New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Nemo]

I can't really see the problem in identifying the evidence Anderson considered to be sufficient and what was available to him

Despite "not telling tales", in his autobiography and subsequent letters to the press he is quite open in regard to why he thought the Polish Jew was the Ripper

He states quite clearly that it was deduced that the Ripper crimes were the work of a madman, living in the local area, confirmed by the location of Kosminski, who was positively identified by an eye witness, and whose incarceration marked the end of the Whitechapel murders

Anderson didn't need any more moral proof than that and doesn't hint at any further hard evidence

[Chris]

Internal post and documentation was also stamped and or catalogued, no?

Well, that's the question.

At any rate I'm fairly sure internal police documents wouldn't have been 'stamped received'.

And if the Macnaghten Memorandum isn't stamped, then that in itself is a demonstration that internal documents weren't always stamped, isn't it? I don't know that they ever were. Are there any examples?

As for 'catalogued', I don't know what that refers to. We don't have a catalogue of all the documents that referred to the case, do we?

[Chris]

And all I’m trying to say, Paul, is that we ought to be looking at the bigger picture when attempting to ascertain the level of hard evidence the police had against Kosminski. If Anderson alone was convinced by it, it could hardly have been compelling.

In a sense, doesn't Anderson himself admit that? "It was a case of moral versus legal proof." If it would have been sufficient to convince "twelve good men and true" it would have been legal proof. The "moral proof" business must in effect be an acknowledgment that not everyone would be convinced by the evidence.

[Phil Carter]

Subject to correction from anyone who understands these things better than I do, the 'stamped received' thing would apply to documents that had been sent to the Metropolitan Police by someone else - a member of the public or another official body. Documents produced by police officers wouldn't be 'stamped received' - because they hadn't been received (i.e. received from outside the force).

Hello Chris,

Subject to the above, and the following..I believe that all documents in the files had a file number, and were initialled. They were also addressed to a recipient and or a "seen" by another official. Internal post and documentation was also stamped and or catalogued, no?

I believe I am correct in saying that there is no official stamp of any sort on this document? Please correct me if I am in the wrong.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Sir MM wrote his piece, and kept it in his drawer at work. He showed and shared it's contents with various people. It was never officially received into the files, therefore never stamped.

Subject to correction from anyone who understands these things better than I do, the 'stamped received' thing would apply to documents that had been sent to the Metropolitan Police by someone else - a member of the public or another official body. Documents produced by police officers wouldn't be 'stamped received' - because they hadn't been received (i.e. received from outside the force).

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

A well-argued and good-natured response to a somewhat provocative post. Respect!

Hello Colin,

Thank you. It just seems quite plausible and fairly logical to me.
As MM was under Anderson, there's a fairly good chance his boss saw it.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

That's not my point. You're saying the family 'merely' thought he was insane; I'm saying MM reports the family as leveling a far more serious charge.

Hello Robert,

Yes, and many other people reported members of their family to the police in the thought or belief that they were Jack the Ripper. It wasn't unusual.

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin,

Herewith a fairly plausible scenario.

Sir MM wrote his piece, and kept it in his drawer at work. He showed and shared it's contents with various people. It was never officially received into the files, therefore never stamped. It was not adressed to anybody either. Technically, it is an unofficial document, written by an official. That official may simply have shared it's contents with certain others. At some time or another, he himself slipped the paper into the files, before his retirement.

Therefore it can be unofficial and read by many, never to see the light of day until 1965, when discovered by Robin Odell.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

A well-argued and good-natured response to a somewhat provocative post. Respect!

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

it is supposition..but seeing that comment about his mother was known to the family, the thought of madness must have been considered by the family themselves.

That's not my point. You're saying the family 'merely' thought he was insane; I'm saying MM reports the family as leveling a far more serious charge.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Paul,

Quite so. The MacNaghten Memoranda can't be simultaneously an unofficial document which never saw the light of day and the universally read document which was the source of all subsequent opinion. It can, arguably, be one or the other. It can't be both.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Herewith a fairly plausible scenario.

