New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fleetwood Mac]

Paul B:

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I donīt accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Fisherman,

May be useful to separate a few of your points here:

1) Quite clearly, no road is the 'obvious right choice'.

2) Having said that, some roads are built upon stronger foundations than others.

3) Therefore, it is non-sensical to give equal weight to the roads as matter of principle, particularly when the foundations tell us otherwise.

4) The Kosminski road is a strong one, for reasons that shouldn't need to be stated.

5) Clearly, we do not know what the case was against Kosminski, but we do know that three senior policemen felt thay had a strong case.

6) Therefore, in the event you're prepared to label Kosminski a 'weak suspect' then it follows thus you believe the three policemen didn't have much of a case, even though the information is not available for your assessment; which could suggest a few things about your line of reasoning as opposed to the strength of the Kosminski case.

[Hunter]

...Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper...

I'm afraid this is a misconception. Swanson was relating the reasons why the witness refused to bear testimony... the reasons in the witness' mind; not what he (Swanson) thought might be incriminating enough to bring a guilty verdict.
It was the witness' conscious and that individual's reasoning that was being explained. Swanson had been involved in enough cases to know that without direct evidence (non circumstantial) there was never any certainty of a conviction.

I know what Swanson wrote and on the surface it does appear direct, but I believe it is a result of trying to be brief in limited space.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"I am saying that you are wrong."

That I am. Or perhaps I am right. Thing is, Paul, neither you nor me can tell. AS you so aptly put it yourself:

" You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based."

Nor do you. We are both left in the dark. But you claim that you are allowed to switch the light back on again, since we may safely conclude that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong.

And thatīs where I think YOU are wrong (on two counts, actually...!)

You are accepting that Anderson and Swanson, as Iīm told, were experienced policemen, totally capable of making the right call. And the fact that Smith, Littlechild, Abberline, MacNaghten etc, etc, did NOT buy Andersons story is something you detract from your mathematical exercise. These men do not detract anything at all - if Anderson implied that the case was strong, then we must accept that the case WAS strong. No downgrading must be there.

But Paul, if we are to rely on Anderson and Swanson, then why not rely totally on them? Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper. And Anderson tells us that the Ripper was the man they had.

Why do YOU detract from what thesde eminent men tell you? Why do you not trust them to the full? What is it that holds you back?

Is it your realization that claiming somebody is something that you cannot prove in any minimal manner at all, is the equivalent of pulling a pink rabbit out of a a mqagicianīs hat? If so, I say donīt be shy - if you can pull off a strong candidacy on no evidence at all, exchanging it for putting trust in the theory of a man that was called outrageous by a contemporary senior officer, then you can of course pull a proven Rippership off too on behalf of Aaron Kosminski. Thatīs how it works - if you can conclude on thing without evidence, then you can equally conclude another. ANY other, as it were.

" in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then"

I am doing no such thing at all, and you should know it. I have very clearly and explicitly said that it is blatantly obvious that Anderson put great trust in Kosminski, and that he may well have been correct, just as he may have been wrong. I am therefore effectively not saying anything at all about any proven status back then, and I am refraining from it for the exact same reason as I do so today: we donīt know what had him accused.

"You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect"

No. And I donīt do so either. I donīt comment explicitely on any shred of evidence from the 19:th century, because I have no idea what it was. Therefore I totally accept that he was the top suspect in Andersonīs eyes, and nothing at all like that in Smithīs and Littlechildīs eyes. You see, he did not have just the one status as a suspect back then - he had many. As many as there were commentators among the senior men.

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I donīt accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Now, Paul, we have sung our respective arias in all keyes possible, have we not? I think we are going to need to agree to disagree before we run out of server capacity. I know where you stand and why, you know where I stand and why. Letīs leave it there and move on!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

Ae there any plans in the pipeline for an eventual follow-up article related to the History of the Marginalia?

Also, may I ask if there any plans to an equivilent article relating to the Monro papers, as asked on the relevant Monro thread?

Many thanks in advance

best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

Having played bridge, i know that when the odds are dead against your making your contract, you try to envisage a distribution of cards that would allow you to make your contract, and then play for that. If you fail, you've had back luck....or maybe you're a lousy player. Ahem! Anyway, I'm interested in Kosminski, because he's a possible and was mentioned in the case. It doesn't actually matter if he is a strong candidate or a weak candidate, a serious one or a coffee table one. Of course, everyone will have different views on all of that. But he is a possible who was mentioned.

Fred Bloggs, on the other hand, who lived a couple of miles away and kept ferrets, may be a possible. He may even have been the Ripper. But since he is nowhere mentioned in the case, there's no reason to think that he was. So I leave Fred alone. And I steer clear of those bloody ferrets too.

