New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[robhouse]

Jonathan,

Granted, I see given the Griffiths reference that there is a source which would support the idea that the series came to an end because he was caged. I will add a few things: first, this is a secondary source. Griffiths is speaking here, not Anderson, so we do not know if this is merely Griffiths's interpretation or inference from what Anderson told him. Secondly, as Chris points out, we do not know whether Kozminski may have been caged or otherwise removed from the streets earlier than 1891. The sources, Macnaghten included, might be interpreted to suggest that something happened around March 1889, and as I have suggested before, Kozminski may have been removed to a private asylum for a time, or as Chris suggests, to some sort of Seaside Home, which would explain why it was necessary to go to the seaside for the identification. We must accept that we do not have all the answers here. However, just because we do not have all the answers, does not mean you can assume Anderson was wrong in what he stated.

I don't think you responded to my question about why you assume Anderson and Swanson did not know Kozminski's first name.

"The great limitation of these [late] primary sources is that neither acknowledges, or recalls, that the Reipper inevestigation lasted for years. Instead, if we only had them, we would tuink this was all over by the end of the 'autumn of terror'. This is even more true of the Marginalia than Anderson's writings. And Swanson ends it with the mistakes about the Jack murders ending with his incarceration, and then he supposedly died soon after. That is not how he reacted to Coles, suggesting that his knowledge, or what he thought he knew, about 'Kosminski' came ater that (in 1895?)"

As I have stated before, in my opinion, Swanson and Anderson both strongly suspected Kozminski... to the extent of a "moral certainty" in Anderson's case, to some unknown degree in Swanson's case. Both (I think) eventually came to the conclusion that the Ripper had five victims. (I may be wrong here.) But even "moral certainty" allows for a small amount of uncertainty. Therefore, any murders even after Kozminski's incarceration, would still be considered as possible Ripper murders. They would have to keep an open mind about this... not least because the case was officially "unsolved". It would be their duty to look at later suspects (Sadler for example) as possible Rippers—even if they believed that the Ripper was known. The Coles murder may have shook their resolve, but they apparently came to the conclusion it was not a Ripper murder.

[Jonathan H]

To Fleetwood Mac

But this is what I have been trying to get people to consider.

Macnaghten arguably knows more accurate information about 'Kosminski' than either Anderson and/or Swanson, starting with the fact that the 'suspect' was not deceased.

To Fisherman

In his memoirs, for what this is worth, Macnaghten created an unmistakable polemic against Anderson's Polish Jew suspect (Sims had already dismissed the theory as an unlikely sideshow in 1907, and then unleashed scathing abuse about Anderson's memoir claims in 1910).

Also Mac now claimed, in 1914, that the beat cop witness had seen nothing satisfying, and -- for the very first time ever -- that the murderer had definitely written the graffiti; eg. a Gentile having a go at the three Jews who had interrupted him with Stride (with 'Juwes' corrected to 'Jews').

In my opinion what we have are police primary sources at cold war with each other, and one asserting that there was no prime witness to make a positive identification.

Macnaghten may have been wrong, but he also may have been right too.

[Phil H]

What you have to ask yourself is whether or not Swanson would have accepted without question a tale about the identification of "Kosminski", even if that tale was told him by Anderson? Would you accept a story which flew in the face of what you and all your colleagues believed to be the case, and on top of which did not conform to what you understood to be sensible police procedure?

But logically, Swanson would have been more "hands on" than Anderson. hence, IMHO, it is much more likely that Anderson got his story from DSS and edited for publication. Swanson put back in the details that he knew.

For Anderson to have known and DSS not knowmn, we have to assume a whole new range of agents for Sir A to work through. After all, someone had to liaise with City CID. I don't see that as being Anderson alone.

One small point regarding Jim Swanson, if his claim that Swanson refused to divulge the name of Jack the Ripper is true, if Swanson ever said anything remotely like wild horses never dragging the name from his lips, doesn't that mean he knew or thought he knew the identity of the murderer?