Sir MM wrote his piece, and kept it in his drawer at work. He showed and shared it's contents with various people. It was never officially received into the files, therefore never stamped. It was not adressed to anybody either. Technically, it is an unofficial document, written by an official. That official may simply have shared it's contents with certain others. At some time or another, he himself slipped the paper into the files, before his retirement.

Therefore it can be unofficial and read by many, never to see the light of day until 1965, when discovered by Robin Odell.

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

It's not a reasonably safe bet at all. There is no evidence whatsoever that Anderson was even aware of the memorandum's existence, let alone took his information from it.

Hi Paul,

Quite so. The MacNaghten Memoranda can't be simultaneously an unofficial document which never saw the light of day and the universally read document which was the source of all subsequent opinion. It can, arguably, be one or the other. It can't be both.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

We're not using Macnaghten for evaluating anything. We are merely observing that he said there were many circs which made Kosminski a good suspect.

It has been stated, Paul, that Macnaghten’s naming of Kosminski adds weight to the contention that Kosminski was a strong police suspect. The point I’ve been trying to make is that Macnaghten is an untrustworthy source. The information he cited with regard to Ostrog was so wide of the mark that his Kosminski claims must be treated with extreme caution. His phraseology is curious too: ‘There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’.’ Since it doesn’t appear that Macnaghten was referring to hard evidence, what exactly were these ‘circs’? Kosminski’s mental instability? His masturbatory habits? His alleged hatred of prostitutes? If so, Macnaghten’s argument for Kosminski’s suspect status is yet more of the nonsense he peddled with regard to Ostrog and Druitt.

Yes, as you say, he doesn't present any evidence. Does that mean he didn't have any? I mean, why did anyone suspect Druitt of having murdered anybody, let alone connected his name with the Ripper murders? Was it simply the fact that he committed suicide when he did? If that was it, if Macnaghten settled on Druitt without any other evidence at all, then he was a tosspot.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Macnaghten was a tosspot, Paul. To my mind he was a man so fascinated by the Ripper case that he felt the need to involve himself. Forbes Winslow did it. So did Sickert. And so did Maria Coroner. One has only to look at the plethora of suspects advanced down the years to discern many theorists who also succumbed to the lure of the Ripper case. As to why Macnaghten proposed Druitt, your guess is as good as mine. Of one thing, though, I’m absolutely certain: there wasn’t an atom of evidence to connect Druitt to Jack the Ripper. I’m not suggesting that Macnaghten was in any way dishonest or insincere with respect to his Druitt proposal. Much like Anderson, he arrived at a conclusion that he believed to be true and thereafter treated it as factual. But it was an assumption, and an errant one at that.

In some respects that's the nob of what I am trying to say: we can theorise this and that, and maybe the theory is right, but we don't know the facts and therefore it is premature to draw conclusions based on how we choose to perceive things.

And all I’m trying to say, Paul, is that we ought to be looking at the bigger picture when attempting to ascertain the level of hard evidence the police had against Kosminski. If Anderson alone was convinced by it, it could hardly have been compelling. And the fact that Major Smith wasn’t convinced by it ought to be sufficient to deter us from taking Anderson at his word. It’s about the weight of evidence, and the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly indicative that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence against Kosminski.

[Phil Carter]

You've said it twice so you obviously believe it.

How do you get from "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" to the family simply thinking the "man was mad" ???

That's a serious downgrading of what Macnaghten is telling us.

Hello Robert,

On the information that came out, through the family, that Druitt thought he was going the same way as his mother. As I said, it is supposition..but seeing that comment about his mother was known to the family, the thought of madness must have been considered by the family themselves.

The point was that the simplest answer is, we are told, the best.

So I just took two very simple answers. One from each of them. Kosminski..Anderson and Druitt...MM

all supposition and like I said,,just a thought.

Which was basically what Paul was saying.

best wishes

Phil

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

and I will even throw in a "the family thought he was mad" for free.

a belief that the man was mad from the family.

You've said it twice so you obviously believe it.

How do you get from "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer" to the family simply thinking the "man was mad" ???

That's a serious downgrading of what Macnaghten is telling us.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

"One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum."

Anderson couldn't have failed to know what Major Griffiths was saying. After all, he'd said much the same himself in 1895.

And a year earlier than that, so had Macnaghten.

Regards,

Simon