New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

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.

Actually, Harry, Anderson was making references to the Ripper being confined in an asylum in print as early as 1901, and there are earlier references, such as one in a magazine article by Alfred Aylmer, dating from 1895. These are cited and quoted in the A to Z. And Swanson was quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1895 as having said the Ripper was dead (although it is possible that he did not have "Kosminski" in mind; Inspector Reid (I think it was) is also on record as having said the same thing, although in his case he was simply supposing that the Ripper must have been suffering from an insanity that would have soon killed him). So there is quite a long history of Anderson making the claim, possibly as early as four years after Aaron Kosminski's committal and the murder of Coles.

As for the responsibilities of the police, a suspect who Anderson believed to be the murderer had been committed by his family to an asylum. He had not been charged, tried, or convicted of anything. In law, he was innocent, no matter what the evidence against him. In the mind of those who knew what the evidence was, he may have been as guilty as hell, no doubt about it. But they couldn't say so, no matter how much you would like them to. Policemen do and did back then say that they knew the identity of the perpetrator, but lacked the evidence to make an arrest, as the Commissioner's Report stated in the case of Miss Camp.

[Jonathan H]

I agree.

On a side note, Macnaghten mentioned the Camp murder at his press conference announcing his retirement (so claimed one paper) in June of 1913.

In 'Days of My Years' (1914) Sir Melville seems to have fused two suspects together regarding the officially unsolved king-hit murder of Elizabeth Camp on a train in 1897; the quite separate suspects being a proletarian with a false moustache and a young barrister who was briefly treated in an asylum.

Mac claims he thinks this [composite] suspect, now a deranged, amnesiac transient with a false moustache, died in a madhouse -- if his memory is correct.

One of those two suspects, the young barrister (recently identified by Chris Phillips) in fact did not die in a mental institution but was instead released having recovered his faculties.

Sound familiar?

That he was actually dealing with a young barrister seems to have reminded him, in my opinion of Druitt, the man he believed was the Ripper. In his 1914 semi-fictional retelling of the case the composite Camp suspect -- of whom he claimed he was in little doubt was the culprit -- involves 'Blackheath', and the 'Thames', and 'wandering' around in a state of severe mental distress as if shell-shocked from his horrific act of ultra-violence.

Again, this is suggestively familiar too.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And Swanson was quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1895 as having said the Ripper was dead (although it is possible that he did not have "Kosminski" in mind)

I don't think that argument is reasonable, Paul.

If the argument goes that Swanson's Marginalia amount to more than simply repeating a story of which he had no reason to agree nor disagree, i.e. Swanson was involved in the whole ID process, then it must follow that in Swanson's mind the man who would have hanged undoubtedly was the Ripper; leaving no room for another Ripper.

Which leaves two options: either Kosminski was not Aaron, or Swanson genuinely thought he'd died.

[PaulB]

I don't think that argument is reasonable, Paul.

If the argument goes that Swanson's Marginalia amount to more than simply repeating a story of which he had no reason to agree nor disagree, i.e. Swanson was involved in the whole ID process, then it must follow that in Swanson's mind the man who would have hanged undoubtedly was the Ripper; leaving no room for another Ripper.

Which leaves two options: either Kosminski was not Aaron, or Swanson genuinely thought he'd died.

It was the specific I had in mind, Mac. We don't actually know when, where, or why Swanson said he thought the Ripper was dead, the Pall Mall Gazette merely reporting that opinion in passing, as if it had been stated in an earlier report, so it leaves open the context in which it was said.

For example, even if Swanson accepted that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper and knew full well that he was alive, he may have been trying to offer reassurance by saying the Ripper was dead, just as Harry thinks the police should do.

As you say, though, if "Kosminski" was indeed Jack the Ripper, and if Swanson genuinely believed that he was, and if the 1895 reference was indeed a direct reference to "Kosminski", then either Swanson genuinely believed that Aaron Kosminski was dead or "Kosminski wasn't Aaron.

Pending the discovery of an alternative "Kosminski" in the asylum records, my feeling is that it was not anticipated that Aaron Kosminski would live very long after committal and that by 1895 it was assumed he was dead. Against that, is the argument that surely the police would have kept close tabs on Kosminski, but I don't know whether that is what they did or not.

