New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

If Anderson was unaware of the memorandum, it would be interesting to know where he thought Major Griffiths' information had come from.

Regards,

Simon

Indeed it would, assuming he knew what Major Griffiths was saying. And, of course, Anderson and Swanson say more than Macnaghten does, so the memorandum clearly wasn't their source. Both men may have had a common exemplar, but Anderson stated that he was speaking as "a man who investigated the facts" and was stating a simple matter of fact and no a matter of theory. Seems like the words of a man who at worst checked into what he was told, and at best was involved in the events he describes, not one who merely repeated what a subordinate said in a report.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

If Anderson was unaware of the memorandum, it would be interesting to know where he thought Major Griffiths' information had come from.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Phil,

Anderson's "perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum” didn't make its public debut until May 1895, following the Grainger investigation and trial, so it's a reasonably safe bet he lifted the idea from Macnaghten's February 1894 memorandum.

And we all know the accuracy of that particular document.

Regards,

Simon

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.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Anderson's "perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum” didn't make its public debut until May 1895, following the Grainger investigation and trial, so it's a reasonably safe bet he lifted the idea from Macnaghten's February 1894 memorandum.

And we all know the accuracy of that particular document.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Exactly. Therefore a safe bet that this whole mess was started by that document in the first place. You know, the really reliable one written by a man who wasn't involved in the investigation at the time of the murders themselves... the unofficial document that was never recorded as recieved into the Police archives and was never stamped. No better, infact, than just an after the fact, personal view.

Thank God his name wasn't Dr Tuke, eh? lol


best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Anderson's "perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum” didn't make its public debut until May 1895, following the Grainger investigation and trial, so it's a reasonably safe bet he lifted the idea from Macnaghten's February 1894 memorandum.

And we all know the accuracy of that particular document.

Regards,

Simon

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,

Lets review your 4 points and see which if any constitute "evidence" that links a person to a murder;



For #1, we have varying witness descriptions of a suspect within the 5 Canonical murders, there is no consensus as to what ethnic background or height or weight we should be looking for in a suspect. We have a man or men, between 28 and 35 years old, all wearing different clothing. That last point is relevant...of the desperately poor in that area many had one change of clothes to their name.

#2, we cannot assign suspect status to every man within walking distance to the crimes based solely on his living alone. In fact the killer or killers might have boarded in lodging houses, like on Batty Street for example, and even had "bolt holes" to leave bloodied clothing and souvenirs in.

#3, only 2 Canonical killings show obvious knowledge and knife skills, the other 3 do not. Therefore, we need to look for someone with those attributes for only the first 2 murders.

And finally, 4. Without knowing whether 1 man killed all 5 women, without knowing whether or not the motives for all 5 murders were based on the killers mental illness, without knowing whether or not the woman were killed by a stranger, particularly in the case of Mary Kelly, we cannot assume that the man we should look for was ever institutionalized, or .....that he wasnt already institutionalized when the 3rd victim dies.

When you have quotes from all the senior men handling the cases that differ from each other by something as innocuous as inaccurate spelling, that include unsubstantiated rumors and unproven assertions and proclamations, and when we have one of the most flagrant abusers in that regard making false statements for the rest of his career, we do not need to consider their voiced opinions the bottom line on the investigations.

Best regards

Michael, apologies for my short reply. Im typing with an on screen keyboard which makes every paragraph as time consuming as writing out War & Peace. We will have to agree to disagree. Im not saying Kosminski is the killer. Rather I mean that the police had reasonable grounds for suspicion. Any young single male living in the heart of the district with sole occupancy of a room, and one who also had mental frailties would have been a decent suspect, Jew or otherwise. It's when the Jewish angle became of such importance to Anderson that im unsure of.

[Phil Carter]

That's basically what I was saying, but unfortunately we don't know what evidence Macnaghten based his conclusions on or how much the likes of Reid et al knew about it, so it's all pure conjecture.

Hello Paul,

Thanks..thought that is what you meant.

The street has another avenue of course.

