Seaside Home?

[caz]

Aaron Kosminsky should have been left to rest in peace years ago. But you can bet your backside some will carry on milking it for all it is worth as long as they think they can get away with it to keep the Magic Roundabout turning. Cue the organ grinder and his monkey. Roll-up! Roll-up! Come see the 8th wonder of the world. The ultimate freak show- without evidence nor confirmed presence of the freak. The saddest thing is that people are still willing to pay to buy into this unproven story. Cue the organ grinder and the monkey. They play SUCH a pretty tune! Roll up! Roll up!

Kindly

Phil

Hi Phil,

Forgive me for butting in, but what you wrote here, in your very first post to this thread, may have been meant 'kindly', but it did not come across that way to me. To me it came across as incredibly rude and mean spirited, and did seem to be intentionally offensive to and about certain individuals who find they cannot share your own cynical views.

All this would be fine except for the fact that you get so touchy when anyone gives back to you a tenth of the rudeness you dish out in posts like the above.

Not unkindly, just an honest observation,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

Thanks for responding, and in detail.

We disagree on the Evans-Rumbelow thesis and that's fair enough.

I think the most significant counter-argument you have made against the 'Sailor's Home' theory (my nickname, not Evans and Rumbelow's) is that it is unlikely that both Swanson and Anderson would both have failing memories about such a high profile case.

Therefore, I plump for the second possibility that Swanson is recording a story about which he neither remembered, nor agreed with.

I think you also make an excellent point that Anderson may have dissuaded Swanson from writing to the press, to help him with say the British Jewish community which were outraged by the former's memoirs.

I think Macnaghten is a quite different figure from the amiable clod of most secondary sources (not yours, by the way) and that he manufactured 'Kosminski' and the even more unlikely Ostrog, and then discarded them when he came clean, so to speak and only up to a point, in 1914.

I think that he never told Anderson about Druitt.

I also think that the following elements of the Lawende/Sadler tale are in flux and being sincerely mixed up (though not, initially, by Mac):

Feb 1891:
Aaron Kosminski sectioned
Jewish witness (Lawende of Eddowes)
Pretty young Harlot victim
Seaman suspect (Sadler)
Confrontation -- no

Early 1895:
Jewish witness
Harlot [non-fatal] victim
Seaman suspect
Confrontation -- yes
Swanson - best suspect is dead
Anderson - best suspect is sectioned

Sept 1907 - Mac via Sims' Big Mag piece:
Beat cop witness
Harlot victim (Eddowes)
Jewish suspect
Confrontation - maybe?
Sectioned way too long after Kelly

Anderson 1910 - Mag Version:
Jewish suspect sectioned
Harlot victim (Eddowes)
Jewish witness
Confrontation -- yes, but refuses

Swanson post-1910:
Jewish suspect
Jewish witness
Seaside Police location
Confrontation - yes, but refused
Suspect sectioned
Suspect dies

Mac - 1914:
Beat cop witness
No suspect worth mentioning

[lynn cates]

got it

Hello Jonathan.

"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."

Ah, I see. But it sounds almost like he has special reasons for dismissing both Kosminki and Ostrog.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

codicil

Hello Mr. Begg. It does indeed.

I meant merely that, in future, such judgments can be met with your codicil.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

Yes, I see what you mean.

Well, in his propaganda phase from 1898 to 1914, Macnaghten has the 'drowned doctor' as the best suspect because he killed himself virtually immediately after Kelly -- after the 'awful glut' from which no human mind could remain intact -- a 'confession' in deed, rather than word.

'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog were both allegedly mental wrecks after Kelly (one a chronic masturbator) and definitely sectioned.

By 1907, Mac had Sims undermine Anderson's persistent account about the Polish Jewish suspect by making the point -- quite correct as it turns out -- that the Polish Jew was out and about for a considerable time after Kelly. And thus quite compos.

In 1914, Macnaghten dropped these 'suspects' altogether, and also dropped the notion of the immediate suicide the same evening, or same morning as Kelly for the suicided suspect. The latter is also no longer identified as a middle-aged doctor, and is even specifically denied to have ever been sectioned (if he was not an invalid recluse then maybe he worked? What then did he do?)

For in Mac's public account under his own name Kelly is killed the night of the 8th or the morning of the 9th, whereas the Ripper kills himself on the 10th, or maybe it was the 11th, or maybe ... anyhow, he breaks Farquharson's 1891 paradigm by, at the very least, a loose twenty-four hours which is too long to be bloodily stumbling, unnoticed and unobstructed, to the Thames' edge.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Caz

The point of honesty is absolutely critical to the Jack the Ripper story.

Ever since Martin Fido raised the question in relation to Anderson.

While my views may not entirely agree with Fido or even Begg for that matter. Martin's assumption that Anderson would 'not have lied' for personal kudos, makes Kosminski a key suspect as Jack the Ripper.

