There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Chris]

If Kosminski was the Ripper, or merely suspected of being the Ripper, then how, just a week after his commital to Colney Hatch, could the police have even momentarily considered Frances Coles to be a "Ripper" victim?

If the police believed the Ripper was still at large, logic dictates that he couldn't have been Kosminski.

Paradoxically, I think this is less of a problem for people who don't consider the information in the marginalia reliable. Without the marginalia, couldn't the supposed identification have taken place after the Coles murder - as the serial version of Anderson's memoirs might suggest?

[robhouse]

You've pretty much answered your own question.

Exactly.

Again, compare this to what happened in the Green River killer case. Detective Reichert (the head of the Green River Task Force) was basically convinced ('morally certain") that Ridgeway was guilty. But the police did not have sufficient evidence to convict Ridgeway. Another way of looking at this is that regardless of Reichert's sincere belief in Ridgeway's guilt, he may have been wrong. In fact, logically and precicely speaking, ONLY IF the police were in possession of legal proof could they have been absolutely certain of a suspect's guilt. (And as we have seen in many modern cases, even when there is legal proof of a suspect's guilt, the suspect sometimes is, in fact innocent! Hence the vague nature of the idea of being "certain" about anything. Moral proof remember is defined as a degree of “intuitive probability” that is “sufficient to regulate the conduct of one’s life even if it is in principle possible that we can be mistaken.” Anderson would known this precise definition, and he refers to it several times referring to his suspect Kozminski.

Hence, let's look at this regarding Anderson's moral certainty that Kozminski was guilty. Anderson obviously believed that Kozminski was the Ripper, but he may have been wrong. And since Anderson clearly would have understood the precise definition of "moral certainty," it is clear that he would have admitted this if pressed on it. Despite this, Anderson would have probably said that he was certain enough. Despite this, it was not "legally actionable," so the police were in a bind. Anderson made many statements along these lines.

Also, it was obvious that several "top officials" at Scotland Yard did not agree with Anderson's "theory." Swanson may have agreed that Kozminski was a likely suspect, but at the same time, he probably was not as certain as Anderson. Macnaghten clearly disagreed with Anderson and thought that Druitt was a "more plausible" suspect (although he acknowledged that Kozminski was a possible suspect.) Littlechild said Anderson "only thought he knew"... which is not in fact a dismissal of Kozminski as a suspect, and is actually (if you think about it) in line with the definition of moral proof. Anderson "thought he knew" is pretty accurate to the definition of moral certainty. This does not mean Anderson was wrong. It means he thought he knew, but couldn't prove it... which is essentially what Anderson said himself.

In light of all this, it would have been asinine if the police had not continued to pursue other suspects. Despite what Anderson (and possibly others) may have believed, there was no legal proof against Kozminski, as Anderson admitted. Hence the police continued to pursue other suspects. And I would argue that they were obliged to continue pursuing other suspects. It would have been an abnegation of their duties if they had not done so... and again, Anderson would probably have been forced to admit this himself...

The same exact thing happened in the Green River case. Other detectives on the Green River task force disagreed with Reichert's "theory", and preferred other suspects. And the police continued to look into other suspects even after Reichert was absolutely convinced that Ridgeway was guilty. The analogy with the Ripper case is straightforward... Anderson was the head of CID, but this still does not mean that the MET could or should have stopped looking into other suspects.

Hence it is not at all surprising that the London police looked into the possibility that Sadler or anyone else might have been the Ripper. Had they not done so, they would have been stupid, and also, in my opinion, they would not have been doing their job.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Hence it is not at all surprising that the London police looked into the possibility that Sadler or anyone else might have been the Ripper. Had they not done so, they would have been stupid, and also, in my opinion, they would not have been doing their job.

Why bother, when at the time the police apparently knew for a fact that the Ripper was quietly masturbating within the confines of Colney Hatch?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

"Why, exactly, would different police officials have considered different suspects at the time?"

Are you serious with this question? Do you understand that police investigate cases, and try to solve crimes? The criminals often do not usually give evidence of their own guilt, therefore the police are in the position of being forced to find evidence of guilt, and come up with "theories."