Replace Druitt for Kosminski, Macnagthen for Anderson.

Let's just suppose that Anderson's reasons were similar. He picked out Kosminski, because he was local, insane and according to his family, threatening a female with a knife...the murders "stopped", all went quiet. So Anderson gets two and two and puts together his four. For him this time, case solved.

Now Anderson is taking one heck of a risk to his reputation if the Polish Jew ISN'T the killer. Because he puts the whole thing together, minus name, in a book as well. He is asking to be laughed at, by his peers.

But various others, Reid, Abberline etc, have heard all the "other" theories etc and dismiss then out of hand. Now they wouldn't do that if Anderson really had some hard evidence to go by.

But they WOULD dismiss it out of hand...if the"evidence" he had was merely placement, insanity and a belief that the man was dangerous to females whilst threatening with a knife.. from the family.

Same construction. Sure.. it's supposition, but it is very simple indeed.
The simplest solutions, I am told, are normally the best.

And it would explain why all the other policemen, bar Swanson, denied that the killer was caught or they knew the name of the killer.

And as for Swanson... he is simply giving us the name and some odd details of the suspect in Anderson's story.

The rest of their peers would certainly then NOT be of the same mould, would they? They would, infact, be telling us the truth.

It's that simple.

Just a thought.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Something caught my attention in one of your postings to Garry..



my emphasis

I am going to walk with that one a little. Let's just suppose that was the only reason he did it. He picked out Druitt because he killed himself just after the murders "stopped", all went quiet, and I will even throw in a "the family thought he was mad" for free. So MM gets two and two and puts together his four. Case solved.

Now MM is taking one heck of a risk to his reputation if Druitt ISN'T the killer. Because he puts the whole thing together, minus name, in a book.
He is asking to be laughed at.

Yet various others, Reid, Abberline etc, have heard all the "other" theories etc and dismiss then out of hand. Now they wouldn't do that if he really had some hard evidence to go by.

But they WOULD dismiss it out of hand...if the"evidence" he had was merely timing, suicide and a belief that the man was mad from the family.


Just a thought.

best wishes

Phil

That's basically what I was saying, but unfortunately we don't know what evidence Macnaghten based his conclusions on or how much the likes of Reid et al knew about it, so it's all pure conjecture.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Something caught my attention in one of your postings to Garry..

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. And if the evidence against Kosminski was even less than that then he and Anderson and Swanson were all tosspots. And if other policemen of the time came from the same mold, it doesn't say much about them either.

my emphasis

I am going to walk with that one a little. Let's just suppose that was the only reason he did it. He picked out Druitt because he killed himself just after the murders "stopped", all went quiet, and I will even throw in a "the family thought he was mad" for free. So MM gets two and two and puts together his four. Case solved.

Now MM is taking one heck of a risk to his reputation if Druitt ISN'T the killer. Because he puts the whole thing together, minus name, in a book.
He is asking to be laughed at.

Yet various others, Reid, Abberline etc, have heard all the "other" theories etc and dismiss then out of hand. Now they wouldn't do that if he really had some hard evidence to go by.

But they WOULD dismiss it out of hand...if the"evidence" he had was merely timing, suicide and a belief that the man was mad from the family.


Just a thought.

best wishes

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jason,

Lets review your 4 points and see which if any constitute "evidence" that links a person to a murder;

1 The Polish Jew had the same height and build as the supposed killer.
2. Being the sole occupant of certain premises he could come and go at night unhindered.
3. He had been employed at a Hospital in Poland.
4. Showed sign of undoubted mania sometime after the killings.

For #1, we have varying witness descriptions of a suspect within the 5 Canonical murders, there is no consensus as to what ethnic background or height or weight we should be looking for in a suspect. We have a man or men, between 28 and 35 years old, all wearing different clothing. That last point is relevant...of the desperately poor in that area many had one change of clothes to their name.

#2, we cannot assign suspect status to every man within walking distance to the crimes based solely on his living alone. In fact the killer or killers might have boarded in lodging houses, like on Batty Street for example, and even had "bolt holes" to leave bloodied clothing and souvenirs in.

