Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Trevor Marriott]

One is mentioned fairly consistently by contemporary Police Officials of the time, the other by his own Lawyer (whose word is the only one concerned with this alledged confession) in a sensationlistic Newpaper.

No, no head an shoulders at all. Just bearly hitting boot straps.

Monty

"Fairly consistently" are you having a laugh ?

The contempoaray police officers couldnt even agree on a suspect in any event and Major Smith says they never had a clue. So how can you and the other Kosmsinski`ites say he is a prime suspect.

[Colin Roberts]

"Well so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them"

The contempoaray police officers couldnt even agree on a suspect in any event and Major Smith says they never had a clue.

Starter Kit for Feigenbaum!

[Trevor Marriott]

The transcripts I posted above are the only parts of the correspondence that describe the annotations in any detail. The letter from Robert Warren of the News of the World dated 16 April 1981 - of which I have seen a photocopy - does not.

But as you can see for yourself, Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, says that the information names the suspect (his emphasis).

Well can we see the letter or any correspondence from the chain of events which shows the News of The World were paying for an article which actually names Kosminski and not paying for an article which only refers to a polish jew.

I am simply trying to establish excatly what they were buying Kosminski or Polish Jew.

I fail to see if the article contained the name Kosminski how and why the NOW didnt print it especially after paying all of that monet which equates to around £4000.00 in todays momey. That would have been a major story.

Like I said before the conversation i had with Nevill Swanson and the e mail i received from him conflict with what you have written about this.

[Chris]

Well can we see the letter or any correspondence from the chain of events which shows the News of The World were paying for an article which actually names Kosminski and not paying for an article which only refers to a polish jew.

Which part of my last post are you having trouble understanding?

[Monty]

Yet Kosminski is mentioned by at least two prominant Senior police officials whereas your boy is alluded to where?

A news report and your book.

I'm no Kosminski-ite in any sense. I'm merely pointing out the obvious flaws in your beliefs that Feigenbaum, at this precise moment is far below Kosminski in the pecking order.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Which part of my last post are you having trouble understanding?

The part where you post here a copy of an original letter which shows the NOW were paying for the article which shows the name of Kosminski in the annotations and not simply the annotations refrring to "A Polish Jew"

Which part of my question do you still not understand

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet Kosminski is mentioned by at least two prominant Senior police officials whereas your boy is alluded to where?

A news report and your book.

I'm no Kosminski-ite in any sense. I'm merely pointing out the obvious flaws in your beliefs that Feigenbaum, at this precise moment is far below Kosminski in the pecking order.

Monty

I am not suggseting for one minute that there are not flaws in Feigenbaums viabilty I am saying there are even more flaws with Kosminski`s viablity

[Chris]

Well, all I can do is repeat what I posted above:

The transcripts I posted above are the only parts of the correspondence that describe the annotations in any detail. The letter from Robert Warren of the News of the World dated 16 April 1981 - of which I have seen a photocopy - does not.

But as you can see for yourself, Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, says that the information names the suspect (his emphasis).

Obviously that means that the annotations contained a name. (And of course, the annotations do not say anything about the suspect being a "Polish Jew." That phrase is Anderson's.)

[Hunter]

Letter from JDS to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph [October 1987]

[The following is a suggested transcription from an incomplete carbon copy, which is very difficult to make out in places, so some readings are doubtful.]


'...Jack the Ripper was my Grandfather's main concern until, he the Ripper was put safely away and the file closed, presumably about 1890. My Grandfather would then have been occupied with other cases. Kosminski would no longer have been his concern so my Grandfather would no longer have kept a tally on him and his demise...'

This is interesting.
Where did he get the 'presumably about 1890' from? DSS mentioned no dates in the marginalia and I doubt James had access or even tried to access workhouse and/or asylum records. Did he get it from Fido or Rumbelow?

[Steven Russell]

Hunter: good question.

Trevor: you can't have it both ways, my dear old thing. You have rubbished Scotland Yard's finest yet quote Moore!

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, all I can do is repeat what I posted above:

The transcripts I posted above are the only parts of the correspondence that describe the annotations in any detail. The letter from Robert Warren of the News of the World dated 16 April 1981 - of which I have seen a photocopy - does not.

But as you can see for yourself, Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, says that the information names the suspect (his emphasis).

Obviously that means that the annotations contained a name. (And of course, the annotations do not say anything about the suspect being a "Polish Jew." That phrase is Anderson's.)

But JDS would have known about the polish jew would he not because "some" annotations were in that same book.

Furtjermore I am not convinced that all of the annotations were written by Donald Swanson and I know there are many others who feel the same way.

There are just to many aspects to all of this that dont add up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hunter: good question.

Trevor: you can't have it both ways, my dear old thing. You have rubbished Scotland Yard's finest yet quote Moore!

Best wishes,
Steve.

If they were so fine then they would have solved the case would they not ?

Not a question of rubbishing them at all but as they all came up with different suspects one has to say they cant all have been right can they.

One some or all of then were wrong.

Add Major Smith and then deduct Scotland Yards Finest what are you left with ? "No one"

Elementary my dear fellow !

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Yes, that is one way of looking at it, but it is not the only way -- and arguably not the strongest argument either.

The head of CID at the time and the operational head of the case both, arguably, backed a suspect who was completely plausible: local, mad and obscure, as opposed to exotic, a V.I.P. or a candidate for a real life Dorian Gray or Dr Henry Jekyll.

That other significant police figures did not agree is because, arguably, they did not know about Aaron Kosminski, or 'Kosminski', because he was strongly suspected only after he was incarcerated -- which the first version of Anderson's memoirs can be interpreted as meaning. That the Polish Jew suspect was not known about in 1888, at all, hence the ignorance of Smith, Abberline, Reid, et. al.

That Macnaghten, who did know about 'Kosminski', pushed -- hard and publicly --for an alternate and oppositional suspect; a real life gentleman-monster, can be explained by a long-standing, personal antipathy between Anderson and himself, and an overweening, even adolescent need, on Mac's part to solve the case himself -- to not be 'six months too late' for the most sensational nurder mystery of the century.

The marginalia is, arguably, a terrific primary source because Swanson did not have to please, or over-reach, or deceive, or cover for anybody; it was written entirely for himself and is therefore reliable.

Yes, there are large errors in both sources, but that can be explained by both the distance of time, and the acute frustration of both officers finding the murderer already 'safely caged' from them.

[Hunter]

That is an excellent post, Jonathan.

Each of these men were viewing the case in retrospect, with the information that each had, or thought they had before them... with some profiling thrown in that they thought was compelling. But, it is not unusual for an unsolved case to be seen like this. There were several theories by law enforcement personnel about the Green River Killer, until, many years later, more updated forensics were able to pinpoint Ridgeway.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Hunter

One thing I disgree with is the notion that the Green River killer and 'Jack the Ripper' are comparable -- even though both involved a distance in time from the crimes and subsequent police certainty over the killer's identity.

This is because Gary Ridgeway was a contemporaneous suspect, if not the prime suspect as the Green River Killer, years before DNA proved beyond doubt his culpability, and he confessed.

Whereas 'Kosminski' and M. J. Druitt are Ripper suspects totally unknown at the height of the murders, and may have only become known to [senior] police at the dispiritng, tail-end of the official investigation in early 1891 around the time of the Coles-Sadler embarassment.

If Aaron Kosminski really was a Ripper suspect based on some kind of incriminating evidence -- and not a 'Trojan' suspect manufactured by Macnaghten to mislead -- then this terrible suspicion originated from within Kosminski's own family, his own people, who, paraphrasing Mac, suspected 'the worst'.