There has been disagreement over suspects in many, many cases. And as has been pointed out... this extends beyond the scope of the police investigations (in unsolved cases) to theories of "armchair detectives." Take the Zodiac killer case for example. The book by Robert Graysmith presents a very solid (largely circumstantial) case against Arthur Lee Alan. Despite this, it appears he may have been wrong. Other people support other theories... this is always the way it goes.

In my opinion, the police must have had more evidence against Kozminski. There is absolutely no reason to think that the identification was the only thing that convinced Anderson of Kozminski's guilt... despite what Sugden suggests on the matter. The police obviously questioned Kozminski, and in all probability questioned his family. They conducted surveillance on him. Who knows what circumstantial evidence or inculpatory evidence they had on him, (including the statements of relatives, witnesses, the suspect himself, etc.) But whatever it was, it was not sufficient to bring a case against him.

Ergo, it was a theory. Hence, others may have disagreed with Anderson and may have preferred other suspects.

RH

[robhouse]

"Why bother, when at the time the police apparently knew for a fact that the Ripper was quietly masturbating within the confines of Colney Hatch?"

Moral certainty.... insufficient legal evidence... Anderson may have been wrong... etc.

Did you read at all what I wrote, because it answers this question directly? In fact the entire point of that post was to answer this exact question. If you cannot understand it, then I think it is clear that you do not understand what the police do.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Of course I understand that police investigate cases and try to solve crimes, but I also know that they don't go out of their way to make life difficult for themselves by continuing to investigate a series of crimes when they know as a "definitely ascertained fact" that the culprit has already been consigned to a lunatic asylum.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

Sorry, I didn't mean to be here...I was following the scent of a conspiracy.

[robhouse]

Then you clearly did not read my post. How do you explain the Green River task force doing exactly that then?

Also, we should look at this phrase "definitely ascertained fact" in the conext in which it was written. This was Anderson's response to Mentor's critique that the police had "'formed a theory'—usually the first essential to some blundering injustice. In this case, the police came to the conclusion that 'Jack the Ripper' was a 'low-class' Jew, and they so decided, Sir Robert says, because they believe 'it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.' "

Mentor, in other words, was charging that the police formed a theory that the Ripper was a Jew because of... and so forth. Anderson's response was a direct reply to this assertion. He said (in essence) that the police did not in fact form a theory that the Ripper was Jewish, but rather that they conducted an inquiry into a particular suspect and came to the conclusion that he was the Ripper... and that he happened to be Jewish.

Hence, here, the differentiation is between theory and "fact". But as we have seen, on another occasion Anderson spoke of this so called fact as being a "moral certainty." Which, as he clearly knew, meant it was not technically a fact, but instead was an “intuitive probability” that is “sufficient to regulate the conduct of one’s life even if it is in principle possible that we can be mistaken.” Anderson obviously knew the exact meaning of this phrase, as he referred to it on several occasions.

Your repeated insinuations that "the police" knew the Ripper's identity as a "definitely ascertained fact" is disingenuous. You obviously are aware (or should be) both that "the police" as a whole did not believe this, and that Anderson would have obviously admitted (and did!) that it was a "moral certainty" as opposed to a concrete fact.

Your pretending to not understand all this is rather disappointing. You are in effect taking Anderson's quote out of context, and then applying his belief to the entire Police force which is clearly wrong.

I will add that I do not see any problem with referring to Anderson's belief in Kozminski's guilt as a) a theory, b) a moral certainty (in Anderson's opinion) or c) a "fact" (also in Anderson's opinion). All three are fairly true, depending on who you are talking to. Ergo, Littlechild's statement is also true... Anderson "only thought he knew." Also Griffith's statement about Anderson's "perfectly plausible theory" is also true, from Griffiths's perspective. (ie. from Griffiths's perspective it was a theory... from Littlechild's perspective it would also be a "theory." In short, from the perspective of anyone who did not agree 100% with Anderson (including probably Swanson) it was also a "theory." To Anderson himself, it was a "moral certainty" (again, a theory), or a "fact"--- which we should essentially still consider, even from Anderson's perspective, to be a moral certainty.