#3, only 2 Canonical killings show obvious knowledge and knife skills, the other 3 do not. Therefore, we need to look for someone with those attributes for only the first 2 murders.

And finally, 4. Without knowing whether 1 man killed all 5 women, without knowing whether or not the motives for all 5 murders were based on the killers mental illness, without knowing whether or not the woman were killed by a stranger, particularly in the case of Mary Kelly, we cannot assume that the man we should look for was ever institutionalized, or .....that he wasnt already institutionalized when the 3rd victim dies.

When you have quotes from all the senior men handling the cases that differ from each other by something as innocuous as inaccurate spelling, that include unsubstantiated rumors and unproven assertions and proclamations, and when we have one of the most flagrant abusers in that regard making false statements for the rest of his career, we do not need to consider their voiced opinions the bottom line on the investigations.

Best regards

[PaulB]

The fact remains, Paul, that Macnaghten designated Ostrog a ‘homicidal maniac’ with antecedents of ‘the worst possible type’. Since these two statements were patently inaccurate, he is hardly the best source for evaluating the suspicions police may have held regarding Kosminski.

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. We don't know whether there were or not, or, if there were, what they were. This means we can't evaluate them or draw conclusions about Kosminski's status as a suspect.

As for Ostrog, I agree with you, but, as I said, Macnaghten presumably had reasons for writing what he did. Again we don't know what those reasons were, but in Ostrog's case we are fortunate enough to know quite a lot about him and thus far we have found nothing to support what Macnaghten wrote. We also now know that Ostrog was in France when the murders were committed and we can discount him altogether. And as you say, prima faciewhat Macnaghten wrote about Ostrog doesn't make Macnaghten look the most reliable of sources. However, was that Macnaghten's own view of Ostrog or somebody else's, and, if the latter, was that person responsible for what Macnaghten wrote about all, one or two of the men? The problem we have is that we don't know the material from which Macnaghten was working.

He presented the case against Druitt in Days of My Years, Paul, a denunciation that amounted to nothing more than a combination of conjecture and flawed deduction. The one element that was notable for its absence was evidence. So I say again: if Macnaghten believed the case against Druitt was stronger than that relating to Kosminski, there could have been little or no tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Ripper crimes.

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. And if the evidence against Kosminski was even less than that then he and Anderson and Swanson were all tosspots. And if other policemen of the time came from the same mold, it doesn't say much about them either.

It’s not a question of Anderson and Swanson being tosspots, Paul. Those who conducted the initial investigation into the Rachel Nickel murder were not tosspots, but they succeeded in derailing the manhunt anyway. They became convinced that Colin Stagg was their man and thereafter dismissed any evidence of an exculpatory nature whilst overinflating those ‘circs’ which appeared to indicate Stagg’s guilt. In short this was a classic example of the perils of confirmation bias, an episode which ought to serve as a salutary lesson to those who believe that there could have been no police suspicions against Kosminski in the absence of concrete evidence.

And it is a salutary lesson. But fortunately most investigations don't get derailed like that, or at least we suppose that they don't. So, whilst we can point to those cases and speculate that it is what happened in the case of Kosminski or whoever, without knowing what the case against him was we can't begin to assess whether or not that is what happened.

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.

The plain fact is that Macnaghten appears to have received information which convinced him that Druitt was the murderer. We don't know what that information was, so we can't really draw any conclusions. It's really down to what type and how much information Macnaghten would require before drawing a conclusion he was prepared to put his name (and reputation?) to.

As you are well aware, Paul, those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer followed up on every case-related tip-off, irrespective of its source. As with hundreds of others, Joseph Issenschmidt came under police scrutiny via information provided by a member of the public. Thus it is more than possible that Kosminski’s name came to police attention in a similar way. It is even possible that he was first investigated by the City and intelligence was conveyed to the Met as a matter of procedure. Either way, the reality that Kosminski was investigated by both the City and Met forces should in no way be taken as an inference that there emerged any evidence connecting him to the Whitechapel Murderer. Indeed, Major Smith’s investigation coupled with his subsequent castigation of Anderson’s Polish Jew assertions would appear to imply that nothing of an incriminatory nature was ever uncovered relating to Kosminski or any other Polish Jew.

