New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Monty]

Every policeman takes an oath to serve the public,and to act in the public interest.That interest extends to providing,to the best of their ability,a safe place,twenty four hours a day,in which people can live their lives.

I doubt whether that was true in 1888, but others are better placed than me to inform you on Victorian police responsibilities.

The oath as was in 1869. Taken by recruited Constables at the issuing of the warrant.

Apologies for its presentation. I am in a rush and do not have the time to present it clearly for you.

Cheers

Monty

[robhouse]

To Rob House:
Fascinating. Could you perhaps cite your source? Thanks so much.

http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Ridgway-Green-River-Killer/dp/097470380X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1350583531&sr=8-8&keywords=green+river+killer

[Fleetwood Mac]

More or less in the same sentence, Swanson qualifies places of little familiarity to him: Stepney Workhouse; Colney Hatch Asylum. The Seaside Home suggests familiarity beyond a sailor's home.

I think a place out of the way is utterly sensible and makes most sense to me.

Picture the scenario: Jack has caused untold problems; the police have shown themselves to be fearful of riots occurring due to these murders; also, there have been false starts - would the police have advertised this, or risked it getting to the press via a leaked police source, only to then say: "sorry, not him" (starting the Jack ball rolling again and resulting in more press derision)?

What would you do? Tell as many people as possible that they thought they had their man, cart him over the other side of London and risk the local knackers turning out in some sort of lynch mob? The police had form for trying to keep a lid on this, e.g. GSG.

No, you'd keep it as secret as possible, with only those who had to know being told until he was safely detained at Her Majesty's, and you'd find as secure a place as possible; such as a place full of coppers.

They must have been planning for the eventuality of a successful ID and detaining him. Much easier to do in a secure location, and a secure location meant plenty of police and fewest obstructions (such as a lynch mob).

Clearly, this wasn't a local bobby pulling Charles Ludwig in off the streets and carting him down the local nick because he's acting like a tool. No, they clearly had information to the effect that this really was Jack, and so they planned accordingly in terms of location – and it was the top lot who were in charge of this, and so they had the authority and wherewithal to keep it under wraps.

And the witness could have lived anywhere as I'd imagine the police would have chosen a location to suit them and the witness would have been told: "you're coming with us, like it or not".

I know what I would have done if I thought this was Jack: considered it, planned it, kept it quiet, taken him to the place that afforded me most security, because what I really would have wanted is nothing getting the way of locking up this fella.

[mariab]

short highjacking

Thanks so much Rob and Bunny. Apparently this is the first book that came out about the case, and I think I'll order it. I had NO idea about the multiple interviews and the lie detector test.
By the by, Ridgway confessed to 48 murders (which is probably less than he's done) only to get a plea bargain for life instead of the capital punishment.

[mariab]

still on the GRK

OK, absolute last highjack. Just ordered the book by David Reichert himself. From what I've looked inside and from most amazon reviews it sounds not too chatty in a self-promoting way.
Always wanted to read up more details on this case.

[Jonathan H]

Sir Robert Anderson began confidfently and publicly asserting -- under his own name -- that the Ripper was safely caged from 1895. He did this over and over, quite forthrightly. In that same year, 1895, Swanson assured the public via the Pall Mall Gazette that they beleived he was a man who was deceased -- if he meant Aaron Kosminski or even 'Kosminski' he was mistaken.

The Green River case does not workmas a comparison, in my opinion, because in Anderson's case his suspect, or whom he believed was the real Jack, was dead soon after being sectioned.

[robhouse]

The point of comparison is that in both cases, the person in charge "believed" that they knew the identity of the killer, but lacked the requisite proof that would be legally sufficient to get a conviction.

RH

[mariab]

Plus I'm seing 2 other points of comparison, related to each other: The fact that the killer chose prostitutes from the Seattle strip as an easy target for victims, and the resulting complicated logistics for the police investigation.

Just compare this to the Bundy case, where due to the victim selection it made sense that sooner or later the culprit was spotted on the scene and people were willing to talk to the police.

[Jonathan H]

Well I could be wrong then, and hardly anybody, here, listens to me either.

I thought that what Anderson meant was that unlike the French Republic with its lingering Napoleonic-2nd Empire-police state powers of coercion they could therefore haul a man -- even one judged insane by doctors -- before one of their three-judge courts and charge him with murder, unlike the British and their stricter notions of due process.

Swanson writes to himself that 'Kosminski' died soon after being sectioned and Anderson's son in his biog. of his father claims that Sir Robert 'believed' that he died in an asylum.

Why did he believe?

This is not a theory as with the Druitts 'believing' in their member's guilt because they did not see him commit the murders.

Its official, isn't it, if somebody passes away under state care? A definitely ascertainable fact?

Anderson did not seem to have first-hand knowledge of what happened to 'Kosminski' because he would have known not 'believed' that he was deceased, and if he knew -- eg. had access to the relevant asylum records or staff -- then he would have known that Jack the Ripper was actually still alive.