Exactly. Though in fairness we have to say that Munro and other "top cops" stated that they knew what the solution was.

Phil H

[Chris]

Apparently, Aaron had been suffering from his condition for about two years prior to his incarceration in Feb 1891, i.e. condition began around March 1889.

Unfortunately this is an error that has crept into the literature. The Mile End Old Town creed register contains a note "Qy Insane", i.e. "Query Insane", which has been misread as "2y Insane" (see Sugden, p. 523).

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"he doesn't mention the ID."

He may well do that - or the outcome of it, anyway. He does say that Kosminski in appearance closely resembled the individual seen near Mitre Square, and that tells us that somebody who saw that individual - reasonably the Church Passage man - compared what he saw to Kosminski at some stage.
So no, the word identification is not used by Sir Melville, but we can easily see that he may have had knowledge of such a thing anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

One way of reconciling the evidence might be if there was confusion between Aaron being put into a lunatic asylum and Aaron being put into another kind of institution (a seaside convalescent home) as a patient for the purpose of identification. If that happened in early 1889 the only real chronological contradiction remaining would be Swanson's belief that he went to Colney Hatch very shortly afterwards rather than two years later. But if Colney Hatch was being muddled up with the seaside home that might be a result of the same confusion.

Another possibility is that MacNaghten wasn't close to proceedings - for example, he doesn't mention the ID.

Apparently, Aaron had been suffering from his condition for about two years prior to his incarceration in Feb 1891, i.e. condition began around March 1889.

Could MacNaghten have been told the story and when he asked how long had he been displaying these symptoms, which naturally you would do where trying to tie Aaron in with the murders, he was told since around March 1889. Is it possible that MacNaghten wasn't told when Aaron was incarcerated, and so in McNaghten's mind it was probably around March 1889, not imagining that he could have been on the streets for two years, minus intermittment spells in workhouses, before being incarcerated.

[Chris]

You have repeated this claim countless times, and I do not see that there is anything to back up the notion that Anderson "redacted" anything from 1891 to 1888. This is based on your interpretation, incorrect in my opinion, of Anderson's 1901 statement that:

"the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum."

You interpret this to mean that Anderson is saying that he was caged in the asylum immediately after he was on the prowl for mere weeks. This, if I read you correctly, is the source of your repeated claim that Anderson has redacted events of 1891 into 1888.

However, Anderson does not say what you suggest. He says the fiend was "on the prowl" for weeks... i.e. he was on the prowl for victims. He also say the suspect was "caged in an asylum." What he does not say is that the suspect was caged in an asylum immediately after the weeks he was on the prowl. Indeed, if he had said this, then we would infer (quite correctly) that it was his being caged that brought the series to an end. But Anderson does not say this.

I think it's interesting that Swanson observed that no more murders took place after the identification, and thought that the suspect had been put into an asylum a very short time afterwards, while Anderson thought (at one time) that the identification had actually taken place in the asylum. And the "weeks on the prowl" quotation could be read, as Jonathan is reading it, to indicate that all this happened in late 1888 or early 1889 (though as you say this might not be the case if the suspect was understood to have stopped "prowling" for some other reason).

And then we have Macnaghten thinking Aaron was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. I think if we didn't know Aaron's history we should be assuming fairly definitely on the basis of those opinions that he was put into a lunatic asylum a short time after the murders, and that the identification (or attempted identification, or whatever) took place either soon before or soon after.

One way of reconciling the evidence might be if there was confusion between Aaron being put into a lunatic asylum and Aaron being put into another kind of institution (a seaside convalescent home) as a patient for the purpose of identification. If that happened in early 1889 the only real chronological contradiction remaining would be Swanson's belief that he went to Colney Hatch very shortly afterwards rather than two years later. But if Colney Hatch was being muddled up with the seaside home that might be a result of the same confusion.