Yes, but there is a difference between a suspect against whom there is no direct evidence (what Harry would call a person of interest) and a suspect against whom there is evidence, and both are in turn different from a suspect who one or more of the investigators believe is guilty. So, yes, investigations were made against all sorts of people, but some appear to have been singled out as more probable than others, and we have to assume that there was evidence of some sort that the investigators found convincing.

I’m perfectly aware of that, Paul, just as I’m aware that you do not believe Kosminski was the Ripper. The problem, however, is that some believe that there could have been no smoke without fire. They conclude that the authorities must have had plausible grounds for suspicion given Anderson’s indirect assertion that Kosminski was identified as the Whitechapel Murderer. To my mind this is poor scholarship. Every bit as bad as that which casts doubt on the authenticity of the Swanson annotations without any evidential basis for so doing.

Anderson was intelligent, experienced and informed. I don't understand how it is poor scholarship to assume that he based his conclusion about Kosminski on what he considered to be good evidence. It is poor scholarship to accept that that was the case, as it is equally poor scholarship (indeed, probably worse scholarship) to assume that he didn't. In my view we can't reach a conclusion because we have no real idea of what he based his conclusion on, so the sensible approach is to observe what he said and basically leave it at that. I am being over simplistic, of course.

Since we have no independent evidence to corroborate Anderson’s assertions I have simply been looking at the bigger picture. With this approach it becomes obvious that Anderson cannot be taken at his word. Not a single one of those who were in a position of authority echoed his conclusions. Not Macnaghten. Not Abberline. Not Littlechild. Not Smith. This is problematic. It suggests that Anderson’s ‘definitely ascertained fact’ was nothing of the kind. It also implies that there was little or no tangible evidence to connect Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. There couldn’t have been, otherwise others would have been privy to it and found it equally persuasive.

I have no problem with that, with the exception of not being as certain as you that the absence of support for Anderson's conclusion means that there was no tangible evidence connecting Kosminski to the murders.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

A well-reasoned post which I am certain others will attempt to wrestle to the ground.

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case.

Perhaps you should re-read my post, FM.

[Garry Wroe]

Yes, Macnaghten did cast Ostrog in that role and I can only assume that he had reasons for doing so. Information which came to light subsequently has shown that Ostrog was not in the country when the murders were committed, a fact of which Macnaghten was self-evidently unaware. Or he was a complete tosspot, which he wasn't …

The fact remains, Paul, that Macnaghten designated Ostrog a ‘homicidal maniac’ with antecedents of ‘the worst possible type’. Since these two statements were patently inaccurate, he is hardly the best source for evaluating the suspicions police may have held regarding Kosminski.

… And he did indeed favour Druitt over Kosminski and Ostrog, but whether or not he had the flimsiest of cases against him is unknown to me as I don't knew what that case was.

He presented the case against Druitt in Days of My Years, Paul, a denunciation that amounted to nothing more than a combination of conjecture and flawed deduction. The one element that was notable for its absence was evidence. So I say again: if Macnaghten believed the case against Druitt was stronger than that relating to Kosminski, there could have been little or no tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Ripper crimes.

Which boils down to Anderson and Swanson being tosspots along with Macnaghten who wrote that there were many circs which made Kosminski a strong suspects even though in your view there were none. That's fine by me, but unfortunately we have to demonstrate that these sources were tosspots and thus far it hasn't been done.

It’s not a question of Anderson and Swanson being tosspots, Paul. Those who conducted the initial investigation into the Rachel Nickel murder were not tosspots, but they succeeded in derailing the manhunt anyway. They became convinced that Colin Stagg was their man and thereafter dismissed any evidence of an exculpatory nature whilst overinflating those ‘circs’ which appeared to indicate Stagg’s guilt. In short this was a classic example of the perils of confirmation bias, an episode which ought to serve as a salutary lesson to those who believe that there could have been no police suspicions against Kosminski in the absence of concrete evidence.

