deceased?!

That's quite a coincidence, about which the facts only support one dead 'Jack'

It would be like Mac thinking Druitt is the dead fiend if Montie was still teaching at Blackheath.

Remember, the 'evidnce' against the Polish Jew, the Super-witness, only appeared in 1910, right afte, in 1907, Sims had written about a beat cop seeing -- twice -- the Polish Jewish suspect, who had, maybe/maybe not, chatted with Eddowes just before her murder.

Or,

2.

Swanson is not recording his own opinion, at all, but that of Anderson, his ex-boss whom he revered.

Hence the flatness of the last line.

Hence never showing it to anyboby in his family.

Hence not writing a letter to the 'Times' to back up his old boss in 1910.

Because he may have seen it as what it was: an embarrassing, idiosincratically self-serving mishmash of bits and pieces about various suspects, witnesses, and victims.

I think all of these possibilities need to be entetained.

'Kosminski', the ficitional version of Aaron Kosminski -- whether by accident or design -- begins with Macnaghten in the extant record.

In his own 1914 account, the only one for the public under his own name, he judges the un-named 'Kosminski' (and Ostrog) as not worth mentioning even to debunk, eg. they are nothing to him.

All secondary sources have caught up with Macnaghten about Ostrog.

**Jeff Leahy** · 03-20-2012, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

Who is telling little stories Jason?

Kindest wishes

Phil

There is nothing in anything you have written in your post that suggests anyone is 'telling little stories' what ever it is you emply with that phraze? Sounds a little forked tongued to me as it sounds like you are emplying deliberate lies or miss truth. When simple miss-memory seems a far more likely answer to the odd error. You try telling me an event that happened last year Five years or even ten years ago. You will make errors.

Actually you confirm that Anderson was a highly respected Police officer and had a sharpe much respected brain.

Your comment about the identification, while being true, suggest the one observation that I have consistently made to be the most likely one.

That Schwartz not Lawende was the witness. Thats because the reconstruction in definitive story clearly demonstrates that at the point BSM shouted 'Lipski' he had a clear view of the mans face and Schwartz had a clear view of the killer. Thus when 'confronted' they would have instantly recognised each other.

By 1891 Kosminski was a very sick man. Probably in the latest attack of schizophrenia, stress being a likely cause.

I seem to recall that Cox was keeping observation in a house opposite to a certain premises....And Matila owned a house opposite to the Tayloring work shop. If Matilda went via Canarvan..then the whole story does make sense.

I dont think that Kosminski would have made for accapalco (Brazil) as this is real life not an episode of James Bond.

Yours Jeff

**Phil Carter** · 03-20-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post

There is nothing in anything you have written in your post that suggests anyone is 'telling little stories' what ever it is you emply with that phraze? Sounds a little forked tongued to me as it sounds like you are emplying deliberate lies or miss truth. When simple miss-memory seems a far more likely answer to the odd error. You try telling me an event that happened last year Five years or even ten years ago. You will make errors.

Actually you confirm that Anderson was a highly respected Police officer and had a sharpe much respected brain.

Your comment about the identification, while being true, suggest the one observation that I have consistently made to be the most likely one.

That Schwartz not Lawende was the witness. Thats because the reconstruction in definitive story clearly demonstrates that at the point BSM shouted 'Lipski' he had a clear view of the mans face and Schwartz had a clear view of the killer. Thus when 'confronted' they would have instantly recognised each other.

By 1891 Kosminski was a very sick man. Probably in the latest attack of schizophrenia, stress being a likely cause.

I seem to recall that Cox was keeping observation in a house opposite to a certain premises....And Matila owned a house opposite to the Tayloring work shop. If Matilda went via Canarvan..then the whole story does make sense.

I dont think that Kosminski would have made for accapalco (Brazil) as this is real life not an episode of James Bond.

Yours Jeff

Jeff,

This is the one and ONLY time I shall respond to you. It is therefore pointless to address any posting to me in future.

1) My post was to Jason. Not you. Therefore NOTHING was meant for you. The 'fork-tongued' comment is not only insulting it is hopelessly wrong.
2) Jason and I were having a respectful and friendly discussion about the POSSIBILITY of ANY policeman having not told the truth. Nothing else.
3) At no point did either Jason or I mention Schwartz, Matilda, Lawende, Cox, BSM or James Bond. None of these people have been mentioned because they were not relevant to the specifics of the discussion to date by either Jason or myself. I am sure Jason is capable of doing so if he sees fit, as I am.
4) Neither Jason or I have introduced the pro Kosminski arguments that you have such faith in. I am sure we are both quite savvy with your theories by now having had them put in front of our faces, literally, via the tv screen. Should that become a theme for further discussion, then you will see it.
5) re. James Bond. YOU are the film maker. Not me.
I will not debate your definition and presentation of what is fact and fiction here, or anywhere else.
6) Another poster mentioned your lack of manners. You continually comment on every post I make on this thread, often with derogatory remarks attached. You are herewith asked to desist as it is getting monotonous, repetitive and tiresomely unfunny. It is taken as goading. Kindly understand that communication in this form is unwanted from this part. Thank you.

