New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[harry]

The law was then as it is now,a person could not be compelled by the police to go anywhere,except by arrest.It is known that many persons were arrested and taken to police stations during the Whitechapel murders..What has never been confirmed is that Kosminski was arrested.It might be as you say Phil,that things were not always done according to what was required,that the law was ignored,but in those cases any evidence gained , had a strong chance of not being accepted at trial.If suspects were ignorant of the law,there were many defense lawyers who weren't.That is why I have my doubts of an ID.Would Anderson and/or Swanson take that chance.

[harry]

I should hve written,it is one of the doubts.

[Phil H]

Who said he was compelled to go, harry.

DSS simply states "sent by us". As I have conjectured elsewhere, his family might have taken him, I don't know.

I only know we cannot ignore what DSS says. It is explicit and there is no reason to doubt it happned. We just don't know the context or details.

I cannot speculate on Anderson or DSS motives because i do not have the information to do so. However, it is reasonable to assume that they saw it as appropriate and necessary, or they would not have done it.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

There is every reason to doubt it literally happened.

Macnaghten, who arguably knows more about 'Kosminski', explicitly and implicitly denies such an event ever happened -- and does so in public under his own name.

No other police officer, or anybody for that matter, claims to know of such an event -- one which would have leaked eventually, if not immediately.

Evans and Rumbelow have argued the theory that because Aaron Kosminski was sectioned just days before a Ripper suspect, Tom Sadler, was 'confronted' by a Ripper witness, almost certainly Lawende, a Jew, that these separate events have become intertwined in a fading and failing memory -- and a self-serving memory.

In 1908, Anderson in an interview mixed up the pipes found at the Kelly and McKenzie murders, and mixed up Henry Matthews, a Tory Home Sec. -- the one he actually dealt with face to face during the Whitechapel murders, -- and William Harcourt, a Liberal and previous Home Sec. (and future leader in 1895, the year Anderson first appears in our meagre record as believing that Jack was a madman who was sectioned)

So, why not a muddle up Ripper suspects and witnesses, especially when the eventual confection makes a debacle into a near-triumph by a figure -- although incorruptible -- was also known for his sky-high opinion of himself?

That Swanson believed that 'Kosminski' was the fiend, sure, and also may have begun to know in 1895, but that he knew about the positive witness identification prior to Anderson's book coming out is a theory -- and arguably not the strongest.

That there are so many emphatic annotations on this matter might also suggest that it was news to Swanson -- which he did not doubt -- and so he recorded it, otherwise he knew he would forget. He was glad that there had been decisive evidence, He had just not been privy to it before, but then the jurisdictions and locations were not his either.

If you mean that a Ripper suspect was 'confronted' with a Jewish witness who said yes, I think this did happen -- in 1895, with Lawende confronting Grant, and there's that year again.

Or, at the very least, with Lawende confronting Sadler in 1891 almost simultaneous with Kosminski being 'safely caged' and, disappointingly, the witness saying no.

That might be the true, historical witness identification behind the myth which was sincerely, yet nevertheless mistakenly, created from it a generation later.

[harry]

Phil H,
All I was trying to show,was that for all the reasons he might have been sent,under arrest was probably not one of them.So what was the reason.He was suspect of something connected to the murders,we are led to believe.All I am trying to show,is that all we have are the claims of two persons,claims not backed by supporting information.Not good enough.Kosminki could not be sent anywhere.Try to show that he was and could be,then the rest become s believeable.

[Phil H]

There is every reason to doubt it literally happened.

Ah! the "ostrich" approach to evidence. If I deny it it might go away!! It WON'T.

All I was trying to show,was that for all the reasons he might have been sent,under arrest was probably not one of them.

And a good point to establish if we can do so.

So what was the reason.He was suspect of something connected to the murders,we are led to believe.All I am trying to show,is that all we have are the claims of two persons,claims not backed by supporting information.