It's the "somehow came to the attention of the authorities" which worries me. Why would Kosminski have come to the attention of the authorities and been investigated as a potential Ripper if the authorities "had little or no tangible evidence" linking him to the crimes?

As you are well aware, Paul, those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer followed up on every case-related tip-off, irrespective of its source. As with hundreds of others, Joseph Issenschmidt came under police scrutiny via information provided by a member of the public. Thus it is more than possible that Kosminski’s name came to police attention in a similar way. It is even possible that he was first investigated by the City and intelligence was conveyed to the Met as a matter of procedure. Either way, the reality that Kosminski was investigated by both the City and Met forces should in no way be taken as an inference that there emerged any evidence connecting him to the Whitechapel Murderer. Indeed, Major Smith’s investigation coupled with his subsequent castigation of Anderson’s Polish Jew assertions would appear to imply that nothing of an incriminatory nature was ever uncovered relating to Kosminski or any other Polish Jew.

But let's make it absolutely clear that we're not talking about guilt here. This isn't about whether or not Anderson was right that Kosminski was the Ripper, this is about whether suspicion justifiably existed against him.

I’m perfectly aware of that, Paul, just as I’m aware that you do not believe Kosminski was the Ripper. The problem, however, is that some believe that there could have been no smoke without fire. They conclude that the authorities must have had plausible grounds for suspicion given Anderson’s indirect assertion that Kosminski was identified as the Whitechapel Murderer. To my mind this is poor scholarship. Every bit as bad as that which casts doubt on the authenticity of the Swanson annotations without any evidential basis for so doing.

Since we have no independent evidence to corroborate Anderson’s assertions I have simply been looking at the bigger picture. With this approach it becomes obvious that Anderson cannot be taken at his word. Not a single one of those who were in a position of authority echoed his conclusions. Not Macnaghten. Not Abberline. Not Littlechild. Not Smith. This is problematic. It suggests that Anderson’s ‘definitely ascertained fact’ was nothing of the kind. It also implies that there was little or no tangible evidence to connect Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. There couldn’t have been, otherwise others would have been privy to it and found it equally persuasive.

[jason_c]

I snipped the above sections out from your post Paul to address one important point here....."evidence" that is used to base a firm opinion on.

What we do know is that there is no allusion in any document to any evidence having ever existed that can be used to direct suspicions for any of the Whitechapel Murders to Kosminski other than the stated professional opinions of the men you mentioned. One of those men wasnt even assigned to the cases in the Fall of 1888, and one man has fairly clearly been exposed as a loose cannon with his opinion on anything to do with the Ripper cases of his intelligence work. I used the term in bold loosely.

The profile of the killer arose from the assumptions about where he likely lived, and I suspect since its most probable that more than 1 man killed the Canonical Group, 1 or more of the killers may not have lived within the murder district at all. A "Ripper" kill in the city should be enough reminder of that.

Nothing about the murders, or the physical evidence left at the crime scenes, or the autopsies, or the method, or the weapon indicate that the officials must have been dealing with a Jew. Yet many stated that as a fact.

Cheers

I'd like to mention the writing of George Sims on the Polish Jew suspect. I take Sims' statements to be semi-official. He goes into a bit of detail about the suspect, and the reasons(of varying importance) behind police suspicions.

1 The Polish Jew had the same height and build as the supposed killer.
2. Being the sole occupant of certain premises he could come and go at night unhindered.
3. He had been employed at a Hospital in Poland.
4. Showed sign of undoubted mania sometime after the killings.

Now for the conjecture. Once Kosminski became a suspect I can imagine Anderson being frustrated at Kosminski's family. Frustrated for not informing the police of Aaron's ability to come and go unhindered, his mental frailty, or any other circumstances which pointed towards him. Particularly if the police had asked the family during the house to house search if they knew of anyone who fit these criteria.