New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Phil Carter]

Hi FM,

Anderson—"I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot. It was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac."

Hello Simon,

Just as a matter of interest, exactly how many of the (linked) Whitechapel and Torso murders WAS Anderson absent from London when they occured?

Good ol' Robbie, always on top of his game.

But then again Simon, Anderson didn't NEED to know about the killers or the murders themselves... he could use moral guilt to decide a man's reputation or even fate.

A certain Polish Jew too?

best wishes

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

I am stating that Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson clearly believed that the case against Kosminski was strong....

...You, however, argue that because we don't know the evidence on which Anderson and Co based that their belief that Kosminski's stature as a suspect is therefore diminished TODAY.

.....I do not say that. I say that Kosminski's status as a suspect is no different now than it was back then. The evidence against Kosminski is the same now as it was back then. It hasn't changed at all. The only difference is that back then they knew what that evidence was, whereas today we don't.

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi FM,

Anderson—"I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot. It was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac."

James Monro, on duty during the McKenzie investigation since Anderson was on leave at the time—

"I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year."

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm not sure about 'archetypal', but I don't think she can be ruled out as a possible Ripper victim.

Regards, Bridewell.

Middle aged prostitute, throat cut, abdominal mutilations and right in the middle of the JTR killing area. What's not 'possible'?

The point is that Sirs RA and MM denied the possibility.

[Bridewell]

Assuming

Hi All,

Sir Robert Anderson, Blackwoods magazine, March 1910—

"The last and the most horrible of that maniac's crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th November [1888]." My brackets.

And—

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on 17th July 1889 was by another hand."

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

But was it a valid assumption? Medical opinion was certainly divided.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi All,

Sir Robert Anderson, Blackwoods magazine, March 1910—

"The last and the most horrible of that maniac's crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th November [1888]." My brackets.

And—

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on 17th July 1889 was by another hand."

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot. It was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.

Seems fairly clear that they investigated the case with at least two possibilities in mind: 1) ordinary murder 2) the work of Anderson's sexual maniac.

Ergo, Anderson did not have his sexual maniac safely caged at that point.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Sir Robert Anderson, Blackwoods magazine, March 1910—

"The last and the most horrible of that maniac's crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th November [1888]." My brackets.

And—

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on 17th July 1889 was by another hand."

Duh!

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Or rather he knew JTR was already banged up.

McKenzie was an archetypal Ripper victim.

It's totally impossible to rule her out as a potential JTR victim. all things being equal.

Yet Macnaghten and Anderson did just that. Why?

I'm not sure about 'archetypal', but I don't think she can be ruled out as a possible Ripper victim.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

Anderson tells us McKenzie was by another hand. Not because they had their man, but rather it appeared to be an 'ordinary murder' in the opinion of Anderson.

Or rather he knew JTR was already banged up.

McKenzie was an archetypal Ripper victim.

It's totally impossible to rule her out as a potential JTR victim. all things being equal.

Yet Macnaghten and Anderson did just that. Why?

[Fleetwood Mac]

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case.

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for 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. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

1) The investigation focused on men who could have returned home undectected, rather than Jewish men.

2) It seems they didn't find anyone who fitted the bill.

3) They concluded that he did not live alone, and was protected.

I think you are correct Garry in that they had a firm idea as to the background of this man prior to Kosminski coming along, but I feel you are incorrect in that they did not base the house to house search on their pre-conceived notions.

Anderson tells us McKenzie was by another hand. Not because they had their man, but rather it appeared to be an 'ordinary murder' in the opinion of Anderson.

So the sequence of events appears to be thus:

1) They conducted the house to house search with an open mind looking for any man who could go and come.

2) Nothing turned up.

3) They must have had a pre-ordained belief that the man lived in the area, and when no man who could come and go turned up, they concluded that it was a man living in the area whose guilt would have been known to the family.

4) They then concluded he was a Polish Jew based on 'giving up justice'.

5) McKenzie is murdered. Anderson recalls that it was not Jack because it was an ordinary murder, not because they had their man.

6) At some point after July 1889, Kosminski turns up.

So yes, it appears that the core idea was formed prior to Kosminski coming to the attention of the police, but not before the house to house search.

[Chris]

Simon

I certainly wouldn't have done it like that myself, though I suppose the News of the World was never renowned for its use of scholarly apparatus...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

You may well be right, although it's hard to tell with Sandell employing such a mixed bag of direct quotes, edited quotes and misleading paraphrasing.

I simply find it difficult to understand a journalist omitting such a definitive statement.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

News of the World reporter Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 typewritten version of the Swanson story and marginalia contains a glaring omission.

In quoting the end-paper notation Sandell left out the crucial and incriminating last line, "Kosminski was the suspect."

I presume that was in order to avoid repetition, as the quotation from the annotations was preceded by

The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man.
He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski.

and followed by

Said Mr. James Swanson, commenting on the notes:
"Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure, my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

News of the World reporter Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 typewritten version of the Swanson story and marginalia contains a glaring omission.

In quoting the end-paper notation Sandell left out the crucial and incriminating last line, "Kosminski was the suspect."

An odd omission for the story of the century.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Yes Garry,

Indeed, however I was referring to the Eddowes murder, not the others.

Monty