[PaulB]

For if, as I have maintained, and as others, such as Paul Begg have written, that DSS is actually only expanding on Anderson's story, then it all comes down to the veracity of the original story and it's story teller.

Hello Phil,
What I actually wrote and what you may be paraphrasing is: "On balance, whilst it is true that he doesn't overtly endorse Anderson, he expands on the incident Anderson describes and he doesn't pooh pooh it."

Just for clarification, I am not saying that Swanson was simply repeating and adding details to a story told to him by Anderson, the reliability of that story therefore resting on Anderson. I am simply saying that Swanson added details to the account Anderson provided in The Lighter Side... For all I know those details could be from his own first-hand experience of the event Anderson was writing about, and some details he provides can certainly be interpreted to suggesting that they were.

What you have to ask yourself is whether or not Swanson would have accepted without question a tale about the identification of "Kosminski", even if that tale was told him by Anderson? Would you accept a story which flew in the face of what you and all your colleagues believed to be the case, and on top of which did not conform to what you understood to be sensible police procedure?

That's what you seem to be suggesting that Swanson did. And maybe he did. But was he really so gullible? Would he really have accepted a **** and bull story hook, line and sinker, without questioning the source at all. Without asking so much as who else was there. Without getting their perspective?

I am not prepared to accept that, not without good evidence of his gullibility.

One small point regarding Jim Swanson, if his claim that Swanson refused to divulge the name of Jack the Ripper is true, if Swanson ever said anything remotely like wild horses never dragging the name from his lips, doesn't that mean he knew or thought he knew the identity of the murderer? Doesn't it mean that the family believed he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper? I mean, why on earth would the family think he wouldn't divulge the name of the Ripper if they didn't think he actually knew it?

[Chris]

Their dogs were actually seeking a rendevous with Kosminski's dog.

It's often overlooked that Polydore De Keyser, who fined Aaron for being in charge of an unmuzzled dog, had earlier described the Ripper as "a kind of human mad dog" ...

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/10973.html

[Phil H]

It is possible you know you separate out the private knowledge of Anderson and Swanson and the political and private actions of Scotland Yard.

As I have suggested in other posts, Anderson and Swanson appear to have satisfied themselves, at least, that Kosminski was the murderer. They could not bring a prosecution.

In those circumstances it is entirely possible - and does not in any way undermine the Anderson/Swanson position - that the Commissioner of the day (Munro or Bradford) may have felt that SY needed to be perceived publicly of not treating the Ripper situation too lightly. Thus, in the absence of a clearly indentified, tried and condemned killer, each successive murder was treated seriously. It would have been good PR, reassuring and appropriate.

Real life does not require us to interpret things in a black and white way. People are quite capable of knowing something, and for perfectly sound reasons, acting in another way. It happens a lot in war, in politics and in the management of organisations.

Phil H

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Yes, that's an interesting theory.

Even according to my own theory Sir Melville shanghaied two quite minor suspects into the frame and disseminated them, albeit fictionalised, to the public (one of them, Ostrog, he knew by late 1894 had an iron-clad alibi yet he still gave them to Griffiths and Sims).

You could argue that's bloody mendacious even if nobody is harmed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

None of the SY5 were muddled.

They were mendacious.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Rob

I might be wrong, I often am, but in my defense my reasoning is not muddled at all. It's a clear through-line.

I am arguing that Anderson is sincerely muddled, and Swanson along with him.

You don't seem to think that these limited sources are ambiguous, whereas I find them almost opaque at times.

You might be right in your interpretation but I think you are almost certainly wrong, partly because you are examining it in isolation from the others.

For example, if Sir Robert told his son that the Ripper died in an asylum, and this is backed by the Marginalia. If so then this is a mistake on Anderson's part about 'Kosminski'.

Not a mistake Macnaghten, his confidential assiatnt, made. Odd that?

But then Anderson confused, in a 1908 interview, the pipes between the Kelly and McKenzie murders, and he amazingly confused the wrong Home Sec. from the wrong year, the wrong party, and the wrong government for supposedly putting him under pressure.

