New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

PS. KOSMINSKI. K-o-s-m-i-n-s-k-i. And Swanson. Those are the men this thread should be about.

Actually, this thread is about the article written by Keith Skinner and myself for Ripperologist magazine. The only on-thread discussion in the past 200 or so posts have been made by Lechmere, which is why I'm keen for him to post his thoughts so that they can be answered as best we can.

Adam

[harry]

There are,in my opinion,three stages to consider when evaluating Kosminski.The first is that he did come to the notice of police.Without knowing when or why,the most that can be said is that he was a person of interest.Nothing more.In such a situation,he may be subject to investigation,to questioning,survilance,and even identification.That does not make him suspect.The second stage,suspect,would apply if,during the above,evidence surfaced which led police to a suspicion that a crime had been committed,a nd Kosminski was involved in that crime.The third stage,accusation,would result if the evidence against Kosminski was such,that the police considered guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
I have read nothing that persuades me,that at present,we can go beyond the first stage.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"I certainly didn't say it was irrational."

Thatīs right, you did not. I apologize, Chris!

But it IS irrational at any rate. There is nothing irrational about thinking that the Kosminski evidence may have been hard and useful. But it IS irrational to conclude that it must have been.

Once again, Iīm sorry for my leaping to conclusions, Chris.

"I do think these discussions would be easier if we could all recognise that people have different opinions without being confrontational about it "

You are once again correct, of course. Iīll do my very best, and I hope others will too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Please join us in the real world sometime soon. Your contributions to these forums used to be stimulating and interesting. the alternative is to see yourself marginalised and mocked. I would, sincerely, not want to see that happen."

Okay, then. I will drop Lechmere as a suspect, given that you know so much better how one should look for the Ripper, and I will never more ... Nah, Phil - just kidding! Lechmere is factually the best suspect out there. I am quite prepared to be marginalized and mocked for acknowledging this, if it is what it takes.

But if I should ever feel like lying about what I believe and think, and taking leave of my convictions in order to be able to share a cup of tea with you, I promise that you will be the first to know, Phil!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. KOSMINSKI. K-o-s-m-i-n-s-k-i. And Swanson. Those are the men this thread should be about.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"So you are, as you sit at home typing today, in a better position than Donald Swanson and Sir Robert Anderson who were experiencing the investigation at the time, to decide if Kosminski can NOT be called a good suspect?"

You are forgetting, Monty, that we are moving on two levels of time. We both know that Anderson was enthusiastic, and from that we may conclude that he believed he had something on Kosminski that was useful. Therefore, it applies that Kosminski may have been a good suspect at that stage. And it is only MAY, since we cannot judge how good the evidence/hunch/testimony was, can we? It therefore also applies that Kosminski may have been a rather weak suspect at that stage.

Today, however, I have no problems at all to state that we cannot name Kosminski a strong suspect. To do so, we must have access to the evidence that made him a suspect in the first place. Just like I said, there has never been and will never be a case where we can conclude that somebody is a strong suspect without knowing on what grounds he is suspected.

This should be schoolboy stuff, I would think. He was a suspect, he may have been a good or a bad suspect, but today, since the grounds for his suspect status are lost to us, he is not a strong suspect. We may harbour strong feelings and hunches that the once existing evidence was good, and we may harbour a sense that it was nothing of the sort. No matter what feelings we harbour, it alters not that the evidence is lost, and with it the possibility to rank Kosminski as a strong suspect.

"To dismiss Anderson as a desk jockey really does show a gap in your knowledge"

Not at all - Anderson WAS normally tied to his desk, and did rarely join the investigations on the street. This is not to say that he was an uninformed man - many men do great jobs of leading from behind a desk, and many of them keep themselves aptly informed about what happens on street level. That, however, does not alter the fact that you need to introduce different levels of information in a hierarchical system like the Met was, and this means that you get second-hand information when you speak to the boss. Or third-, fourth- or fifth-hand information. That involves risks for the veracity of the information.
This too, Monty, would be schoolbook stuff.

Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?

I donīt dismiss that this evidence is there. 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.
Take Cohen as comparison, Monty - I would describe him as a violent man. Kosminski is, given the period we have recorded, much less violent than I am/have been. And I am a pacifist.

"Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders."

Oh, come on, Monty - you cannot pooh-pooh Lechmereīs being very closely geographically knitted to the exact streets of the murders (or did you not do so?), only to then claim that Kosminski "was in the area". Hundreds of thousands of people were in the general area - and Kosminski was one of them. It means we canīt rule him out on those grounds, and thatīs about it.

"Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders."

Perhaps not a parade - he may well have been the only contender. Otherwise, yes. Nobody is contesting that.

"Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders."

