"5 victims and 5 victims only"

[GUT]

Sir Melville couldn't explain his private information because he would have to reveal his source I think this theory about a priest being his imformant makes perfect sense .

Or someone V E R Y well connected.

Would the MP be well enough connected to warrant this type of protection?

And we must remember that sometimes a person who on the face of it would not qualify for this type of support can have connections that rise them above the norm.

I recently cam across a person who was a Grade 3 clerk in 1850's and was invited to all the Governor's functions when his bosses 7 and 8 grades above him weren't we know that this person's father was on "stop and have a chat" terms with the King.

Now no one would expect that a lowly clerk would warrant any type of special treatment, but clearly he was extended preferential treatment because of his family.

Long story to say maybe that is why Mcnaghten kept his information private.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,

I think the problem is that McNaughton and his Memo has become a sacred cow. McNaughton, it would appear, latched onto Druitt ( I am leaving out the info from his family that McNaughton alludes to but doesnt explain) because he was found dead in the Thames and worked back.

But I think it has to be remember that McNaughton was not in situ at the time of the murders, but Swanson and Anderson where. You would therefore expect that Swanson and Anderson would be more reliaible .....particularly Swanson who had sight of all the reports and information.

Sir Melville couldn't explain his private information because he would have to reveal his source I think this theory about a priest being his imformant makes perfect sense .

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the problem is that McNaughton and his Memo has become a sacred cow. McNaughton, it would appear, latched onto Druitt ( I am leaving out the info from his family that McNaughton alludes to but doesnt explain) because he was found dead in the Thames and worked back.

But I think it has to be remember that McNaughton was not in situ at the time of the murders, but Swanson and Anderson where. You would therefore expect that Swanson and Anderson would be more reliaible .....particularly Swanson who had sight of all the reports and information.

[pinkmoon]

I think kosminski only become of interest to the police because they were desperate he picked up a knife to his sister he lived locally and he was a loon these factors inspired the police to investigate him maybe because they simply couldn't track his movements on the night of the murders he came a leading suspect.They couldn't have had anything on him because didn't sir Melville choose Druitt over him I do think kosminski was a case of any suspect is a good one when you have no real suspect the combination of knife,local and lunatic caused them to look at him.

[Scott Nelson]

It leaves us with the possibility that MM, RA and DS were referring to someone else entirely, and that they had nothing against him except suspicions or circumstantial evidence, if you could even call it that. If his name was "Kosminski" but he was confined under an anglicized last name, we'll never know who he was.

The question then is why did police refer to him by his Polish name, "Kosminski", instead of his anglicized name? Perhaps they wanted to emphasize to other police officials that he was Polish, not an English-born Jew.

[Phil Carter]

The only thing I can think of Phil, is that Swanson added the names of MacKenzie and Coles to the list because he may have thought they had been killed by someone other than the Ripper, but were still considered as part of the Whitechapel murders. As I have speculated on before, certain Scotland Yard Officials, including Swanson, got together several years later (1892-3?) and decided how many victims the Ripper had killed and who he was based on the timing of a certain individual's lock-up. This possibility throws out the hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski, as the individual who was confined at the "right" time.

Hello Scott,

And if this possibility, mentioned above, throws out Aaron Kosminski, hairdresser... what and where is the promotion of said Aaron as JTR left now?

And if what you surmise be correct.... where does that leave the MM?...Kosminski and all. because that was written in 1894.....?


best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

The only thing I can think of Phil, is that Swanson added the names of MacKenzie and Coles to the list because he may have thought they had been killed by someone other than the Ripper, but were still considered as part of the Whitechapel murders. As I have speculated on before, certain Scotland Yard Officials, including Swanson, got together several years later (1892-3?) and decided how many victims the Ripper had killed and who he was based on the timing of a certain individual's lock-up. This possibility throws out the hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski, as the individual who was confined at the "right" time.

