New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Jonathan H]

Sorry Harry

I think the previous poster shoved my opening line into a reply against your post.

My argument, inspired by 'Scotland Yard Investigates', was that a real event was being sincerely -- and self-servingly -- misremembered. Therefore an identification by a Jewish witness just after Aaron Kosminski was sectioned did happen -- but was not literally that suspect,as it was a sailor named Sadler.

What Phil H does is project his ostrich-pose onto others, or at least onto me.

Several times I have asked him to address how it is that Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive and knew that he was at large long after the Kelly atrocity, and yet he -- like an ostrich -- never responds.

[harry]

Phil H,
There is every reason to doubt it litteraly happened.Iv'e never used those words..That Kosminski could not be sent anywhere does not fly in the face of a statement from a good source.My source is the law itself,a much higher authority than either Anderson or Swanson.Unless as I've stated he was under arrest,and there is nothing to show he was.I am not rubbishing anything,I am pointing out the weaknesses,as I see it,and your own post qualifies that there are weaknesses to be addressed.That there are attempts to rectify the shortcomings in the case against Komiski is commendable.When they verify an ID took place,I'll listen.

[Phil H]

There is every reason to doubt it literally happened.

Ah! the "ostrich" approach to evidence. If I deny it it might go away!! It WON'T.

All I was trying to show,was that for all the reasons he might have been sent,under arrest was probably not one of them.

And a good point to establish if we can do so.

So what was the reason.He was suspect of something connected to the murders,we are led to believe.All I am trying to show,is that all we have are the claims of two persons,claims not backed by supporting information.

But we do appear to have corroboration for some of what DSS said - Cox's accountof the surveillance of a house in a Jewish area of Met territory. In many areas of historical research, especially the further back we go, we have even less - and less reliable evidence than that. I am (among other things) a student of Roman history, and there we might have a line in Tacitus stating something that is known from no other source. Yet we do not ignore it, (or rubbish it) we seek to understand it from context and internal textual criticism; we look at where the author might have got his information, whether he was "in the know", how reliable he is on other things. then the case for accepting sucgh material has to be argued. That is surely what is going on here with DSS and Kosminski.

Not good enough.Kosminki could not be sent anywhere.

A somewhat categorical statement which flies in the face of a statement from a good source, in circumstances where no subterfuge appears to have been required, that he was "sent". We lack enough detail to know the whys and wherefores at this stage.

Try to show that he was and could be,then the rest become s believeable.

Which is what we are seeking to do. I am uncertain why you are so adamant about rubbishing the marginalia as a source (I understand Jonathan's motivation). No final judgement has yet been made, it is simply a matter of assessing the position.

In my mental picture (matrix if you will) an ID of Kosminski sits in the mix, but sort of bracketed with "lack of detail available". But I cnot rule it out because I don't know - to me reasonably excellent sources say it happened, and if this was about 1415 or 1066 (rather than the 1880s/90s) we would not rule it out, but work with what we have.

That is my position on this: not extreme, flexible and open-minded.

Phil H

[harry]

Phil H,
All I was trying to show,was that for all the reasons he might have been sent,under arrest was probably not one of them.So what was the reason.He was suspect of something connected to the murders,we are led to believe.All I am trying to show,is that all we have are the claims of two persons,claims not backed by supporting information.Not good enough.Kosminki could not be sent anywhere.Try to show that he was and could be,then the rest become s believeable.

[Jonathan H]

There is every reason to doubt it literally happened.

Macnaghten, who arguably knows more about 'Kosminski', explicitly and implicitly denies such an event ever happened -- and does so in public under his own name.

No other police officer, or anybody for that matter, claims to know of such an event -- one which would have leaked eventually, if not immediately.

Evans and Rumbelow have argued the theory that because Aaron Kosminski was sectioned just days before a Ripper suspect, Tom Sadler, was 'confronted' by a Ripper witness, almost certainly Lawende, a Jew, that these separate events have become intertwined in a fading and failing memory -- and a self-serving memory.