Absolutely. But the point remains that we donīt know what that evidence looked like. Therefore he remains a rather weak suspect, and nothing else. he is POTENTIALLY a very strong suspect. He is POTENTIALLY the Ripper. But we have no specific, caserelated evidence telling us that he was. We donīt know what made him a suspect, what convinced Anderson that he was a good bid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

That is completely irrational, Rob. Chris also recognized this, thankfully.

I certainly didn't say it was irrational. I just said my opinion was different.

It depends what weight you give to what Anderson and Swanson wrote, and what weight to statements by other officers who were evidently not convinced that Anderson's suspect was guilty. It also depends on what you mean by a "strong suspect", but for other reasons I am hesitant about accepting police theories, doubtful identifications and circumstantial evidence at the moment.

I do think these discussions would be easier if we could all recognise that people have different opinions without being confrontational about it - not that there aren't irrational arguments flying around, of course!

[Phil H]

Fisherman

And there is not very much I can do about your disrespect for me, unless you do something about it yourself... Then again, since I am not intellectually on par with you, why would you?

I was not speaking personally but academically.

I am concerned to see ripper studies progress into the future on the solid foundations laid by writers like Evans, Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, Skinner and others. These authors use academic method in the correct way and evaluate historical evidence in the correct way. By correct, I mean thy use an approach that would be accepted and respected by any scholar or historian. That approach should be our benchmark.

Theories such as that regarding Lechmere/Cross; the diary; Lewis Carroll and anagrams etc etc remind me of the McCormick era, only he was somewhat more soundly based!! (Joke!) We must surely now eschew these "bright ideas" based on a quasi-intellectual joining up of bits of information that may or may not go together. The next step is likely to be (not necessarily by you) the invention of facts to bolster a case - like Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime. the perhapses and the maybes become certainties as a weak case is argued further than it will really allow.

That is not only a disservice to those supporting such a weak case, but it denigrates and undermines the whole field of study. That is why I seek to resist your claims and assertions so strongly.

You ignore the approaches that have been built up for good reason and allow serious students to build and go forward with some confidence; and in its place you seek to rear up glittering, clever but unstable mirages and then try to argue they are as sound in method and conclusion as those built up using the accepted approaches.

Please join us in the real world sometime soon. Your contributions to these forums used to be stimulating and interesting. the alternative is to see yourself marginalised and mocked. I would, sincerely, not want to see that happen.

Phil H

[Monty]

Goddamnit Phil H....you are always beating me to the punch.


Christer,

Read me a bit more discerning, Rob! I am saying that we can NOT call him a strong suspect today. I am also saying we can NOT call him a good suspect today. BUT I acknowledge that he was apparently considered a good suspect BACK THEN!! Anderson very apparently thought him a very good suspect, MacNaghten less so - but still good enough to exemplify how one could trump Cutbush. Thatīs where the "good suspect" judgement enters my discussion

So you are, as you sit at home typing today, in a better position than Donald Swanson and Sir Robert Anderson who were experiencing the investigation at the time, to decide if Kosminski can NOT be called a good suspect?

We may - and should - realize that whatever it was that made him a suspect, it made Anderson enthusiastic. But to begin with, Anderson was a long way away from the factual epicenter of things, sitting behind his desk. He would have relied on what others told him, and others may have been only too willing to please the commisioner. No matter what happened and how, it earned Kosminski a place in the memoranda as a crafty guy, strongly homicidal and with a great hatred of women, particularly the prostitute class. As you well know, not many of us recognize this as an apt description of Aaron Kosminski. And when we look at the discrepancy between the memoranda Ostrog and the real one, our suspicions are further fed! If "Kosminski" WAS Aaron - and there is a vary fair chance that he was - then we may be facing a very unbecoming fitting up of the man.

Firstly Anderson would have been aware of any key incident, and it shows he was. You really need to do some research into the structure of the Met force at the time and gain some knowledge on Warrens tenure and what he expected from his men. To dismiss Anderson as a desk jockey really does show a gap in your knowledge of both how the upper enchelons of the met worked as well as Warren and Andersons personas.

Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?

Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders.

Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders.

Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders.


Monty

[Fisherman]

Look positively on it, Phil - one out of two ainīt bad. And there is not very much I can do about your disrespect for me, unless you do something about it yourself.

Then again, since I am not intellectually on par with you, why would you?

Take what you can get, I say. I know I have to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

It's nice to be recognised Fisherman . I just wish it was by someone I respected.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Fisherman - your logical and intellectual gaps are showing again."

I much rely on you to turn up and help me out with your intellectual approach, your superior insight and knowledge and your academic finery, Phil - and so far, you have never disappointed me!

Who knows how far we can go together?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Fisherman - your logical and intellectual gaps are showing again. Hasn't it dawned on you yet that every time you post you lower your credibility - at least for me. What nonsense you spout and all to promote your tin-pot theory!!