But we do appear to have corroboration for some of what DSS said - Cox's accountof the surveillance of a house in a Jewish area of Met territory. In many areas of historical research, especially the further back we go, we have even less - and less reliable evidence than that. I am (among other things) a student of Roman history, and there we might have a line in Tacitus stating something that is known from no other source. Yet we do not ignore it, (or rubbish it) we seek to understand it from context and internal textual criticism; we look at where the author might have got his information, whether he was "in the know", how reliable he is on other things. then the case for accepting sucgh material has to be argued. That is surely what is going on here with DSS and Kosminski.

Not good enough.Kosminki could not be sent anywhere.

A somewhat categorical statement which flies in the face of a statement from a good source, in circumstances where no subterfuge appears to have been required, that he was "sent". We lack enough detail to know the whys and wherefores at this stage.

Try to show that he was and could be,then the rest become s believeable.

Which is what we are seeking to do. I am uncertain why you are so adamant about rubbishing the marginalia as a source (I understand Jonathan's motivation). No final judgement has yet been made, it is simply a matter of assessing the position.

In my mental picture (matrix if you will) an ID of Kosminski sits in the mix, but sort of bracketed with "lack of detail available". But I cnot rule it out because I don't know - to me reasonably excellent sources say it happened, and if this was about 1415 or 1066 (rather than the 1880s/90s) we would not rule it out, but work with what we have.

That is my position on this: not extreme, flexible and open-minded.

Phil H

[harry]

Phil H,
There is every reason to doubt it litteraly happened.Iv'e never used those words..That Kosminski could not be sent anywhere does not fly in the face of a statement from a good source.My source is the law itself,a much higher authority than either Anderson or Swanson.Unless as I've stated he was under arrest,and there is nothing to show he was.I am not rubbishing anything,I am pointing out the weaknesses,as I see it,and your own post qualifies that there are weaknesses to be addressed.That there are attempts to rectify the shortcomings in the case against Komiski is commendable.When they verify an ID took place,I'll listen.

[Jonathan H]

Sorry Harry

I think the previous poster shoved my opening line into a reply against your post.

My argument, inspired by 'Scotland Yard Investigates', was that a real event was being sincerely -- and self-servingly -- misremembered. Therefore an identification by a Jewish witness just after Aaron Kosminski was sectioned did happen -- but was not literally that suspect,as it was a sailor named Sadler.

What Phil H does is project his ostrich-pose onto others, or at least onto me.

Several times I have asked him to address how it is that Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive and knew that he was at large long after the Kelly atrocity, and yet he -- like an ostrich -- never responds.

[Phil H]

Howwitty, Jonathan, to seek to turn my little joke against me.

I have in fact explained in numerous posts the difference between MM's view and that of Sir RA and DSS. Read them, they're there. I just don't find it remotely interesting or worth my time to respond to your tiresomely repetitive post hoc view.

Phil H

[mklhawley]

Howwitty, Jonathan, to seek to turn my little joke against me.

I have in fact explained in numerous posts the difference between MM's view and that of Sir RA and DSS. Read them, they're there. I just don't find it remotely interesting or worth my time to respond to your tiresomely repetitive post hoc view.

Phil H

Well, you should Phil. There is conflicting evidence and Jonathan is one of the few people who explains why.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil H]

There is no evidence to link Druitt to the East End, to the crimes or the victims. I am well aware, from months of reading his posts, of Jonathan's hypothesis.

All Jonathan postulates is speculation from after MJD's death. It is very clever and it tries to create a convincing story, but none of it IMHO very relevant.

I might wish it were otherwise, I was once fascinated by Druitt myself.

Kosminski can be linked to the area and the crime scenes, was regarded as the Ripper by two top officials of the day and new research continues to show other potential links to specific crime scenes. there is thus clear water between Kosminski and Druitt in regard to their candidacy. This thread is about Kosminski.

Phil H

[mklhawley]

There is no evidence to link Druitt to the East End, to the crimes or the victims. I am well aware, from months of reading his posts, of Jonathan's hypothesis.

All Jonathan postulates is speculation from after MJD's death. It is very clever and it tries to create a convincing story, but none of it IMHO very relevant.

I might wish it were otherwise, I was once fascinated by Druitt myself.

