New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[robhouse]

Rob House:

"I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation."

I do not contest this, Rob. I would have hoped that you had noticed?

But have a lookat the NEXT point; I will cut two snippets of your post out and let you have along, hard look at it:

"today, we ... must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because ... there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected"

How on earth could you present a case that lets itself end in this mess? I know that I cut and paste unfavourably for you, but you are in reality opening yourself up to it.

If you think that you are the first person in the world that is able to make a correct assessment about a mans viability in a murder case without having seen one scrap of the evidence those who accusaed him had, then fine - go ahead and do so. I can only hope that there are others who are able to keep a cool head and a rational compass direction. There are no short-cuts in matters like these.

The best,
Fisherman

This is not a trial. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here. We are assessing historical information. The main reason he is a strong suspect today, is because he was considered a strong suspect then, by people who knew a hell of a lot more about him than we do now. And because, as I argue, many circumstantial facts support his "candidacy" as possibly being the Ripper. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you.

RH

[Scott Nelson]

And if, as many insist, the Seaside Home witness was Lawende, why was no identification forthcoming when the City conducted its own investigation into Kosminski?

The identification described by Anderson and Swanson may have been conducted by the City

[Abby Normal]

Garry Wroe:

" I consider the evidence against Kosminski to have been neither good or bad. It was simply nonexistent."

If I have not burnt my ships, Garry - can I please kiss you?

The best,
Fisherman

How is a positive ID in the eyes of at least 2 senior police officers "nonexistent" evidence?

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"I take it you haven't read them."

I have - and came away with a picture of a normally quite calm and unexcited man.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

" I consider the evidence against Kosminski to have been neither good or bad. It was simply nonexistent."

If I have not burnt my ships, Garry - can I please kiss you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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?

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

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation."

I do not contest this, Rob. I would have hoped that you had noticed?

But have a lookat the NEXT point; I will cut two snippets of your post out and let you have along, hard look at it:

"today, we ... must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because ... there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected"

How on earth could you present a case that lets itself end in this mess? I know that I cut and paste unfavourably for you, but you are in reality opening yourself up to it.

If you think that you are the first person in the world that is able to make a correct assessment about a mans viability in a murder case without having seen one scrap of the evidence those who accusaed him had, then fine - go ahead and do so. I can only hope that there are others who are able to keep a cool head and a rational compass direction. There are no short-cuts in matters like these.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"Why would it make us look ridiculous? We theorise on the basis of the evidence in our possession and we adapt, change, and sometime abandon our theories as and when new information comes to light (or sometimes when existing evidence is reinterpreted). That's how theories work (or should work). It's how well we use the tools we have that matters."

It is. And using the tools and evidence we have to state firmly that "Kosminski" is a strong suspect is making a very poor use of them tools and that evidence. We - and I repeat - are in no position at all to make that call.

"Nobody is condemning anybody on no evidence"

Wrong, Iīd say - if we make the call that Kosminski is a strong suspect, we are doing exactly that. Once again, the level of viability as a suspect rests solely on the quality and amount of evidence existing. There can be no budging on that rule.

"All we can do is do our best to assess the reliability of our sources."

Thatīs correct. But we seem to reach different conclusions when doing so. I think that for example Smithīs and Littlechildīs discontentment with Anderson tells us that these men offered informed opinions. I think Abberlineīs stance is telling too. I think the faults in the description of the time of incarceration and death is a mighty warning sign. I feel that the "homicidal and violent" stuff is remarkable, not least in view of itīs being presented alongside the assessment of Ostrog as a crafty, murderous guy with the worst possible antecedents.
I see lots and lots of things that point totally away from putting too much trust in Anderson and his faithful companion, and therefore I deem it wise not to empty that particular cup too enthusiastically.
But even if I had put all the trust in the world in Anderson, even if I had regarded Smith, Littlechild and Abberline as envious nitwits and if I had bought the picture of Kosminski as a stealthy man, dead set on killing off prostitutes, I would still say that as long as we donīt have what Anderson had and regarded as enough, we simply cannot dub Kosminski a strong suspect. Any assessment of a mans viability as a suspect in any case is - once again - to be grounded on the evidence that exists in direct coupling to the deeds he is charged for. There is no other way - NONE!!! - and I hope you will come to realize that eventually.

I mean, if we were at liberty to make calls about the grade of viability of a suspect without being allowed to look at the evidence attaching to the case, then why would we use any breaks at all?
If you totally believe in Anderson and Swanson, then all you have to do is to realize that the two said that there was a succesful ID that would have hung Kosminski if the witness had agreed to testify.
So why not go all the way: pronounce Kosminski the Ripper, and be done with it! Surely that is the logical outcome of putting a total and uncritical trust in Anderson/Swanson...?

"We wouldn't attempt to bring Kosminski before the judge and jury, but needless to say this isn't a court of law and the rules of law don't apply. This is history. The rules are different."