In 1908, Anderson in an interview mixed up the pipes found at the Kelly and McKenzie murders, and mixed up Henry Matthews, a Tory Home Sec. -- the one he actually dealt with face to face during the Whitechapel murders, -- and William Harcourt, a Liberal and previous Home Sec. (and future leader in 1895, the year Anderson first appears in our meagre record as believing that Jack was a madman who was sectioned)

So, why not a muddle up Ripper suspects and witnesses, especially when the eventual confection makes a debacle into a near-triumph by a figure -- although incorruptible -- was also known for his sky-high opinion of himself?

That Swanson believed that 'Kosminski' was the fiend, sure, and also may have begun to know in 1895, but that he knew about the positive witness identification prior to Anderson's book coming out is a theory -- and arguably not the strongest.

That there are so many emphatic annotations on this matter might also suggest that it was news to Swanson -- which he did not doubt -- and so he recorded it, otherwise he knew he would forget. He was glad that there had been decisive evidence, He had just not been privy to it before, but then the jurisdictions and locations were not his either.

If you mean that a Ripper suspect was 'confronted' with a Jewish witness who said yes, I think this did happen -- in 1895, with Lawende confronting Grant, and there's that year again.

Or, at the very least, with Lawende confronting Sadler in 1891 almost simultaneous with Kosminski being 'safely caged' and, disappointingly, the witness saying no.

That might be the true, historical witness identification behind the myth which was sincerely, yet nevertheless mistakenly, created from it a generation later.

[Phil H]

Who said he was compelled to go, harry.

DSS simply states "sent by us". As I have conjectured elsewhere, his family might have taken him, I don't know.

I only know we cannot ignore what DSS says. It is explicit and there is no reason to doubt it happned. We just don't know the context or details.

I cannot speculate on Anderson or DSS motives because i do not have the information to do so. However, it is reasonable to assume that they saw it as appropriate and necessary, or they would not have done it.

Phil H

[harry]

I should hve written,it is one of the doubts.

[harry]

The law was then as it is now,a person could not be compelled by the police to go anywhere,except by arrest.It is known that many persons were arrested and taken to police stations during the Whitechapel murders..What has never been confirmed is that Kosminski was arrested.It might be as you say Phil,that things were not always done according to what was required,that the law was ignored,but in those cases any evidence gained , had a strong chance of not being accepted at trial.If suspects were ignorant of the law,there were many defense lawyers who weren't.That is why I have my doubts of an ID.Would Anderson and/or Swanson take that chance.

[Monty]

Hello Jen, Abby, FM,

Thanks for your detailed responses. Yes those could be the answers but I believe for them to be the case it would be an amazing combination that for me anyway pushes incredulity into the picture. They may be "small problems" that get in the way of Kosminski being the killer, but combined, I believe that there are far too many "small problems" and it makes one heck of a large problem with this suspect when put together. Too many ifs and buts, too many unprovable explanations, that pushes Kosminski as a killer way away from being, for me and others also, anything like a reliably prime suspect for the Whitechapel murders. We don't even know if he physically matches any known description.

One thing I will say though, is that some here certainly ARE suggesting that Anderson and Swanson ran a covert operation that no one else knew about..which for me is just nonsense... for a variety of reasons that don't need to be gotten into just now.

The simple and logical reason for the writing in that book made by DSS is that he was merely expanding on Anderson's story. He expands in other comments on Anderson's words in the same book. Logic therefore says he is doing it here also.

I know that creates a problem for some..I know...but, and I honestly mean this, if Kosminski (in my eyes) had a sniff of being the Whitechapel murderer,
I'd be as enthusiastic about promoting his name as some here are..because for me I don't care what the killer's name is..or killers names are.
For me, like Druitt, there is just not enough to go on.

As far as the legalities of how to lock someone up or have them put into an asylum are concerned... this was the LVP. People didnt go by the book in those days. Policemen haven't been going by the book in certain places, cases and areas since the Force started. (South Yorkshire Police have given us quite a good example of this over the last few months in regard to how they dealt with things that stained their reputation...and that is 100 years after JTR)(I noticed that one senior policeman on Sky News yesterday state that..and I quote.. "The Force isn't like that anymore, we are far different today"......yup...until the next balls up gets uncovered.)

So far as traditions of the old department are concerned, you can add a few unwritten rules to the "don't tell tales out of school" line. One being, "we cover our own backsides in major cases involving many officers, especially from the top down". Is that an insult to the police as a whole? Perhaps, but not meant that way...it is just an unwritten rule that shines through.