[Phil H]

Pending the discovery of an alternative "Kosminski" in the asylum records, my feeling is that it was not anticipated that Aaron Kosminski would live very long after committal and that by 1895 it was assumed he was dead.

I tend to agree.

Against that, is the argument that surely the police would have kept close tabs on Kosminski, but I don't know whether that is what they did or not.

Is it not possible that some sort of "tabs" were kept on AK, but that would still not mean that Sir RA or DSS knew every detail or any information at all.

Senior officials in any organisation have more to do, and higher responsibilities, than day-t-day detail. They are paid to look at the bigger picture and - as as with a CEO today - would be dependent on information being passed to them by junior staff. It was neither their business nor appropriate for them to have kept a personal watch on an individual case.

As time went on their interest would have switched to other matters of policy or policing. A casual mention (incorrect) that AK had died - maybe someone was talking Kaminski and they "heard" Kosminski - would be enough to lodge in their minds that the man was dead. Only one of Sir RA or DSS needs to have heard that - he simply passed on the information received (wrongly). Why should they probe more?

We today regard the Ripper case as central. I am not sure that was the case in the 1890s. True it had attracted lots of public and press attention and been somewhat embarrassing, but by the 1890s it was over. Time to move on. In memoirs and interviews the case made for some local colour and was one the public might recall - but I suspect that it was not what Sir RA or DSS thought about much later in their long careers.

Just my thoughts,

Phil H

[Fleetwood Mac]

For example, even if Swanson accepted that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper and knew full well that he was alive, he may have been trying to offer reassurance by saying the Ripper was dead, just as Harry thinks the police should do.

I would agree that they didn't have much to achieve by saying: "yeah, he's locked up, we've known who he is for years".

But, the problem with this is the Marginalia, in which Swanson states he died. I would agree that Kosminski is the main suspect due to the ID event, but this thinking is, in part, built upon the premise that Swanson was writing for personal consumption alone and therefore had no reason to recall the event in any other way than that which happened as he knew it.

This doesn't leave any room for Swanson writing in the Marginalia that he had died when he knew otherwise.

Personally, I'm struggling to see how Swanson could have gotten this wrong.

The reason being that people were in and out of the asylum, so there was a chance that Kosminski would resurface on the streets - surely they would have kept tabs on him to at least the extent of knowing whether he was dead or alive?

According to Swanson, this man presented such a danger that City CID watched him day and night; is it reasonable to assume that once he was in an asylum, a place he had been in the past before resurfacing on the streets, that they lost track of whether he was dead or alive?

[Jonathan H]

It's more puzzling than that ...

What complicates all this is that, according to 'Aberconway', Sir Melville Macnaghten knew two vital things about this suspect that Sir Robert and Swanson do not seem to have known:

1. 'Kosminski' was alive in 1894, not deceased 'soon after' going into a madhouse.

and,

2. That the Polish Jewish suspect was out and about for a considerable length of time after the Kelly murder, and not at large for 'mere weeks' before being 'safely caged' as Anderson seems to have believed.

[harry]

I have never questioned that Anderson had suspicions,or that other officers had suspicions.Read my posts carefully.I have never written to the effect that The Seaside Home identification was an imposibility,and could not have happened.What I have expressed are doubts about the validity of the information supplied,especially that of Swanson,but you can't take Swanson's information in isolation.You have to include Anderson,as S wanson is clearly including that person,if not by name,then by implication.As for Kosminki,it may be that he came to the attention of police early on in the investigations of the murders,but not untill the marginella was made public,was it clear that
Anderson and S wanson had considered that the evidence against Kosminski was sufficient to accept him as the Ripper.That they kept this information a secret between themselves,has been demonstrated by better persons than myself.Yes they were selfish,but why were they?
Phil H,
It's a pity you don't extend the rubbishing of policemen to the posters on this site.You do a fair bit yourself.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That they kept this information a secret between themselves,has been demonstrated by better persons than myself.Yes they were selfish,but why were they?

They didn't keep this information to themselves - City CID watched him day and night.

The most logical answer to me is that something surfaced at some point after Kelly's murder, and I'd imagine it was more than taking a knife to a family member's throat - we have a few of those knocking about - none of whom were afforded a date at The Seaside Home.

Anderson pretty much says as much in his book, i.e. they didn't turn up much in October.

To me, it would have been expedient to keep this under wraps, as the Ripper scare would have largely subsided at this point. City CID were informed because the ID supported their convictions and someone had to watch him - again information control borne out of expediency.

Let's suppose this whole espisode was well known within police circles. I think it's fair to assume that someone would have leaked it to the press, and the next day's headline would have been: "Jack ID'd, Kosminski, living at X address - witness Mr X identifies him but refuses to give evidence in court". Then what?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just a point on having Kosminski in court.

I've seen it argued that a supposed lunatic could not have been taken to a court of law, and so it follows there was no point in having the witness give evidence, and so it follows the ID event is suspect.

We have the evidence of Cutbush. They couldn't convict him, but they could ship him off to Broadmoor with little chance of him seeing daylight again.

If I thought Kosminski was Jack, much better to have him shipped off to Broadmoor than watched day and night by City CID.

[Phil H]

Just a point on having Kosminski in court.

I've seen it argued that a supposed lunatic could not have been taken to a court of law, and so it follows there was no point in having the witness give evidence, and so it follows the ID event is suspect.

We have the evidence of Cutbush. They couldn't convict him, but they could ship him off to Broadmoor with little chance of him seeing daylight again.

If I thought Kosminski was Jack, much better to have him shipped off to Broadmoor than watched day and night by City CID.

But they didn't do that FM, they did what Swanson said they did. So the onus is on us to determine why.

Harry Cox backs up Swanson's statement that it was the CITY boys that carried out a watch/stake-out. So it certainly happened (Swanson would not have written what he did, had it not anyway.) I think that all the other details would fall into place if we knew the full facts. Like MM, DSS may have made a few slips, but I don't doubt that he wrote accurately as far as memory served him.

It could perhaps have to do with a dawning realisation that they did actually have "Jack".

If in 1889, AK was first identified as a man seen near Mitre Square in Sept 1888, that might be all they initially had to go on. They looked deeper, had him watched, arranged the exceptional ID in Brighton. It might only be then that Sir RA and DSS began to think they really had their man... and maybe the circumstances at that time predicated their approach. I don't know, I am just trying to get the mosaic pieces to form a coherent picture.

Phil H

[Fleetwood Mac]

But they didn't do that FM, they did what Swanson said they did. So the onus is on us to determine why.

They didn't, Phil.

The difference being that witnesses were prepared to give evidence against Cutbush. Therefore, they had enough to get him into a court of law - fit to plead or otherwise.

Kosminski was different.

I think it's fair to assume that in the event the witness was prepared to give evidence, Kosminski would have been shipped off to Britain's institution for dangerous murderers (where deemed unfit to plead).

I mean, Cutbush is a loveable rogue when compared with Jack.

[lynn cates]

identified

Hello Phil.

"I am just trying to get the mosaic pieces to form a coherent picture."

Which is what ought to be done at this point.

"If in 1889, AK was first identified as a man seen near Mitre Square in Sept 1888, that might be all they initially had to go on."

Any idea about the one who identified him?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

It could perhaps have to do with a dawning realisation that they did actually have "Jack".

Well, I reckon they were convinced, Phil.

Which suggests to me they had something beyond Lawende's sighting.

Either someone has stumbled upon Jack pretty much red handed - based on what we know this could only have been Schwartz.

Or, someone has come forward with damning information.

I don't think they've taken little bits along the way and put them together to make a possibility. Something meant Kosminski stood out from the other night walkers, supposed lunatics and knife wielders.

[PaulB]

Hello Phil.

"I am just trying to get the mosaic pieces to form a coherent picture."

Which is what ought to be done at this point.

"If in 1889, AK was first identified as a man seen near Mitre Square in Sept 1888, that might be all they initially had to go on."

Any idea about the one who identified him?

Cheers.
LC

I'd question why anyone thinks "Kosminski" was in the frame in 1889. All we know from Anderson is that a house-to-house search apparently eliminated men who lived alone and forced the conclusion that the murderer lived with people who it was assumed must have suspicions which they self-evidently weren't communicating to the police. That led to somebody suggesting that the murderer was a Polish Jew, which, says Anderson, eventually proved to be the case. He does not indicate how soon afterwards. Swanson doesn't allow us to infer that any great interval separated the identification from the suspect being committed, which, if the suspect was Aaron Kosminski, probably dates both events to early 1891. There is no reason to suppose that "Kosminski" was known to, let alone suspected, significantly before the the identification, otherwise he'd presumably have been identified then.