Is this a glmpse of Sir Robert believing because he was relying on somebody else's opinion-information that 'Kosminski' was deceased?

Is that person Swanson?

It would match what seems to be the only public comment he ever made about the likely fiend -- that he was deceased? He states it as a fact in his annoation to himself.

Or is it Anderson's confidential assistant who told him that 'Kosminski' was dead soon after being sectioned in about March 1889, but since he did not like Macnaghten he did not trust his competence and so only said 'believed' to his son. With good reason because, as 'Aberconway' shows, Mac knew that the same suspect was alive -- which he was -- and therefore he was, deliberately or not, misleading his boss with incorrect information -- as he certainly did with others about this case.

It has to be said, however, that in the same biography Sir Melville is listed as one of the subordinates whom Sir Robert could rely on and trust (albeit a claim not made by Sir Robert in his own book).

[robhouse]

Well I could be wrong then, and hardly anybody, here, listens to me either.

I thought that what Anderson meant was that unlike the French Republic with its lingering Napoleonic-2nd Empire-police state powers of coercion they could therefore haul a man -- even one judged insane by doctors -- before one of their three-judge courts and charge him with murder, unlike the British and their stricter notions of due process.

Swanson writes to himself that 'Kosminski' died soon after being sectioned and Anderson's son in his biog. of his father claims that Sir Robert 'believed' that he died in an asylum.

Why did he believe?

This is not a theory as with the Druitts 'believing' in their member's guilt because they did not see him commit the murders.

Its official, isn't it, if somebody passes away under state care? A definitely ascertainable fact?

Anderson did not seem to have first-hand knowledge of what happened to 'Kosminski' because he would have known not 'believed' that he was deceased, and if he knew -- eg. had access to the relevant asylum records or staff -- then he would have known that Jack the Ripper was actually still alive.

Is this a glmpse of Sir Robert believing because he was relying on somebody else's opinion-information that 'Kosminski' was deceased?

Is that person Swanson?

It would match what seems to be the only public comment he ever made about the likely fiend -- that he was deceased? He states it as a fact in his annoation to himself.

Or is it Anderson's confidential assistant who told him that 'Kosminski' was dead soon after being sectioned in about March 1889, but since he did not like Macnaghten he did not trust his competence and so only said 'believed' to his son. With good reason because, as 'Aberconway' shows, Mac knew that the same suspect was alive -- which he was -- and therefore he was, deliberately or not, misleading his boss with incorrect information -- as he certainly did with others about this case.

It has to be said, however, that in the same biography Sir Melville is listed as one of the subordinates whom Sir Robert could rely on and trust (albeit a claim not made by Sir Robert in his own book).

I incline to think that rather it is a case of Anderson telling his son and perhaps others that the suspect had died, when he knew perfectly well that that wasn't the case.

RH

[harry]

Phil,
Check your facts.Anderson's claim to have known who the Ripper was,did not surface till years after the Whitechapel murders(1910 I believe),and Swanson,s claims years after that.Untill then everyone was ignorant of their knowledge,including their own officers,and the public at large.So before mouthing off ,and slinging personnel insults,be sure you know that what you are writing is correct.As much as you might detest my debating style,and I have never claimed perfection,or any style at all come to that,I do understand personel insults win nothing.Apparently you do not.

[Jonathan H]

To Robhouse

Yes, that is possible for sure.

If so, perhaps he told Swanson this in 1895, who told the press. Would this make Swanson entirely dependent on his boss for information about this suspect?

It should also be noted Anderson's telling of this vigentte never included, in public, that the Polish Jew was deceased soon after being sectioned.

To Harry

As far as I know Sir Robert Anderson first told Major Arthur Griffiths in 1895 about 'Kosminski' albeit not named. '[From memory] that the chief had a 'perfectly plausible theory' that the murderer was a maniac at large for a few weeks until being 'safely caged' in an asylum.

Unlke Macnaghten (until 1913) Sir Robert, from 1895, was forthright about his Ripper solution and, furthermore, allowed this opinion to go before the public under his own name. He expanded on it, a little, several times until 1910, in which year and for the first time he mentioned a treacherous witness in the two versions of his memoirs.

[Scott Nelson]

I incline to think that rather it is a case of Anderson telling his son and perhaps others that the suspect had died, when he knew perfectly well that that wasn't the case.RH

No. What would be the purpose of that?

[Jonathan H]

Well, the purpose might be to keep quarantined -- via a fictitious expiration -- a suspect who was never going to actually have his day in court due to severe and irreversible mental illness.

Once Swanson told the press in 1895 that a top suspect was deceased then the heat was off, somewhat.

In the sense that you wanted to avoid what happened to Cutbush being interviewed by a reporter, or something like that.

[Phil H]

I too believe that Anderson (and probably Swanson knew about Kosminski by 1895 and I now believe by 1889. Only that would explain the ID etc and Swanson's details.

If other posters want to rubbish the senior policemen of the period, that's their privilege, but not a position I share. I think we need to understand what they said, NOT dismiss it.

Phil H