Phil

**lynn cates** · 03-20-2012, 01:58 PM

Mac

Hello Phil. Good point. Wish we understood Mac's reason for exonerating Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

**lynn cates** · 03-20-2012, 02:01 PM

true

Hello Mr. Begg. I have had more than one idea dismissed as "improbable." That added phrase--"but true"--is of great value to me.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

**lynn cates** · 03-20-2012, 02:04 PM

mish mash

Hello Jonathan. Well argued. And I like your "mish mash" assessment.

Cheers.
LC

**Phil Carter** · 03-20-2012, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

Hello Phil. Good point. Wish we understood Mac's reason for exonerating Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thanks. Jonathan mentioned the same thing. I feel it is indeed important.

Kindly

Phil

**Jonathan H** · 03-20-2012, 02:22 PM

Hello Lynn

Since from the 1891 M.P. articles, the 'Aberconway' version, his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs, Melville Macnaghten was certain -- perhaps quite mistakenly -- that Druitt was the Ripper, then ipso facto 'Kosminski', and every other bod, could not be.

Druitt's guilt, at least as Macnaghten perceived it to be, proved everybody else's innocence.

Even the filed version of the 'Home Office Report', in which Druitt is a minor suspect, makes the astonishing claim that his own family were convinced he was the Ripper because he gained erotic pleasure from inflicting pain, presumably on harlots -- for if it was his male students they would hardly have 'believed' he was 'Jack'.

**Jeff Leahy** · 03-20-2012, 02:23 PM

Jeff,

This is the one and ONLY time I shall respond to you. It is therefore pointless to address any posting to me in future.

If you were making posts that did not err in content then it would be a reasonable request. However as long as you make controversial statements on a public message board which are bye and large incorrect, then it seems reasonable that people should be aloud to comment and correct on miss-information.

1) My post was to Jason. Not you. Therefore NOTHING was meant for you. The 'fork-tongued' comment is not only insulting it is hopelessly wrong.

Your post was on a public message board. If you wish to have a private conversation with Jason, which is your choice, then perhaps you should consider private email. Until then my understanding is that this is a place for International discussion on the possible identity of Jack the Ripper.

2) Jason and I were having a respectful and friendly discussion about the POSSIBILITY of ANY policeman having not told the truth. Nothing else.

The title of this thread is ‘ Seaside Home’ . There is NO evidence that any of the policeman involved in the Seaside Home saga ever lied. There is always a possibility but it seems so unlikely as to appear incredulous.

3) At no point did either Jason or I mention Schwartz, Matilda, Lawende, Cox, BSM or James Bond. None of these people have been mentioned because they were not relevant to the specifics of the discussion to date by either Jason or myself. I am sure Jason is capable of doing so if he sees fit, as I am.

Agreed, however they are all clearly relevant to a discussion entitled ‘Seaside Home’ Any suggestion that the policeman might have lied must be balanced against the known facts. And of course quite a lot of possibilities must be considered when thinking about the possibility of anyone having ‘Lied’.

4) Neither Jason or I have introduced the pro Kosminski arguments that you have such faith in. I am sure we are both quite savvy with your theories by now having had them put in front of our faces, literally, via the tv screen. Should that become a theme for further discussion, then you will see it.

Again I point you to the title of this thread and the point that this is a public message board, not the Jason and Phil messageboard as far as I’m aware.

5) re. James Bond. YOU are the film maker. Not me.
I will not debate your definition and presentation of what is fact and fiction here, or anywhere else.

Well yes that is what I do for a Living but ‘Factual History documentary’ not weird wild and fanciful conspiracy theories.

6) Another poster mentioned your lack of manners. You continually comment on every post I make on this thread, often with derogatory remarks attached. You are herewith asked to desist as it is getting monotonous, repetitive and tiresomely unfunny. It is taken as goading. Kindly understand that communication in this form is unwanted from this part. Thank you.

Lack of manners? The phrase you used was ‘telling little stories’ Does this or does it not imply that someone was lying? And as neither Anderson nor MacNaughted are here to defend themselves, then it is reasonable for anyone to defend them. Calling someone (Dead and unable to defend themselves) a liar, without any proof to substantiate it, is not only the height of bad manners but also rather corrosive.

There is no evidence that Anderson or MacNaughten were deliberately
‘telling little stories’ and as long as you choose to put these comments in a public arena then it seems reasonable to pick you up on the point and give the other side of that argument..

Unless of course this is your private message board and I’ve simply miss understood the post requirements. There is nothing rude or personal in my posting, as I explained I work in Factual History and prefer sticking to the facts.

Yours Jeff

**PaulB** · 03-20-2012, 02:34 PM