New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Steve S]

All facts are by definition gospel.
Otherwise they are not a fact.

My name is Jennifer Shelden, fact.

yes?

Yes....Even if you said otherwise.........

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I just noticed that Trevor Marriott has been banned from Casebook.

What on earth happened?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi All,

I just noticed that Trevor Marriott has been banned from Casebook.

What on earth happened?

Regards,

Simon

I believe the pertinent posts were taken off.

[Admin]

At this time, we would ask that all posters please take a moment to re-read the Major Rules and pay particular attention to rule number 2.

There is to be no further discussion on this matter from now on and any further posts will be deleted if they are not on topic.

Thank you.

[harry]

Personnely I will believe in historical fact, and seniour policemen's truthfulness,and Kosminski's value as a suspect,when I can touch the walls of the building where Kosminski was identified,or stand adjacent to where those walls once stood.

[Supe]

Harry,

I will believe in historical fact, and seniour policemen's truthfulness,and Kosminski's value as a suspect,when I can touch the walls of the building where Kosminski was identified,or stand adjacent to where those walls once stood.

Ah, but you see that such an identifaction happened is not fact. That a book exists with a description of that identification is fact, but the rest of the story that clings to the marginalia must be assayed according to a number of criteria. Don't want to put words in your mouth, but you sound skeptical and that is fine. Differences of opinion make for politics, horse races and, it would seem, Ripperology. And as long as we can be civil and not take ourselves too seriously it can be a lot of fun.

Don.

[PaulB]

Personnely I will believe in historical fact, and seniour policemen's truthfulness,and Kosminski's value as a suspect,when I can touch the walls of the building where Kosminski was identified,or stand adjacent to where those walls once stood.

And on whose authority will you know that those were the walls of the building where Kosminski was identified or was where those walls once stood?

[Phil H]

And on whose authority will you know that those were the walls of the building where Kosminski was identified or was where those walls once stood?

Well, given that material thought lost forever was returned in 1988, I suppose it is possible that a file might emerge giving us details that back-up (or explain - given the inconsistencies) Anderson and Swanson's account of the identification. I assume there must have been paperwork and reports associated with it. Who expected the emergence of the 1909 photo of Dutfield's Yard?

Further personal papers might be uncovered that shed light on the where and when.

The recent research on Kosminski - finding details of his life and possible abodes, relations and contacts (Cohen) and clarifying or maybe giving further room for thought on known material ("his" sister) all take us forward.

I am not expecting such things to happen, but they do and as we uncover more, more leads may emerge. IF (a big question in some cases, I agree) these things happened, then there is a chance they were recorded and a chance that those documents have survived. Somewhere there must once, surely, have been notes and jottings at least about Druitt, either in the possession of the MP or Macnaghten. There was a time when we had never heard of the memorandum in any version, never heard the names Druitt, Ostrog or Kosminski.

It is regrettable that the apparent nature of Ripperology means that new material is not always considered and evaluated from an academic, scholarly angle, but subjected to personal perceptions - "if it was not found by me I won't accept it"; "if it runs counter to my preconceived ideas and theories I will fight it tooth and nail". Those approaches are not helpful.

Scepticism and close and rigorous scrutiny of new material is right and proper, to be commended. But dismissing the views and written statements of major public figures like Macnaghten and Anderson seems to me strange and slightly anachronistic - akin to modern evaluations of police officials, rather than viewing them against the standards and mores of their own day.

On Kosminski, Anderson and Swanson were not fools, they were more closely connected to the case and knew more than we ever will. Like Macnaghten they may have made mistakes. We cannot know their motives in writing. But they did set down certain facts and to seek to brush those away completely because WE do not fully understand them is both wrong and not sensible.

Phil H

[harry]

Don,
I've been skeptical of people in high places ever since I joined the army as a 17 year old in 1945.Those people could force me,under threats of punishment,to accept anything.The threats are not there nowadays,but the lying and ma nipulation still are.
Paul,
I would think the authority should lie with those who used,and those that still use, the identification as a means to denounce Kosminski as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders.

[Phil H]

I would think the authority should lie with those who used,and those that still use, the identification as a means to denounce Kosminski as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders.

harry:

Are you arguing that there was and continues to be a conspiracy in high places in regard to Kosminski?

Those who used, in C19th, the identification to "denounce" - strange word - Kosminski cannot be/are not the same as those who might regard him as a suspect today.

but that is not really the point.

"Someone" called Kosminski is a suspect because both Swanson and Macnaghten name him (and Anderson refers to him though without naming him). He is thus included in primary sources and we today CANNOT ignore him - any more than we can ignore Druitt or Ostrog.

I agree that it is for us today to strive to understand better why these men - and particularly Kosminski - were named or suspected. (It may be that they were never directly suspected, but used as a front for someone/something else - but we do not know.) there are errors in the details of all three men - Ostrog was not violent or threatening to women and was in custody abroad; Druitt's age and profession are given wrongly.

Kosminski is different because he is named or specifically referenced by men who were directrly involved in the investigation at senior level. It is possible that they got mixed up or were misled; it is possible that with age they got muddled; it is possible they did not mean AARON Kosminski but someone as yet unidentified (though I personally think that unlikely). But they meant, and intended, something. Their "facts" are stated solidly, with a clear intentionthat they are believed by their writers. So maybe we are looking at them with the wrong lens or from the wrong perspective.

BUT we are not wrong to pursue them, and additional reserach on Kosminski continue to throw up new information - none of which rules him out as a suspect and some of which (circumstantially at least) places him close to a crime scene. This is not true of either Druitt or Ostrog. Nothing discovered to date says that Anderson and his men did not have their eyes on a potential suspect.