However, when you are replying to a harsh criticism... especially one that claims you are casting aspersions on the Jewish community as a whole.... this is NOT the time or place to start talking about the subtle differences between the term "a fact" and the term "moral certainty." Such subtle distinctions between the two terms would have been lost on the readers anyway. Anderson was simply trying to say that the police (whoever exactly that means) did not come to a conclusion about the Ripper's identity as a result of a "theory" that the Ripper must have been Jewish.

RH

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

I knew at heart you were a Bisto Kid.



Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Rob,

Of course I understand that police investigate cases and try to solve crimes, but I also know that they don't go out of their way to make life difficult for themselves by continuing to investigate a series of crimes when they know as a "definitely ascertained fact" that the culprit has already been consigned to a lunatic asylum.

Regards,

Simon

Ah,but it might a case of OCD Simon---in Kosminski"s case it manifested itself one way,while in Anderson"s case OCD asserted itself whenever he thought about the [low class] Polish Jewish community of Whitechapel ,not cooperating with gentile justice.
Regards
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I would sympathize with your disappointment if there was anything in the whole sorry Anderson/Swanson mess to understand.

As regards the rest of your post, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

All that is fine Simon... I will only point out that you have not actually responded in any way to what I have argued. Nor am I particularly bothered by the fact that the whole thing does not make any sense to you...

You brought up a concern, I answered it. If you do not care to respond, I will assume that you concede defeat. Or perhaps I will just wait until you reveal your all-encompassing conspiracy theory... then maybe I will concede defeat.

Respectfully yours,

RH

[jason_c]

All that is fine Simon... I will only point out that you have not actually responded in any way to what I have argued. Nor am I particularly bothered by the fact that the whole thing does not make any sense to you...

You brought up a concern, I answered it. If you do not care to respond, I will assume that you concede defeat. Or perhaps I will just wait until you reveal your all-encompassing conspiracy theory... then maybe I will concede defeat.

Respectfully yours,

RH

A conspiracy theory encompassing Catherine Eddowes being killed in a boat, and dayglow bits of Kelly's body hanging from the ceiling of 13 Millers Court.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Never assume.

At this moment it would be foolish of me to state categorically that a conspiracy was in the air, but there is certainly enough prima facie evidence in support of the idea for me to pursue matters to their end. Only then will I expect you to concede.

In the meantime, what I will not do is accept the wishful and, frankly, biased thinking which has been offered in support of the Anderson/Swanson scenario.

Hi Jason,

I suggest you take up the matter of hanging entrails in Millers Court with Inspector Henry Moore.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Apologies for the delayed response, I was on the phone.
Simon Wood wrote:
Hi Mariab,
Why, exactly, would different police officials have considered different suspects at the time?
Why do Ripperologists consider different suspects? Macnaghten proposed Druitt, Anderson Kozminski, Swanson was semi-considering Kozminski too, Littlechild Tumblety, and some people even formulated thoughts about Le Grand. By the by, noone thought to respond to my (possible) Levy/Levy suggestion (totally as an afterthought)!
Chris wrote:
Without the marginalia, couldn't the supposed identification have taken place after the Coles murder - as the serial version of Anderson's memoirs might suggest?
I think this is plausible. And I also think that Simon Wood has a point with no haste being met by the police while Kozminski was secured within the confines of Colney Hatch. And Bisto, is that a gravy or something?
To Rob House:
I think the Ripper case shares more similarities with the Zodiac case, not so much with the Green River case. The Robert Graysmith book can TOTALLY be compared to the Macnaghten/Swanson suggestions. Still, I'm afraid I don't really share your opinion that the police must have had more evidence against Kozminski, because the guy really doesn't “profile“ right. What if the suspicions referred to another low-class Jew, or to a generic Jewish suspect? (And I don't necessarily wish to mention Levy again.) I fully understand the nuances of Anderson trying to demonstrate, like you said, that the police did not come to a conclusion about the Ripper's identity as a result of a "theory" that the Ripper must have been Jewish.
To Lynn Cates:
Hello Lynn. You wouldn't believe this, but I semi-accidentally (through some discreet looking) only today realized that you're NOT located in Scotland! (As a Scott.) I had no idea that you were in Texas...