And thats why I take exception to anybody making the types of claim that Phil appeared to be making. Its absolutely key to the case.

Trust you are well

Jeff

[lynn cates]

Farqy

Hello Jonathan. Thanks. Wish we knew more about Farqy's story in its original.

Cheers.
LC

[jason_c]

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 whìle 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

Phil,

Firstly, as far as MacNaughten is concerned I'd give him more credence than Abberline or Reid. His was an internal memo not meant for public consumption. We don't know directly why he favoured Druitt. However, we do have indirect evidence as to why he believed in Druitt over Kosminski. Sim's wrote of the timeline problem concerning Kosminski. The timeline favoured Druitt, his death, and the end of the killings. We can tentatively assume this was Sims parroting MacNaghten's problems with Kosminski as the killer.

I suppose what im saying is the these arguments against Kosminski are not new. I can visualize MM and Anderson going over this point face to face. It all depends if you believe a serial killer can stop. Again, this is not a new controversy. They were having the debate in the LVP too.

As far as Kosminski's actions once realizing he'd been immediately identified goes im wondering if Anderson Anderson/Swanson didnt convince themselves of this in order to explain the killer stopping. This was their repudiation of MacNaghten's doubts.

We do know that Kosminski seems to have relied upon his family for day to day living. I dont get the impression he could survive away from the family unit. Fleeing would not be an easy option for him.

[mklhawley]

Hi Caz

The point of honesty is absolutely critical to the Jack the Ripper story.

Ever since Martin Fido raised the question in relation to Anderson.

While my views may not entirely agree with Fido or even Begg for that matter. Martin's assumption that Anderson would 'not have lied' for personal kudos, makes Kosminski a key suspect as Jack the Ripper.

And thats why I take exception to anybody making the types of claim that Phil appeared to be making. Its absolutely key to the case.

Trust you are well

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

We do know that Anderson lied for his country in 1887 with the Parnell/Times articles and we do know he lied about how he left the force (he claimed it was only his decision, but Simon demonstrated he was recommended to leave). Lying was definitely a tool in his tool bag, but that should not be a surprise because of his clandestine career. I'm certainly not suggesting we reject Kosminski, but I am saying he had it in him to not be perfectly honest.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

We do know that Anderson lied for his country in 1887 with the Parnell/Times articles and we do know he lied about how he left the force (he claimed it was only his decision, but Simon demonstrated he was recommended to leave). Lying was definitely a tool in his tool bag, but that should not be a surprise because of his clandestine career. I'm certainly not suggesting we reject Kosminski, but I am saying he had it in him to not be perfectly honest.

Sincerely, Mike

Hi Mike

Yes you are correct Anderson was a political spy master. The important distiction reached by Martin Fido is 'Anderson would NOT have lied for personal kudos'

Fido had studied Andersons religious writings in some depth and Begg thought him qualified enough to make an academic opinion on his writings.

The problem of course is where personal 'boasting' or 'kudos' start and finish?

What cant be denied is that Anderson was a deeply religious man whose religious convictions (ie eternal damnation) would have been far more important to him than how the ripper case was perceived by others.

So I understand that Fido made an academic accessment of Andersons writings and work and concluded 'as a littery' expert that Anderson would not have lied for 'Kudos'

Of coursde Martin Recently made his case on Podcast why he thought Cohen not Kosminski was the man they were talking about. And a fine job he did. But for me Kosminski's illness makes him a far more likely candidate for Jack than the more obvious Cohen

all the best

Jeff

[PaulB]

Hi Jeff,

We do know that Anderson lied for his country in 1887 with the Parnell/Times articles and we do know he lied about how he left the force (he claimed it was only his decision, but Simon demonstrated he was recommended to leave). Lying was definitely a tool in his tool bag, but that should not be a surprise because of his clandestine career. I'm certainly not suggesting we reject Kosminski, but I am saying he had it in him to not be perfectly honest.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike
Could you refresh my memory by reminding me where Anderson lied in or with the Parnell articles?
Ta
Paul

[DVV]

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.

Hi Jonathan, this makes sense to me.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike
Could you refresh my memory by reminding me where Anderson lied in or with the Parnell articles?
Ta
Paul

Hi Paul,

More appropriately would be the word ‘deceptive’. I’m saying he was being deceptive about not knowing of Richard Pigott’s forgeries, was being deceptive about his authorship of the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ articles, was being deceptive when MacDonald, the manager of The Times, told Parnell’s counsel point-blank that the articles were written by several persons (two from Flannagan) and he was silent, and was purposely and deceptively being silent when the Conservative Party took the forgeries as genuine.

I do believe it was in him to be ‘deceptive’ if he believed it was called for (even when the Conservative Party in 1910 was in uproar).

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

OK, I understand you what you're saying, Paul

Aaron Kosminski was JTR and all contrary arguments are irrelevent.

[Scott Nelson]

No, he was the suspect. You and that Phil Carter are something else.