[Phil Carter]

The problem Phil is, of course, with ASSUMPTIONS. The 23 year-old Polish hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski is assumed to be Anderson's suspect because nobody else named "Kosminski" has been found in Workhouse and asylum records. But there is nothing in Aaron's records to suggest the possibility that either police or asylum authorities though he could be the Ripper.

And just think, if Aaron was sent to the workhouse and confined in asylums under his anglicized name, Abrahams, we would have no Aaron Kosminski as a suspect because there would be nothing to connect him to the murders as a suspect.

The same might be said of David Cohen, even if his non-anglicized name turned out to be "Kosminski."

Hello Scott,

Bang on. Totally bang on...

Do tell me how, in your view, which I respect, Swanson can write the list as well as the marginalia? They cannot possibly match each other...can they?


best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

The problem Phil is, of course, with ASSUMPTIONS. The 23 year-old Polish hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski is assumed to be Anderson's suspect because nobody else named "Kosminski" has been found in Workhouse and asylum records. But there is nothing in Aaron's records to suggest the possibility that either police or asylum authorities though he could be the Ripper.

And just think, if Aaron was sent to the workhouse and confined in asylums under his anglicized name, Abrahams, we would have no Aaron Kosminski as a suspect because there would be nothing to connect him to the murders as a suspect.

The same might be said of David Cohen, even if his non-anglicized name turned out to be "Kosminski."

[lynn cates]

"We are three wise men."

Hello Phil.

"Creeping up on people early in the morning doesn't seem very wise to me."

(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Odd how this last post has never been countered. I wonder why?

Could it possibly be...no... not possible...

...that a major floor has been found here?


HOW can the "Copper-plate written" list of Swanson marry up to his "supposed" naming of Kosminski when the list includes murders after said Kosminski was locked up?

Umm... both things, the above and the marginalia, were written, we are told, by the same man.......

Ever notice the "Copperplate list" (seen in the book Scotland Yard Investigates) is never discussed?... sort of...lets the air out of the Kosminski balloon.....

And Swanson's ramblings are something that Ripperology has relied upon ad nauseum. But not Ye Olde Copper Plate liste...


Oh well... back to reality... All praise be to the three wise men of Ripperology... Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. All of whom presented the world with a pile of rubbish.



Phil


PS.. there will be some amazing excuse dreamt up for this.... just watch. :-)

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I repeat my point.

If the Swanson copperplate written sheet ISN'T Official (someone please tell me either way), then we have two people(DSS and MM) telling us totally different things, both UNofficial, and we are supposed to rely on one or both for our source material. It certainly would make both of these gentlemen's accounts, all of them, to be viewed with greater degrees of scepticism.

If the Swanson copperplate written sheet IS official, then what price the veracity of the Memoranda? Because if the DSS written sheet has MORE than 5 victims, and it is the official view, then MM and his 5 victims and 5 victims only is redundant..and so is the rest of his prose in the memoranda

It simply isn't possibly that MM COULD know in 1894 "5 victims and 5 victims only" was a truism in an ongoing and open investigation. That seems to be accepted by all. But...
Especially as the person in the middle of investigating the crimes (DSS) is still out looking for The Whitechapel Murderer after that time (1894), and has a list of MORE than 5 victims to his name.... IF the DSS copperplate written list is official. If it isn't, oh dear, what CAN be trusted from either man?

So one, or both, are talking poppycock. THAT'S why this is important. Modern Ripperology is very much BASED on the statements of these two people. And by looking between the lines, the holes are revealed. So what is it? The 5 victims and 5 victims only or the DSS copperplate written list?
It simply cannot be both.

I repeat. Time to get the rake out and start weeding. The blinkers are on and blind man's bluff has been the name of the game. They simply BOTH cannot be correct. And one of them, at least, is talking poppycock.

And how is anyone going to defend Swanson and his list of victims with regard to the Kosminski addition in the book? (believe me, some will try!)

There seems only one way out in the light of the list. That Swanson's Marginalia suspect was a written expansion of ANDERSON'S story, and naming ANDERSON'S suspect.