And I don't think it was any different in 1888..with Sir Robert Anderson at the helm...

best wishes

Phil

Apples and oranges.

One is procedure, tother is to cover up blame.

Tell me Phil, what is LVP Polices identity procedure?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jen, Abby, FM,

Thanks for your detailed responses. Yes those could be the answers but I believe for them to be the case it would be an amazing combination that for me anyway pushes incredulity into the picture. They may be "small problems" that get in the way of Kosminski being the killer, but combined, I believe that there are far too many "small problems" and it makes one heck of a large problem with this suspect when put together. Too many ifs and buts, too many unprovable explanations, that pushes Kosminski as a killer way away from being, for me and others also, anything like a reliably prime suspect for the Whitechapel murders. We don't even know if he physically matches any known description.

One thing I will say though, is that some here certainly ARE suggesting that Anderson and Swanson ran a covert operation that no one else knew about..which for me is just nonsense... for a variety of reasons that don't need to be gotten into just now.

The simple and logical reason for the writing in that book made by DSS is that he was merely expanding on Anderson's story. He expands in other comments on Anderson's words in the same book. Logic therefore says he is doing it here also.

I know that creates a problem for some..I know...but, and I honestly mean this, if Kosminski (in my eyes) had a sniff of being the Whitechapel murderer,
I'd be as enthusiastic about promoting his name as some here are..because for me I don't care what the killer's name is..or killers names are.
For me, like Druitt, there is just not enough to go on.

As far as the legalities of how to lock someone up or have them put into an asylum are concerned... this was the LVP. People didnt go by the book in those days. Policemen haven't been going by the book in certain places, cases and areas since the Force started. (South Yorkshire Police have given us quite a good example of this over the last few months in regard to how they dealt with things that stained their reputation...and that is 100 years after JTR)(I noticed that one senior policeman on Sky News yesterday state that..and I quote.. "The Force isn't like that anymore, we are far different today"......yup...until the next balls up gets uncovered.)

So far as traditions of the old department are concerned, you can add a few unwritten rules to the "don't tell tales out of school" line. One being, "we cover our own backsides in major cases involving many officers, especially from the top down". Is that an insult to the police as a whole? Perhaps, but not meant that way...it is just an unwritten rule that shines through.

And I don't think it was any different in 1888..with Sir Robert Anderson at the helm...

best wishes

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Lol

or maybe we are very tired?

We've only just started on a conspiracy theory!

Sagar liaised with Met Police on these matters.

So, Swanson must have known.

Yeah, you're right......tired and done for the night.

[Jenni Shelden]

Lol

or maybe we are very tired?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hiya, wasnt saying anything i thoght disagreed with this

Hello Jenni,

We've cracked it!

[Jenni Shelden]

'He was also a Jew' seems to clinch it.

Unless suspect and witness were both city policemen and 'Jew' in this context meant two policemen from Old Jewry.

When city policeman watched him day and night, it wasn't difficult as he worked in the nick with them.

The suspect was Sagar, the well dressed man coming out of the court, on surveillance duties, and he bluffed his way out of it in a series of articles commenting on the suspect; who in fact was himself.

Sagar was known as Kosminski in police circles as both Aaron and Sagar spent an inordinate amount of time picking fish heads off the floor - Kosminski was his piss take name.

Copyright 2012.

Hiya, wasnt saying anything i thoght disagreed with this

[Fleetwood Mac]

All I am getting at is that the witness who ID'd Kosminski is not necessarily someone obvious - i think we would be stretching it to suggest he was Jewish either (stranger things have been known).

Jennifer

'He was also a Jew' seems to clinch it.

Unless suspect and witness were both city policemen and 'Jew' in this context meant two policemen from Old Jewry.

When city policemen watched him day and night, it wasn't difficult as he worked in the nick with them.

The suspect was Sagar, the well dressed man coming out of the court, on surveillance duties, and he bluffed his way out of it in a series of articles commenting on the suspect; who in fact was himself.

Sagar was known as Kosminski in police circles as both Aaron and Sagar spent an inordinate amount of time picking fish heads off the floor - Kosminski was his piss take name.

This was the hot potato.

Copyright 2012.