It's not as though we are snowed under with suspects and have to prioritise our time. There's the Polish Jew, Druitt, Tumblety, Hutchinson, Barnett...I insist on adding Cutbush and in return will add Cross ... and there's probably a couple I've temporarily forgotten. We can research all these.

If I was given one year to live I might prioritise, but for that I hope that I will have to wate a whil longer.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
Thank you for your response. I see your point but I respectfully disagree because i just cant take someone's word from the past,without really knowing what it was, and label someone today a strong suspect. And as i am looking at it in legal and accusatory terms-as in who is guilty for the ripper murders-the case today for Kos in my view is weak. As is the case for all the ripper suspects. i will leave it at that.

The only reason Kosminski is a suspect at all is because of what people in the past said about him, so if you don't accept what those people said then Kosminski isn't a suspect at all. And neither is any other contemporary suspect. And for matter an awful lot of history vanishes as well.

The past is what the people living there have said about it, and the past doesn't change just because the evidence on which they based what they said doesn't exist anymore. If Kosminski was a serious suspect then, he is a serious suspect now, unless we can assess the evidence on which him being a suspect is based, and we can't because it doesn't exist anymore.

As far as Kosminski is concerned, nothing has changed between then and now. The evidence for his guilt is the same now as it was then, except that then they knew what that evidence was, now we don't. If we did, and if we thought it was rubbish, then we could question, doubt and devalue their conclusions. But we don't and we can't. And so it is that Kosminski has the same status now as he did then. There really isn't an alternative.

I have to say though that it is really nice that someone of your high level in the field responds to posts not only of other esteemed ripperophiles but also to novice enthusiasts such as myself. Its much appreciated.

Thank you.

Paul

[Abby Normal]

Ah, well the case may be weak on the basis of the information which has survived, but even people playing detective today have to acknowledge that the information which exists today is unlikely to be all the information that existed back then. Even people playing detective today have to listen to the voices from back then, so that when one of them tells us that there were many things which made Kosminski a good suspect then there probably were many things that made him a good suspect even though we don't know what those many things were. And unless people playing detective today have very good reasons for doubting the word of our witnesses to the past, they have no real alternative but to accept what they are told, especially when other witnesses to the past describe actions that were taken and conclusions that were reached. The bottom line is that what exists today is not what existed back then, and unless you have very good reasons for believing that what doesn't exist today didn't exist back then either, the detective today has to accept that all the witnesses and suspects and evidence and everything is just a fragment of what once existed. Anyone playing detective today has a tough job. Most of their evidence, evidence in every form, doesn't exist anymore.

Hi Paul
Thank you for your response. I see your point but I respectfully disagree because i just cant take someone's word from the past,without really knowing what it was, and label someone today a strong suspect. And as i am looking at it in legal and accusatory terms-as in who is guilty for the ripper murders-the case today for Kos in my view is weak. As is the case for all the ripper suspects. i will leave it at that.

I have to say though that it is really nice that someone of your high level in the field responds to posts not only of other esteemed ripperophiles but also to novice enthusiasts such as myself. Its much appreciated.

I would also be remiss if I did not add that i bought and read Robs excellent book and it is one of the reasons why i even consider Kos at all as a suspect.

Now if I could only get my hands on that elusive documentary!!!

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;245943]Paul B:

"Nope. Not it. Nowhere near it. But I can see where you are misunderstanding me.
We cannot say whether the evidence against Kosminski was good or bad, we cannot assess the probability of his guilt or innocence, we cannot say whether he was in reality a strong suspect (likely to have been the murderer) or a weak suspect (unlikely to have been the murderer).
We can say with some degree of certainty that Kosminski was considered to be a strong suspect back then. We can say that because people from back then and who were in a position to know tell he was. And we can say with reasonable confidence that the people back then had reasons for suspecting him. We can say that because sensible and intelligent and informed people, especially policemen, generally have reasons for suspecting someone.
How we view Kosminski as a suspect on the evidence available to us today doesn't matter diddly. It would matter if we knew what the evidence was and could assess it and assess the probabilities, but we don't know what it was, so we can't assess it. But Kosminski was a serious suspect back then. No doubt about that."

I donīt object about any of this, Paul. It all tallies with what I think myself. The only thing I would add is that you forget to say that just as we have senior officers promoting Kosminski enthusiastically, we have other senior officers dissing him. Otherwise, this is something I agree with. I have not said that he was not a hot lead back then - I am saying that on basis of what we have on him TODAY, we can not state that he is a strong suspect. Period. And you have given all the reasons for this yourself.

[I]I am of course aware of what other policemen said, but I am in general as ignorant of why they said those things as I am of why Macnaghten et al said the things they said.

On the basis of what we know about Kosminski today it is arguable that Kosminski is only a marginally better suspect than Queen Victoria. But the evidence we have today doesn't mean diddly. It's what they thought back then that matters. Back then Kosminski was a strong suspect. And if he was a strong suspect back then, he's still a strong suspect today. Why? Because nothing has changed. As far as we know the evidence they had against him back then is as strong today as it was back then. The only way it could change now is if we knew what it was and could evaluate it. But we can't. Right now it doesn't exist. Maybe it is lost forever.

"That judgement has already been made by the people who had all the evidence. They decided that Kosminski was a serious suspect. It's not up to you to say he wasn't. "

And - believe it or not - I am not doing that either. I am not saying that he WASNīT. I am saying that he ISNīT. And that is because I cannot condone what Anderson had in retrospect without knowing what it was. And because I know full well that there were very clear disagreements about the value of the assessment made by Anderson.
Plus I would change "serious" for strong, to keep the discussion in line with the former posts. I happen to think Kosminski a serious suspect, but not a strong one. Distinctions, distinctions ...

The best,
Fisherman

And know and understand that you're not saying he wasn't, but that you are saying he isn't. I am saying that you are wrong. You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based.

But in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then, a status based on evidence that existed back then. You can't do that. You don't know what the evidence was. You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect simply because you don't know what the evidence was than made others take him seriously and even think he was Jack the Ripper. We don't deny or devalue or diminish what people tell us about their past simply because we don't know why they tell us it.

[PaulB]

Sir Robert,PaulB
I was never a beat cop.No,as a general rule police do not jump straight in.They are careful in their approach,I'm sure that in 1888 they were careful,a nd still there were senior officers who stated there were no suspects.That there were never anyone accused and put on trial,rather tends to support those officers.So it is not myself with a beef against senior officers,it is a case of me supporting senior officers,being led by their knowledge.And no Paul,it is not always an euphemism for someone having a connection to a crime or criminal group.A person of interest can be anyone the police believe might help in enquiriesIt covers a wide spectrum.Police enquiries quite often clear a person against whom suspicions are directed.The police do not work on the assumption that everything they are told is true,and it appears that many posters,I am one,do not work on the assumption that everything stated by police is true.So while Macnaghten,Swanson and Anderson did state all those things,it is only a belief by some,that what they stated was true,But I could even get my head around that,if those beliefs were bolstered by evidence.
By the way,what was the law in 1888 applying to murder.?

Harry,
I am not going to argue about the meaning of 'person of interest' as it a nasty expression which shouldn't even be applied outside of threats to national security. Secondly, I am perfectly well aware of what the police do and how they do it and I, like you, do not assume that everything the police say is true. In fact, I don't accept that anything historical sources tell us is true, Nor does any historian worthy of the name. The sources are tested, we ask questions of them, we analyse, we check against other sources, we put them into context, and so on and so on. We try to check the reliability of the sources themselves, and understand them in the context of their beliefs and the time in which they lived. That's how history works. And whilst I appreciate that you'd like those beliefs bolstered by evidence - wouldn't we all! - they're not. You have to live with that. Make the best use of what you do have. The whole point is that the marginalia reflects what Swanson believed. He had a reason for believing it. Right or wrong.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"Nope. Not it. Nowhere near it. But I can see where you are misunderstanding me.
We cannot say whether the evidence against Kosminski was good or bad, we cannot assess the probability of his guilt or innocence, we cannot say whether he was in reality a strong suspect (likely to have been the murderer) or a weak suspect (unlikely to have been the murderer).
We can say with some degree of certainty that Kosminski was considered to be a strong suspect back then. We can say that because people from back then and who were in a position to know tell he was. And we can say with reasonable confidence that the people back then had reasons for suspecting him. We can say that because sensible and intelligent and informed people, especially policemen, generally have reasons for suspecting someone.
How we view Kosminski as a suspect on the evidence available to us today doesn't matter diddly. It would matter if we knew what the evidence was and could assess it and assess the probabilities, but we don't know what it was, so we can't assess it. But Kosminski was a serious suspect back then. No doubt about that."

I donīt object about any of this, Paul. It all tallies with what I think myself. The only thing I would add is that you forget to say that just as we have senior officers promoting Kosminski enthusiastically, we have other senior officers dissing him. Otherwise, this is something I agree with. I have not said that he was not a hot lead back then - I am saying that on basis of what we have on him TODAY, we can not state that he is a strong suspect. Period. And you have given all the reasons for this yourself.

"That judgement has already been made by the people who had all the evidence. They decided that Kosminski was a serious suspect. It's not up to you to say he wasn't. "

And - believe it or not - I am not doing that either. I am not saying that he WASNīT. I am saying that he ISNīT. And that is because I cannot condone what Anderson had in retrospect without knowing what it was. And because I know full well that there were very clear disagreements about the value of the assessment made by Anderson.
Plus I would change "serious" for strong, to keep the discussion in line with the former posts. I happen to think Kosminski a serious suspect, but not a strong one. Distinctions, distinctions ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob:

"this is it? "

No, this is part of it. You need to read the threads to get the full picture. I only used these matters to show why I think a lot more evidence can be found on Lechmere than on Kosminski. I could have gone on in eternity otherwise, and people donīt care much for that ...

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak?"


Let me see if I grasp this, Paul! We cannot judge if he was strong or weak - so we opt for strong.

Is that about it?

Nope. Not it. Nowhere near it. But I can see where you are misunderstanding me.

We cannot say whether the evidence against Kosminski was good or bad, we cannot assess the probability of his guilt or innocence, we cannot say whether he was in reality a strong suspect (likely to have been the murderer) or a weak suspect (unlikely to have been the murderer).

We can say with some degree of certainty that Kosminski was considered to be a strong suspect back then. We can say that because people from back then and who were in a position to know tell he was. And we can say with reasonable confidence that the people back then had reasons for suspecting him. We can say that because sensible and intelligent and informed people, especially policemen, generally have reasons for suspecting someone.

How we view Kosminski as a suspect on the evidence available to us today doesn't matter diddly. It would matter if we knew what the evidence was and could assess it and assess the probabilities, but we don't know what it was, so we can't assess it. But Kosminski was a serious suspect back then. No doubt about that.

I would say that all suspects of whom we cannot judge if they are strong or weak, remain weak until such evidence surfaces as to provide cause for upgrading them.

I really canīt believe that we are discussing this. It goes without saying in the civilized corners of the world.

The best,
Fisherman

And you'd be right to say that - if you were being asked to make that judgement. But you're not. That judgement has already been made by the people who had all the evidence. They decided that Kosminski was a serious suspect. It's not up to you to say he wasn't. You don't have the evidence to do that even if it was.

[robhouse]

I prefer, as you will know, Lechmere. He was alone with Nichols at a time extremely close to her death, he used another name than his real one when speaking to the police, he apparently did not give his address publically, he misinformed Mizen (or so the PC tells us), and he reasonably trod routes that would have taken him right past the murder spots at the approximate times of the murders. Plus there are many other anomalies attaching to him.

After all this talk, all this stuff about how there is no evidence against Kozminski... this is your so-called "evidence" against Lechmere? I had not followed those threads, and I admit I was thinking there might have been something.... but this is it? This? Seriously?

Lechmere "did not give his address publically [sic]".. this is damning evidence? But the fact that Kozminski threatened his sister with a knife is not evidence? The fact that Macnaghten says Kozminski had a "great hatred of women, especially prostitutes" is not evidence? The fact that the post-mortem mutilation is a common characteristic of murder committed by schizophrenic killers... this is not evidence? The fact that Kozminski was identified by a witness is not evidence? The fact that Kozminski was plausibly the "Batty street" suspect? The "many circs" ... again, not evidence? Anderson, Swanson... not evidence? That he lived right in the heart of where the crimes took place, less than a 2 minute walk from the site of the Stride murder? That the "getaway route" from Goulston street goes, arguably, in the direction of his home? That his walking route home from the Ripper's hunting grounds goes right down Berner street? That he lived, in 1882, literally next door to one of the murder sites? That he matches many of the general statistic characteristics of serial killers. That his whole life his people, the immigrant Russian Jews, had been "blamed for nothing" (ie scapegoated) both in Russia and London...

I could go on... but I won't.

I am going to crawl back to my hole now, because I am thoroughly bored with all this.

RH

[harry]

Sir Robert,PaulB
I was never a beat cop.No,as a general rule police do not jump straight in.They are careful in their approach,I'm sure that in 1888 they were careful,a nd still there were senior officers who stated there were no suspects.That there were never anyone accused and put on trial,rather tends to support those officers.So it is not myself with a beef against senior officers,it is a case of me supporting senior officers,being led by their knowledge.And no Paul,it is not always an euphemism for someone having a connection to a crime or criminal group.A person of interest can be anyone the police believe might help in enquiriesIt covers a wide spectrum.Police enquiries quite often clear a person against whom suspicions are directed.The police do not work on the assumption that everything they are told is true,and it appears that many posters,I am one,do not work on the assumption that everything stated by police is true.So while Macnaghten,Swanson and Anderson did state all those things,it is only a belief by some,that what they stated was true,But I could even get my head around that,if those beliefs were bolstered by evidence.
By the way,what was the law in 1888 applying to murder.?

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"the problem you and others seem to have is that you can't get your heads around the fact that information not existing today doesn't mean it never existed at all."

I would like to step in here in order to establish that I do not belong to the group of people you mention here, Paul - for I have a feeling that you may think that I do.
Of course we may conclude that there was once evidence against Kosminski, and that this evidence has gone missing since then. It is simple and unavoidable logic.
What does not follow, however, is that this evidence was good quality evidence. I hope you concur on this point - we canīt tell.

We cannot use one manīs enthusiasm as proof of good quality evidence as long as we know that his contemporaries in high positions and commands did not concur. One of them explicitly says that it was an outrage on behalf of Anderson to make his call, another tells us that Anderson only thought he knew, a third opts for another suspect, arguably because he feels the evidence is not strong enough in Kosminskis case and so on.

Thatīs where we are left. We know that something was used as evidence, we know that some liked the quality of that evidence whereas others disliked it. For the life of me, I cannot see how we could have drawn anything but a blank here.

Since so much bad blood is boiling so badly by the suggestion that Kosminski is a weak suspect as it stands, I think I may need to offer a further distinction. The one and only reason he is weak is because of the lack of case evidence, as I have pointed out. I would, on the other hand, say that Kosminski is an extremely interesting suspect. He is also a suspect that could never be dropped by any discerning researcher (and I am now speaking of "Kosminski" only, since there is not yet any definite coupling made to Aaron K) as long as nothing has surfaced to take him off the map. If you can refrain from asking what the difference between promising and strong is, I would also say that he must be regarded as a promising lead. In all of these disciplines, he has little if no competition to face on the surface of things.

Once we delve through that surface, though, other things emerge that must make for a viable reasons to regard other suspects as better ones than Kosminski. I prefer, as you will know, Lechmere. He was alone with Nichols at a time extremely close to her death, he used another name than his real one when speaking to the police, he apparently did not give his address publically, he misinformed Mizen (or so the PC tells us), and he reasonably trod routes that would have taken him right past the murder spots at the approximate times of the murders. Plus there are many other anomalies attaching to him.

That is what I perceive as plentyful and useful evidence. In this respect, he outweighs Kosminski by the weight of a sturdy circus elephant, and to me, that carries great .... exactly: weight!

I would find it very odd if we were to name Kosminski the better suspect of these two on what we have on the men today. It does not add up. If Kosminski is a strong suspect on no evidence at all but the evidence that there once was evidence (phew!), whereas Lechmere, on whom we have so many oddities and anomalies recorded is to be looked at as - how did Phil H put it ... a "tin-pot theory" or something to that effect, then I think we are on very thin ice indeed.

I would also like to posit two quotations from your latest posts aside each other:

"Even people playing detective today have to listen to the voices from back then, so that when one of them tells us that there were many things which made Kosminski a good suspect then there probably were many things that made him a good suspect"

and

"with no knowledge of the evidence at all, we can't judge whether Kosminski was a strong or weak suspect. But as historians we can form an opinion of what informed and senior people thought back then."

... and then I will add one word: Issenschmidt. He was a major suspect, he was put behind bars and as Abberline put it: 'Although we are unable at present to procure any evidence to connect him with the murders, he appears to be the most likely person that has come under our notice to have committed the crimes'.

When the double event went down, Issenschmidt was still imprisoned, but he was let loose of course. The reason for this was that although a lot of evidence had been amassed against him, not a shred of it tied him specifically to any of the former murders. He had been away from home, walked the streets at night, carried knives with him, employed violence (as per the Star, at least) and he had claimed to be Leather Apron.
That made him the most likely suspect, a very strong suspect in the eyes of the police, strong enough for them to put him behind bars and read him his rights.
But in the end, they had nothing at all to tie him to the case. In the end it crept out that as far as true evidence goes, coupling him to the murders as such, was not involved in the accusation act. So he never had the goods it takes to BE a strong suspect, after all. And what was it MacNaghten said? Not a shred of proof could ever be produced against any man in the investigation. And that would include Kosminski too.

So apt comparisons, in combination with knowledge about what the police sought after, the reoccurring statements that the Ripper was a maniac etcetera is enough to tell us that we may perhaps need to be very careful about overinvesting in Kosminski. Extremely interesting, yes. Promising on the surface of things, yes. But strong suspect? No.

All the best,
Fisherman