So we must keep on thinking and digging - and without any implication that we are 2denouncing him" or are in some way linked to men who wrote around 100 years ago.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Are you arguing that there was and continues to be a conspiracy in high places in regard to Kosminski?

Hello Phil H, all,

This is infact a very important point for discussion.

In keeping the name of the killer(s) quiet.. one looks to the word secrecy.

Now I happen to believe DSS, when he expressed a pronounced need to keep the name he knew of quiet. Allow me to take this a step further.

IF Kosminski was the name he was keeping quiet, keeping secret if you prefer, then why? Why keep the name of a lowly Polish Jew who wasn't quite all there in the head quiet? What was it about THIS suspect, of all of them, that made DSS so determined not to spill the beans, to his own family at least?

The "Jewish situation" in the East End of London, between 1910 and 1925, was far from threatening. Things had changed and calmed down considerably from the heady days of the 1889's and 1890's. Anarchistic problems were not in the main of the Jewish variety.

The only important incident was the Sidney Street Seige of 3rd January 1911.
It was known as the "Battle of Stepney", a gunfight in London's East End. Strangely, it came immediately after the Houndsditch Murders.

Before this, in 1909, we have the "Tottenham Outrage", which can be said to have influenced reactions to the Sidney Street seige, and perhaps the Houndsditch break in and murders, involving the deaths of policemen..

The Tottenham Outrage was an armed robbery and double murder which took place in Tottenham and Walthamstow, on 23 January 1909, which was purportedly carried out by two anarchists Paul Helfeld and Jacob Lepidus or Lapidus, both of whom wereJewish immigrants.

It has been said that this situation enhanced a feeling of a fear of immigrants, and indeed anti-Semitism.

However, it must be noted here that London generally had a reputation of acceptance of Jewish Immigrants, going back well over half a century when upon the insistence of Irish leader Daniel O'Connell, in 1846, the British law "De Judaismo", (which prescribed a special dress code for Jews), was repealed.

More immigration, after DSS had passed away, during the 1930's and 1940's has been attributed to the low Anti-Semetic feeling in London. Whether this is true or not, or more a feeling of passed down word of mouth tradition, is hard to explain in detail. Anti.nazi feeling has much to bear on this situation, one can surmise.

So what are we left with in relation to DSS, Anderson and this poor Jewish Pole Kosminski?

There are indications that Anderson was not happy, in the least, with the Jewish immigrant situation. He may or may not have been influenced by the right-wing anarchists that were popping up in Poland, Latvia, Russia etc and seemingly infiltrating the bottom of London's population. He may have been influenced by the Special Branch work of his underlings. Melville included.

Perhaps others have come to another conclusion, but my own personal feeling is that there is not enough "secrecy" in the name, background or family ties linked to "Kosminski" to warrant secrecy and witholding of his name forever. Libel action? Hmmmm. After 1919, that didnt matter either.

But let us just presume that Kosminski was the secret name needed keeping secret. Would that warrant the removal of all files and papers upon him? Hardly, I surmise.

Not least because someone has nicked, borrowed or burnt all files of all suspects as well. Which doesn't necessarily make a missing Kosminski file special.

I honestly do not believe the name(s) DSS kept back had anything to do with a low life nonentity Polish Jew called Kosminski. Methinks DSS must have had bigger fish to fry than keep THAT name quiet.

best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

Note a pattern of secrecy...

We can see a pattern of secrecy with Scotland Yard senior officials specific to those on their suspect list, such as Kosminski, by looking at Tumblety. The only reason why the US papers got ahold of Tumblety being a Ripper suspect was when he was publically released on bail. Scotland Yard kept it quiet. Specific to Anderson (and most likely Swanson), in November 1888, he was personally contacting US chiefs of police about Ripper suspect Tumblety, but he -and Swanson- never mentioned this.

It certainly conforms to a dedicated code of secrecy surrounding any suspect even after retirement.

In my case as a retired officer in the US Navy, I am still held accountable for my silence on classified material.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hi all,

Note a pattern of secrecy...

We can see a pattern of secrecy with Scotland Yard senior officials specific to those on their suspect list, such as Kosminski, by looking at Tumblety. The only reason why the US papers got ahold of Tumblety being a Ripper suspect was when he was publically released on bail. Scotland Yard kept it quiet. Specific to Anderson (and most likely Swanson), in November 1888, he was personally contacting US chiefs of police about Ripper suspect Tumblety, but he -and Swanson- never mentioned this.

It certainly conforms to a dedicated code of secrecy surrounding any suspect even after retirement.

In my case as a retired officer in the US Navy, I am still held accountable for my silence on classified material.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

That's a very fair point..trouble is, that DSS went against this. "Kosminski" wasn't classified information then? As he spread this name out into the public eye, whether by intention or not. So how secret is the name Kosminski?

You see, you can't have it both ways here. Either DSS kept his word and his mouth shut about what HE knew.. or he didnt. Keeping Mum is possible if he is regailing Anderson's suspect...not what he himself knew.

I appreciate that sensitive and classified info is kept quiet. Those subject in their work to the Official Secrets Act know this very well.

So did DSS break his silence on what HE knew, or what Anderson told of?

I opt for the 2nd of these options, and maintain that DSS was a man od his word.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

After 1919 it did matter.

The witholding of the Kosminski name from the public domain is clear and sound.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

After 1919 it did matter.

The witholding of the Kosminski name from the public domain is clear and sound.

Monty

Anything you say Monty. Anything you say.