Kosminski can be linked to the area and the crime scenes, was regarded as the Ripper by two top officials of the day and new research continues to show other potential links to specific crime scenes. there is thus clear water between Kosminski and Druitt in regard to their candidacy. This thread is about Kosminski.

Phil H

It's funny, though, the man in charge of the Whitechapel investigation on the scene -Abberline- did not support the Kosminski theory. Abberline would have been privy to everything involving Kosminski. It's funny how Litttlechild stated Anderson "only thought he knew". My point: Conflicting evidence. Druitt was implicated by a Scotland Yard official, just as Kosminski was, and Jonathan's explanation better explains the bigger picture. ...and I'm not even a Druitt proponent.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

So, it's a general consensus that we are not aware of all the evidence in the Whitechapel murder case used by Scotland Yard, but you state:

There is no evidence to link Druitt to the East End, to the crimes or the victims.

Macnaghten came up through the ranks at Scotland Yard, so probably just as proficient at following the evidence in order to solve a crime as Swanson was, but you claim Macnaghten had no evidence yet was just as convinced as Anderson was.

I don't get it.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil H]

Macnaghten did not "come up through the ranks" of the Met in any account of him I have read. Munro tried to bring him in at senior level when Warren was Commissioner, and Macnaghten was refused (on the grounds that he had once been worsted by a mob in India). Once Munro became Commissioner he installed Macnaghten - but that was AFTER the high point of the Ripper scare.

Swanson, on the other hand, was a career policeman who DID rise through the ranks.

It's funny, though, the man in charge of the Whitechapel investigation on the scene -Abberline- did not support the Kosminski theory. Abberline would have been privy to everything involving Kosminski. It's funny how Litttlechild stated Anderson "only thought he knew". My point: Conflicting evidence. Druitt was implicated by a Scotland Yard official, just as Kosminski was, and Jonathan's explanation better explains the bigger picture. ...and I'm not even a Druitt proponent.

Abberline was the case officer, or one of them, but Swanson was the co-ordinator who saw and considered EVERY paper on the case until Munro relieved him of that duty around end 1888. So he would have seen things to which Abberline was not necessarily privy.

If, as I have speculated elsewhere, Anderson and Swanson used CITY police as their agents in trailing and watching Kosminski and operated an investigation outside the normal practices of the met, then Abberline might well not have been "in the loop". He may have known the name, without being aware of any of the evidence that was available to Sir RA and DSS. Equally, Special Branch might not have been in the know. Swanson makes no reference to them and their duties lay elsewhere.

To me, and this is simply my judgement Sir RA and DSS take precedence over MM for a number of reasons:

* they were on the case at senior level during the height of the scare (MM was not);

* DSS writes his marginalia apparently at first hand and without disagreeing with his former chief;

* by contrast MM writes hearsay (from wherever gained);

* Swanson gives us some details, MM gives us little but conclusions:

* MM also mentions Kosminski and thus knew of him - he appears to have been a suspect BEFORE MJD;

* it is more difficult to evaluate MM's writings as he includes ostrog in his original three suspects, and ostrog we know CANNOT have been a real suspect;

* research shows that Kosminski fits the bill in many of the details provided by Anderson and DSS; Druitt is not linked to the murders at all except by belated hearsay.

I could go on. On Jonathan's idea I'll say just this, IMHO (again) it is cleverly contrived from later writings, all of which are unsubstantiated or corroborated by others - family, an MP - but we have no idea of the detail or on what they were based. It is thus my assessment that the marginalia take a first place over what MM may have written Others are welcome to disagree.

I remain uncertain whether Aaron Kosminski was the man DSS referred to, but it appears he largely fits the bill. If/when more evidence emerges, I am of course happy to reconsider my view.

Phil H

[mklhawley]

If, as I have speculated elsewhere

There should be no issues with you speculating, because regardless of your cherry picking of your favored points, evidence conflicts.

You still haven't answered Jonathan's two huge questions.

Kosminski should be taken seriously, because of Swanson and Anderson, but so should Druitt. You speculating that Anderson and Swanson hid evidence from Macnaghten just doesn't fit.