But you will, I presume, argue that that is a mistake about something else and somebody else, and not about 'Kosminski'.

I think that is too narrow an interpretation; you lose the forest for the trees.

That if you examine all the sources you will see that it is possible that Anderson meant or thought or knew that Aaron Kosminski was sectioned years later, but not very likely and the Marginalia makes the same arguable mistakes: both about the timeline and the suspect being deceased.

A mistake Macnaghten does not make, but he does set in motion by placing the Polish Jew -- maybe -- at an 1888 crime scene, and by having him sectioned in early 1889 (and the lack of any other name begins with the same police offciial in the extant record).

Also my interpretation does not just come from just the 1901 source but from other sources by or about Anderson.

For example here is Anderson with Griffiths:

'The Windsor Magazine', Vol.1, January to June 1895, page 507, in an essay entitled 'The Detective In Real Life.' Major Arthur Griffiths writing under his pseudonym of 'Alfred Aylmer':

'Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a 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.'

How could anybody gleen from that that he was referring to events that stretched out from late 1888 to early 1891?

If Anderson knows the real timeline then he is being self-servingly mileading to make it appear that this miscreant was not a dnager to the community after a very brief reign of terror.

Do you really think Anderson was secretly thinking: lucklily the little swine got better for over two years, but no need to trouble the Major with that embarrassing titbit.

For it is quite simply wrong. Aaron Kosminski's 'hideous career' was not 'cut short' by his commital, but ended because -- if he's Jack -- because he calmed down and stopped savaging harlots around the corner from where he lived.

Here is the 'Blackwoods' (March 1910) version of his memoirs.

'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.'

From the book version:

'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.'

You claim that Anderson corrects his mistake about the timing of the witness only identifying the suspect after he was sectioned.

Does Anderson really do this in the second version?

According to the way you interpret sources unless somebody states it baldly then it did not happen.

Well, Anderson does not 'correct' the account -- by that criteria.

He merely omits the element of timing.

Who says it is a mistake anyhow?

The source is so ambiguous that it could be a genuine memory of what happened in early 1891, when Aaron Kosminski was 'safely caged' supposedly confronted with a Jewish witness (and then of course died soon after).

Anderson is so ambiguous in his memoirs, giving the impression that it was all wrapped up by early 1889, that secondary sources such as Cullen, Rumbelow and Farson understandably theorised he must mean Pizer and his disappointing witness. Even Fido dismissed Aaron Kosminski as being sectioned too late (exactly as Mac via Sims does in 1907) to be the specific figure to whom the police chief is referring.

The great limitation of these [late] primary sources is that neither acknowledges, or recalls, that the Reipper inevestigation lasted for years. Instead, if we only had them, we would tuink this was all over by the end of the 'autumn of terror'. This is even more true of the Marginalia than Anderson's writings. And Swanson ends it with the mistakes about the Jack murders ending with his incarceration, and then he supposedly died soon after. That is not how he reacted to Coles, suggesting that his knowledge, or what he thought he knew, about 'Kosminski' came ater that (in 1895?)

That is the other element-limitation to this theory which I go on about 'counltess times' because nobody will attempt an answer.

How did Mac know to be true what they did not?

We will have to agree to disagree, unless another clarifiying source turns up.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Phil,

... every man and his dog were still out looking for the Whitechapel Murderer after Kosminski, Aaron, was put away.

Their dogs were actually seeking a rendevous with Kosminski's dog.

Roy

ps outstanding magazine article, Adam, Keith Skinner and all those who helped them.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob,

Good analogy, but you're preaching to the choir. If Anderson wanted to state that his suspect had been detained right after the last murder, he would have written that. It would have been important for him to convey that to his readers. Anderson was a braggart, plain and simple, so to infer something that only one person, over a 100 years later, would pick up on, is not at all Anderson's style.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott