New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,
in a court of law they would need a case that could convict the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. It seems clear from what Anderson and DSS say about Kosminski they didnt have an identification because the witness didnt formally ID the suspect ie Kosminski. I dont think this tells us anything about the suspect other than that he or she was probably Jewish. It doesnt say how an eye witness they were likely to be. It just tells us they saw the Ripper and would have ID'd Kosminski if he werent Jewish. As this is what is said in the Marginalia/book. Presumably for whatever reason Anderson and DSS were sure this was the Ripper - either due to what this witness said to the police - or - perhaps more likely - due to ome other information - now lost - that led the police to take this witness to ID this suspect at some considerable cost.

I always felt sorry for the police as without DNA, fingerprinting, blood typing and so on, they had much less to go on in terms of non - circumstantial evidence. Eye witness testimony is part of this. For whatever reason this eye witness did not ID Kosminski.

I dont think as i said it tells us who the witness was. We have plenty to go on and equally not much. They didnt just go to ID Ksominski out of everyone in London for no reason i would hasten a guess.

BTW, I dont think he was necessarily the Ripper

Jenni

Hello Jenni,

I think we can infer that the witness was the make or break piece of evidence, but we don't know what else they had on Kosminski. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that without the witness, it wasn't enough, and therefore shouldn't have been enough to make it a 'definitely ascertained fact'. The witness must have been the key to the convictions of Swanson and Anderson.

I don't think he was necessarily Jack because we don't know what the witness witnessed. What would convince Swanson and Anderson wouldn't necessarily convince the next man, but I'm convinced that Swanson and Anderson were convinced; which isn't saying much when one of them said: "definitely ascertained fact" and the other: "murderer would have hanged".

[Phil H]

The witness must have been the key to the convictions of Swanson and Anderson.

The witness must have been key to conviction - but they had much more:

* results of house-to-house;

* something that alerted them to Kosminski in the first place;

* stake-out of his home by City CID (mentioned by DSS confirmeed by Cox - probably).

Add to that anything they had on his from family, neighbours (perhaps one of those was the witness) or friends (Cohen?).

Phil H

[Jenni Shelden]

Hello Jen, Sally, Abby, Phil H, all,

So let me get this right.. just for the point of balance...

1) According to some, Anderson and Swanson may have been doing some sort of covert operation, unbeknown to the rest of the main players in the Met Police.

2) They completed the operation, were convinced that the suspect was the murderer, and let him go back to his family because the witness refused to id him as he was a fellow Jew.

3) After a while, the family of this Jew thought him to be dangerous, and had him committed to an asylum.

4) He stayed in the asylum system until 1919, nearly 20 years later, when he died.

5) Meanwhile, back at the ranch..sorry, Scotland Yard, the hunt for the killer continues. In this hunt, D S Swanson takes part, believing, in the case of one murderered woman, that the suspect who was arrested for the Francis Coles murder, is Jack the Ripper. This murderer is not named Kosminski, please note.

6) Despite knowing that Anderson has yet to publically announce any favourite suspect, despite Swanson's own involvement in the continual hunt, despite all the other main players either denouncing of producing other theories and or suspects or stories that nobody had a clue, two of the players, totally unconnected job-wise at this point in time, continue as if nothing has happened and JTR still must be caught.

7) Only these two knew of this apparent covert operation. Nobody ever talked of accompanying the suspect 60 miles to attend an id to willingly be identified as Jack the Ripper.

8) Nobody ever talked about accompanying Jack the Ripper (now identified), back to London and dropping him off with a slap on the back and "we're watching you sunshine".

9) At no point did the police try to get this super mad maniac put away into an asylum...despite doing things totally unlawfully to get him id'd..they can't make up one story to get this nutter shut away in an asylum.. oh no.. now they play everything by the book and wait for the family to get him sectioned away, for threatening with a knife, apparently.

10) This absolute nobody is now kept quiet. Nobody in the Met Police Force who is told of or knows of the Polish Jew Story confirms it, because either the Anderson story is littered with holes, the Swanson back up story is full of holes, things that cannot be proven rule throughout, and a complete lack of belief in it is given by all those who have heard of the story.

11) The two people who WOULD know what happened to JTR do not agree either..Abberline and Reid, One says another suspect, the other says that nobody had a clue about the Ripper's identity.

12) Meanwhile, back at the Swanson family Home, DSS annotates some marginalia at some time between 1910 and 1924, in Anderson's memoirs of his life in the Force. He states that a person called Kosminski is the suspect Anderson is talking about.

13) His family claim that DSS wouldn't have revealed the name of the killer to them at any cost, yet he nonchalently/cleverly writes this Kosminski name in a book that is only by sheer chance looked at some 55 years or so after DSS died.

14) There is no name given to the place the proposed id of the man took place. It was first suggested by a researching expert in the 1980's. There is no evidence to suggest this place was used for any identification.

15) Any known procedural ID in regards to the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer has been in the East End itself at Police Stations. Not at a Police Rest Home 60 miles away.

16) The witness who id'd the suspect may have been one of two. One of them didnt see the face and the other is doubtful.

17) The man who wrote the marginalia and annotations, gets some of the details wrong, confusing the known facts.

18) D S Swanson was apparently chasing down a bperson that didn't exist after Aaron Kosminski's incarceration...i.e. The Whitechapel murderer. (Because he knew that the murderer had already been locked away)

19) It is suggested that Swanson didn't fully KNOW Kosminski was the killer until later on in his life (see one of the previous postings today/yesterday)...which doesn't make sense because of the certainty of the Swanson statement and the certainty of the Anderson statement...they both would have been certain as soon as the suspect was positively identified... they don't need 20 years top make up their mind on the subject.

20) In conjunction with (18), in 1910, Anderson produces a book claiming that the suspect who he believed was the murderer, was the murderer claiming this as a fact, ascertained..i.e. PROVEN. Anderson's claim is water tight.. no room for doubt. That means it was water tight WHEN IT HAPPENED.At the end of the ID.

21) Aaron Kosminski, the man himself, had already been dismissed in 1987 by Martin Fido as the applicable Kosminski, saying that any such suspect Anderson describes must have another name. This is directly countered by the comment in the annotations.."Kosminski was the suspect".

22) Aaron Kosminski was never prosecuted for anything other than a misdemeanour... walking an un-muzzled dog. There is no record, either in any asylum nor police file, of any known violence connected to Aaron Kosminski acted upon women, apart from once threatening a woman with a knife. We do not know the details of this alleged incident. We do not know what type of knife this was either.

23) There are claims that Kosminski files have been lost. This is unprovable and conjecture. There could be a file on someone's Great Grandfather that has been lost. Because it isnt there doesn't mean there is a chance there was one based on what we know.


24) Conversely, the Polish Suspect was Anderson's boasting story, because he rated himself above being beaten by criminals, owing to his "moral guilt" certainty get out clause. He had a very dodgy attitude towards the Jewish Race, and claimed that the murderer was a Polish Jew of low life level. When the claim was made.. nobody stood up and shouted Hurrah! Solved at last!...except Anderson.

25) Then along comes the Swanson Marginalia that shows very clearly that Swanson is writing to expand on Anderson's story. DSS cannot be writing from personal experience as he has already been known to try and nail another person, i.e. the suspect proposed of murdering Francis Coles, as JTR.

Now if Swanson was proposing Sadler as JTR, privately... I could believe it. But not Kosminski. That's Anderson's suspect, and his alone imho.

And that is just SOME of the doubt surrounding this "Kosminski" fellow.



The History of the Marginalia has opened up this subject properly. The Swanson family are to be thouroughly thanked from us all. PI won't be surprised if more revelations suddenly turn up. I am sure that this subject may have been written about and discussed within the family quite often. The Swanson family are still sorting through family papers. I genuinely look forward to more news.

However, without finding a thoroughly explanitary letter written by DSS himeself regarding this whole business, which would go against all we know of the man and his character, then we are left with what we have.

My apologies on beforehand for any historically inaccuracies in the above.
Humanum errare est. I acknowledge them on beforehand.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

re your points
1) i dont think anyone is saying that. It may be the case that their view was not widely known or not widely shared. This doesnt mean they were doing a covert operation.

there are clearly some known unknowns at play.

2) you cant lock someone up without a trial. You cant commit someone to trial without there being evidence. I presume from what DSS/Anderson say there was not sufficient evidence to send the killer to trial without the ID witness evidence. However, whether I think that means there was sufficient evidence is different to the matter in hand ie clearly Anderson and DSS were convinced this person was JtR - or at the v v least a good suspect.

3) yes - if it is Aaron Kosminski - we know why - he attacked his sister with a knife.

4) if it is Aaron Kosminski then yes we know his movements thanks to some excellent research.

5) we dont know when the marginalia was written. Ergo when DSS thought this.

6) JtR had no been caught - no man had been arrested or sent to trial.

7) we dont know who else knew. This is not ever mentioned. There is nothing to indicate that no one else knew. In fact in Rob House's book he sets out some pretty good evidence Kosminski may have been the person the City Police were watching.

8) talking about it at the time could have further prejudiced the investigation and any subsequent trial (police type people on here, is this not right?)

9) we dont know they did things unlawfully to get him ID'd all we know is where this took place. You cant just lock someone in an asylum - even in Victorian Britain - surely if you were going to do this - you just send him to trail without adequate evidence. I would assume the police would continue to try and get evidence - but his family had their eye on him. Surely the police's aim would be to comit their pet jtr suspect to trial.

10) no one was given cause to confirm it. Althoguh arguably the marginalia is confirming it

11) we dont know who would have known what. I find it interesting that Abberline seemed to indicate Chapman. The marginalia being genuine doenst mean we have to accept that Kosminski actually was JTR just that what DSS said is what he thought.

12) yes this is a definite and ascertained fact

13) i think you are talking about two separate things. What DSS would say to his family and what he would annotate in his private book. Just because he said one thing does not mean he didnt do the other. Yes they seem to contradict. But again the article clearly proves he wrote the marginalia.

14) a name is given Seaside Home - presumably DSS knew where he meant

15) I dont know what the police procedures were. We dont know why this ID took place at this seaside home, we dont know where DSS meant or where it was. We do know he doesnt comment as to this being so terrible or feel he should defend it.

16)we dont know who the witness is. We dont know if it is even someone we have heard of - all we know is they were Jewish.

17) yes. He is relying on his memory.

18) we are speculating - as i said previously no one was actually hung for being jtr so they could hardly stop hunting.

19) - im not sure what your point is here, Phil. I would assume they thought it at the time, but we dont know when Swanson thought it other than after 1910.

20) Anderson was writing for publication - he was bigging himself up - i think he was wrong to claim an ascertained fact - if it was then the ripper would have been in the dock.

21) no offence to Martin - but i'll take the word of someone who was there at the time over someone who wasnt. It is also true that neither DSS or Anderson say Arron Kosminski was the Ripper.

I am not saying this is significant.

22) this is correct. Although the asylum records indicate that he was violent to the guards. Just because someone has no record of violence doesnt mean they have not been violent, alternatively, we know that schizphrenia can be degenerative hence, he may not have been so bad at the time of the murders. I actually myself find him more likely to have been the ripper the better he was in 1888 but thats just my opinion and i dont really have a reason for thinking it.

23) I think it is certainly unprovable. What we know is likely is that there would have been suspect files, contemporary police suspects seem likely candidates. I guess there would be many suspect

24) again we are speculating. You may find that suspicious others dont. As we werent there we cant tell from what is left behind why people didnt tell Anderson to shut up.

25) id agree to the extent - is DSS writing what he thinks Anderson means - which i think he is defiantly doing -or is he writing about what he too believes . I think from what he says he thinks so too - but it is i guess down to interpretation.

I think everyone was thinking aloud, i havent throughly read this thread and i am sure that i do not share the shame opinions of all the people you mentioned. We certainly should not be lumped together as though we are jointly putting forward a case against what you are saying.

As far as im concerned this is not the case. I dont really have a view on Kosminski that necessarily makes sense.

To me he is a viable suspect - but that doesnt mean i think hes the Ripper

respectfully
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Mr Shelden once made me wonder if Hutchinson was not in fact the person who got the best look at the Ripper- as implied here.
This is what I mean about us not being able to be sure it was schwart or Lawnde

Jenni

[Scott Nelson]

Sagar evidently retired to Brighton - did he have earlier connections there?

So did the butcher, Joseph Hyam Levy.

[Supe]

Mr Shelden once made me wonder if Hutchinson was not in fact the person who got the best look at the Ripper

On suggested age alone Aaron Kosminski would not seem a good match for Hutchinson's "Astrakhan Man."

Don.

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

Coolio.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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]

Hiya, wasnt saying anything i thoght disagreed with this

Hello Jenni,

We've cracked it!

[Jenni Shelden]

Lol

or maybe we are very tired?

[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.

[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

[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