Dr Watson:

No Jenni, the police at the time did not. The first mention of Kosminski's name came in 1894, and it came from someone who wasn't even a policeman at the time of the killings.

Anderson and Swanson, two of the most senior officials connected to the case, believed that someone named Kosminski was "Jack". That is a recorded fact. The first mention THAT WE MAY HAVE does not necessarily indicate when or why he became a suspect.

As pointed out elsewhere, there isn't a single mention of anyone named "Kosminski" in any official or unofficial record, document, circular, report, correspondence or other writing dating back to the time of the killings and thereafter.

But we know that the documentary record is incomplete. We KNOW that suspect files disappeared in recent years - they were seen when the Barlow What BBC series was being prepared in the 1970s but are not in ther archive now. So it is HIGHLY LIKELY that a suspect file on Kosminski did exist and certain (the marinalia confirm it) that Anderson and Swanson possessed FAR MORE evidence than is available to us. Ansence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. That is a simple and basic historical truth that should be known by any serious student.

And what you consider "evidence" isn't proof of anything except that three retired police officials, years after the killings, stated that someone named "Kosminski" was a suspect and wrote as much in personal recollections.

You are even worse than Fisherman, you don't appear to think before you post.

Anderson and Swanson agree. They were in a position to know. Swanson's annotations are logical, consistent with other things we know and there is absolutely no reason (except a burning desire to discount inconvenient evidence) that Swanson was not in full possession of his mind and that his recollections were broadly accurate. I am now retired, I was a civil servent for almost 40 years. I could still recount details of cases in which I was involved in the mid 1970s not least the major ones, and the details would be pretty full. When I meet up with former colleagues we do sometimes discuss old times so I know my recollections are accurate. Swanson, by the way, was NOT writing a "personal recollection" he was annotating Anderson's memoir (as he ddi other books) with DETAILS that he personally knew - something different.

Evidence is defined as that which would prove something, that is make something "evident" or obvious to others.

No. Historical EVIDENCE is a record in material form (an artefact) or written form (manuscript, official record, diary) that can be used to support reasoning. The legal definition is NOT what is being discussed here (if you paid attention) but the academic or scholarly. Thus the "Alfred Jewel" with its inscription is historical evidence but it cannot of itself PROVE anything. Get that? We don't even know what it was precisely, but it exists, it is uncontested in its authenticity nd tells us something about the times when it was made. the marginalia is evidence of a similar sort.

It's certainly evident that three men named Kosminski, but that's not proof that Kosminski actually was a Ripper suspect.

Yes it is because Swanson writes "Kosminski was the suspect". That is historical evidence that has to be considered not simply dismissed. The source is authentic, the author in a position to know, the comment is connected to the writings of another person who should have known, and the comment clear. So it is PROOF that he was a suspect in the minds of two (maybe three - MM) men at senior level. That HAS TO BE strong evidence: NOT of guilt, but of suspicion.

It would be the equivalent of three people writing that you stood on your head in the middle of the road seven years ago. Should anyone take that as proof that you really did stand on your head seven years ago?

No. But the likelihood that you did is strong. Unless you can show that the individuals were misguided, did not perceive things accurately, or have reason to lie.

Surely exactly that sort of testimony is the basis of legal trials in most countries? Witnesses tell what the know and that is tested by cross-examination. BUT if the testimony survives rigorous scrutiny it STANDS.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"Ruling out Kosminski is ten times worse. "

Of course it is. He was a suspect for some goddamn reason, we can figure that out with no effort at all. But letīs stay away from dubbing him a very good or strong suspect until we know why, thatīs what I say.

I think Chris said it eminently: Kosminski is a historically important suspect. End of story - so far. Letīs hope there is more to come, allowing us to get a better picture.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni:

"the phrase Kosminski was the suspect - is evidence he was a suspect enough for me"

I did not even need that part, Jenni, to tell me that there was a Jewish suspect who went into an asylum after the murders. And MacNaghten told us that he was called Kosminski. Swanson simply corroborates what we already knew.
And if you think I am saying that there never was any Kosminski suspect, then you are very wrong. What I am saying is that there WAS such a suspect - but we do not know what sort of grounds it was that made him a suspect, and therefore we cannot possibly say whether he was a very good suspect, a strong suspect, a lousy suspect, a laughable suspect or even a suspect on functioning grounds at all. The Ostrog twin MacNaghten furnished him with should raise a finger of warning to anybody who feels a need to rate Kosminski suspectwise. It cannot be done.

So, there IS evidence that he was suspected.
But nothing ties him to any of the murders factually, in terms of ... evidence!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni:

"I dont think either was the Ripper, but, the police at the time did. That's evidence"

I never denied that, Jenni. It IS evidence that he was suspected. But it is not evidence that he should be. It is meta-evidence, evidence that there MAY have been evidence. Or not.

The best,
Fisherman