New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Jenni Shelden]

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

Jenni

[robhouse]

I would not agree that, even if we find conclusive proof that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski of Anderson fame, this should prove that he, as you put it, is a strong suspect.

I would agree that if we get the ID, then we know that he WAS a suspect. We also know that he probably was considered a good suspect, given Andersonīs and MacNaghtens interest in him. But that is all.

Strong suspect... no. Good suspect... yes. (???) What's the difference?

Ugh, Rob - I think you are oversimplifying matters here rather badly.

I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. I am addressing the fact that some people some to be focusing (now, not surprisingly) on the fact that we cannot be certain that Aaron was the right Kozminski. And I was proposing a question... if that was resolved, would we then be able to consider Aaron Kozminski a strong suspect in the case.

You say no, because we do not know why he was a suspect. Well, so what? That does not mean we can throw out the assertions by Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten.




ehhh. I was going to reply more fully, but what is the point really. You are, of course, completely antagonistic to the Kozminski theory because it threatens your Lechmere theory.

RH

[Dr. John Watson]

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

Jenni

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. 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. 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. Evidence is defined as that which would prove something, that is make something "evident" or obvious to others. It's certainly evident that three men named Kosminski, but that's not proof that Kosminski actually was a Ripper suspect. 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?

John

[Jenni Shelden]

DSS was a policeman at the time.

I dont think he was the Ripper.

I think you just need to do much better in terms of trashing the suspect rather than just repeating the same mantra like he'll go away and not be a suspect anymore.

Even SJW cant manage that status, once named and all that

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[Dr. John Watson]

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

I guess that says it all.

John

[PaulB]

HelloPaul,

Agreed.

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski isn't as bad.. because there isn't any evidence the man was even involved in the crimes. And involvement or connection to, is normally something the police note..with a name. And noted that he may have been questioned in connection with..even after the fact in biographical reminiscences.

Now I must away, my apologies.

best wishes

Phil

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski is ten times worse than ruling him in.

Until you can demonstrate that that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the Kosminski named by Swanson and Macnaghten then you are just playing silly name games. And you are downplaying valuable source material from two informed and senior sources who to all intent and purposes are stating that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. And ignoring a third source who acknowledges that "Kosminski" was a good suspect.

And you are ruling out Kosminski because you don't know the evidence on which their conclusion was based, but that's your ignorance, an ignorance forced on you because those sources said all they thought was necessary and because the vagaries of time and fate have destroyed what other paperwork may have existed. That's not unusual. It isn't rare. There are other crimes cases where no paperwork exists at all.

So, there are three senior sources, three sources who had information that we don't, who say that Kosminski was a suspect, two of those sources overtly and tacitly saying he was Jack the Ripper. And you think it's okay to dismiss what they say and count Kosminski out. You in fact think it is better to count him out than to give fair and considered attention to three senior and informed contemporary sources and count Kosminski in. Sorry, but that's just nuts.

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence. And no matter how hard you try to claim that the absence of evidence supporting Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten diminishes the case against Kosminski, it doesn't diminish anything at all.

So, sure Aaron Kosminski may not be the Kosminski, but so far there is no viable alternative and there may never be a viable alternative. Produce one and maybe you'll have an argument worth listening to, but just saying maybe he wasn't the suspect because we don't have the evidence that he was doesn't mean diddly.

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"Strong suspect... no. Good suspect... yes. (???) What's the difference?"

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 no, and emphatically no. In MY view, he is not strong OR good. He IS a suspect though, but that is based on the judgement of men whom I cannot really know how much to invest in. And, as I said before, in a bunch of lousy suspects, the best suspect is STILL a lousy one. How much that applies to the Ripper investigation and "Kosminski", I canīt tell - and that is the snag.

Hope you see what I mean now.

"I don't think I am oversimplifying anything."

Well, I still say you are. And I think what just went down on the thread goes to prove my point. You and John Bennett agreed that if we could establish that "Kosminski" was Aaron Kosminski, then he would be a strong suspect. That tells the whole story, really - without a shred of caserelated evidence, without knowing what it was that made the police suspect him, with the knowledge that Ostrog, for example, was ALSO suspected - on no god grounds at all! - you think that you can turn Aaron Kosminski into a strong suspect.

That is completely irrational, Rob. Chris also recognized this, thankfully. Iīm sorry, but thatīs it. There has never been a case in history where we could ascribe strong suspicion to a suspect without knowing a iota about what it was that got him suspected. And there never will be. It would potentially be a gross miscarriage of justice to do so.

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.

As far as Iīm concerned, i think that the knife threat against his sister may well lie behind these parameters. Knifethreaters are potentially strongly homicidal, his sister was a woman, and he may have threatened her over her behaviour visavi other men, perhaps thinking her a slut. It need not be any more complicated than that, Rob!

"You are, of course, completely antagonistic to the Kozminski theory because it threatens your Lechmere theory."

That is - again - oversimplifying matters. And it makes me sad. Kosminski does NOT threaten "my" Lechmere theory. He would, if there was any evidence that Kosminski could be tied to the murder series, other than as a man mentioned - together with many others - as a possible Ripper back in 1888. Not all of them could have done it. Not one of them must have. So much for that threat, Rob!

I would also like to think that I am open to other ideas than the one I vote for myself. All I read and take in makes a difference - I just read Gordonīs book on the Thames Torso murders, and to my mind, that book lifts George Chapman up quite a bit as a useful suspect. In my book, he has moved up the ladder, and one may wonder why he should, since I am - in your opinion - terrified by anything that "threatens" Lechmere.

It is simply not true, Rob, and itīs simply not a very nice thing to suggest either. But you are in good company! Just remember that you are yourself claiming that identifying Aaron Kosminski as Andersonīs man makes him a strong suspect - on no factual evidence at all...! None!
So, Rob, before you castigate me for making my call, you may need to have a look at that bit yourself. And then we can both return as friends and try to make progress together, combining what we know and what we think. It would earn me the help of a very skilled researcher and a truly devoted man, and it may teach you a little something about flyfishing for seatrout in exchange. You could do worse, you know.

Deal?

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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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

Phil H

[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