Emphatically no, not in the context we are speaking of. No knowledge about the grounds on which a man is suspected is the exact same in history and in practical law: A clear pointer that we cannot assess and convict.
Of course history and todayīs legal matters do allow for different agendas - but not in this context. No matter if we move Kosminski back to the Meroving days or the Stone age - if we donīt know what the grounds were for the suspicion, we cannot respond to that knowledge by making an assesment of a strong candidacy as a suspect. In fact, we can make no assessment at all, but for the one we may make about Anderson and Swanson - they DID see Kosminski as a suspect (or claimed they did), and that is all we know.

"Who is jumping to conclusions? We have a source which states that Kosminski was a suspect and we have two sources which seem to say he was Jack the Ripper. We can assess the reliability of those sources, but we can do little beyond that. "

If we settle for accepting that he was a suspect we are not jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that he is a strong suspect today, then we are.
If we claim that he was a strong suspect back then, we are ALSO jumping to conclusions.
If we claim that Anderson saw him as a strong suspect, we are in the clear.
These are the exact distinctions that apply.

""Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it?"

No, and that may well be where you misunderstand the whole affair. If Anderson thought that the knife threat in combination with the insanity made Kosminski a strong suspect, then I would disagree massively. We would then have a situation where we have somebody who is REGARDED as a strong suspect, but who in fact is a weak one.
You cannot bank on Anderson being correct in making his call, Paul! Why do you think Smith considered it outrageous? Because it was only ALMOST true and a good call? Is that what we call "outrageous"? No, we call things that are WAY off the mark outrageous. And in this case, Smith may have been outraged by what he saw as a miscarriage of justice, quite simply.
Littlechild, why did he think that Anderson only thought he knew? Because, I would submit, Littlechild had come to the conclusion that Kosminski was not a viable enough contender for the title. Both men would have been quite aware that Kosminski was REGARDED by messr:s Anderson and Swanson as a strong suspect - but none of them would agree.

So no, there is not anything pedantic at all about the distinction. It is as vital a distinction as we are going to get, and, legally speaking, if we COULD put Kosminski on trial, this distincion could mean the difference between the scaffold and freedom for him - if Swanson was going to come good on his intentions to hang a man he knew became a certified lunatic.

"Enthusiasm for a suspect doesn't enter into the equation."

Good - then we shall be quite fine, and Kosminski quite freed from any accusations of being a strong suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I know what you mean, but he's not a weak suspect. He can't be. We know next to nothing about why he was suspected, so how on earth can we judge whether he's strong or weak? All we can say is how people back then thought of him.

Hi Paul

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

My emphasis.

So Rob is also incorrect when he says? :

I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Nor do I dismiss that this violence amounts to a chair wielded against a Colney Hatch official. Nor do I dismiss that the REST of the written evidence we have, does not involve any further violence at all. A threat of violence is not violence in itself, and even that threat was a singular occurrence, as far as we know. We may conclude that apart from these two incidents, one of violence, and one of a threat about it, Aaron Kosminskis records show a man not given to violence in any sort or shape over a period of many, many years.

I take it you haven't read them.

"At times excited & violent." "Requires constant attention" "Excitable: troublesome at times" "Very excitable at times"

And consider that in the book you haven't read Rob goes to great length to discuss Victorian treatment plans for the mentally ill: sedate them into a stupor. So getting all excited is impressive in the first place.

He takes a knife to a woman - no big deal because he didn't cut her. And it's only his sister, not a stranger.

Violent "at times" - no problem. Everyone knows Aaron Kosminski wouldn't hurt a fly even though he was almost certainly a paranoid schizophrenic experiencing command style hallucinations, and at times very excitable and violent".

[PaulB]

The way I look at it, if we are going to call him any kind of suspect at all today, we have to base it on what we know today. And what we do know (or not)makes him a weak suspect now, IMHO of course.

Hi Abby,
I'm sorry but we can't do that. Our ignorance of past events doesn't give us the right to discount the words of those who tell us the little we know.

[Chris]

Because if Swanson IS making that comment and it IS referring to the dead medical student...can Swanson's making the "dead" mistake in the annotations possibly be him mixing these two specific suspect ideas?

I think it's plausible enough that two Ripper suspects in asylums could be confused.

Perhaps George Sims's later statement that the Polish Jew suspect "had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland" could also be thrown into the mix. It's all extremely speculative, of course.

We seem to have got almost back on topic.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I have no idea of Abberline's 1888 pre-Clapham address, but it is strangely telling that he didn't merit an entry in Swanson's address book until he moved to Bournemouth in 1903/4.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Many thanks... yes.. not on the Christmas Card list then?

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

I have no idea of Abberline's 1888 pre-Clapham address, but it is strangely telling that he didn't merit an entry in Swanson's address book until he moved to Bournemouth in 1903/4.

Regards,

Simon

[AdamNeilWood]

In a March 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview...

"I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory."

Which 'several quarters' would these have been?

Best wishes
Adam