Because according to that list, Aaron Kosminski simply cannot be Swanson's suspect. He was sent away and into a madhouse way before the last victim on DSS' list was killed I believe.. and the list was made way after Kosminski was put away, I believe.

Whoops. Holy hanky over the eyes, Batman! We all missed that one.

"5 victims and 5 victims only"..statement impossible whilst case open and ongoing.
"Kosminski was Swanson's suspect"...statement impossible as list from DSS himself on subject of victims of The Whitechapel Murders was made long after Kosminski was put away, and contains victims who died long after Kosminski was put away.
"Druitt more likely than..." statement impossible as case was still ongoing 2 years after the MM was written and included more victims ACCORDING TO DSS LIST...unless Druitt rose from the Thames and carried on regardless.

And Lord help Anderson's suspect if Swanson's list is to be believed. It's game set and match. Because that doesn't back Kosminski as the killer one iota. What value the name in the marginalia if you compare both DSS items with each other? Err.. guess what... they aren't compatible with each other...and this is?....Yup. Coming from the same man.

Oh dear what can the matter be?
Three old policemen got locked in a mystery
They were there from the start in perpituity..
Until somebody saw what was there....


best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Two things:

Why would the 'higher ups' deny knowing the killer's identity if they knew it?

It is possible that while Anderson and Swanson were utterly convinced that they had identified their man; the Chief Commissioner (whether Munro or Bradford) was unconvinced or - in the absence of a prosecution, preferred to keep his options open.

As I have also said, such an approach would not be inconsistent with going through the motions of treating each successive murder from Mckenzie to Coles AS IF a Ripper killing. In th absence of a culprit - tried, convicted and hanged - the Met upped manning levels and trotted out all the top brass to inspect crime scenes as reassurance.

The press had been merciless in its criticism of their failure to identify the Whitechapel Murderer. The notion that they did identify him, but kept quiet about it through a perversely misguided sense of decency is one of the more unlikely scenarios, to my mind.

Not to me. It is quite conceivable to me that the "corporate mind" of the Commissioner thought it more likely that silence was better than saying we had him but could not convict. As the old adage goes "never apologise never explain". The police baffled by an unprecedented series of murders might be better than - we fingered his collar but we couldn't hold him.

Later they tried to reassure the public by tactful mentions in articles and memoirs - he was indeed caught; no worries.

Just my view, but my experience is that that is the way large organisations work.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

It was not necessarily the 'police' who kept quiet, or at least the top cops who kept quiet.

It was just Macnaghten who never confided in anybody at the Force about Druitt (the official version of his Report lay perhaps unknown and unread, as insurance against the tale surfacing in Dorset again).

Why is it a 'perversely misguided sense of decency' to want to protect a 'good' family whose member could never receive due process?

Whereas it would have been 'perverse' and crual and callous to disseminate to the public a profile which the respectable, unforgiving-of-scandal circles in which the Druitts moved -- plus the Valentine school alumni -- could easily recognise as the drowned barrister, which would have ruined them all.

An argument can be mounted that the moment Sir Robert Anderson believed that he had satisfied himself as to the killer's true identity -- in 1895 -- he forthrightly communicated this opinion to the public. He did not go into details for similar reasons of discretion and propriety; according to his memoirs because it could trigger a law suit.

Would not he have thought that the Kosminski family and the lower order circles in which they moved would easily recognise Aaron as the Polish Jewish suspect, local to whitechapel, moreover a chronic self-abuser who was positvely identified by a fellow Jewish witness, who thankfully for the family, refused to testify?

Well, that did consideration did not matter for he Ripper's own people, who had shielded him, already knew all that -- the swine.

[Stephen Thomas]

Why would the 'higher ups' deny knowing the killer's identity if they knew it? The press had been merciless in its criticism of their failure to identify the Whitechapel Murderer. The notion that they did identify him, but kept quiet about it through a perversely misguided sense of decency is one of the more unlikely scenarios, to my mind.

Well that's what seems to me to have happened, Bridewell

But each to their own.