New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Monty]

Goddamnit Phil H....you are always beating me to the punch.


Christer,

Read me a bit more discerning, Rob! I am saying that we can NOT call him a strong suspect today. I am also saying we can NOT call him a good suspect today. BUT I acknowledge that he was apparently considered a good suspect BACK THEN!! Anderson very apparently thought him a very good suspect, MacNaghten less so - but still good enough to exemplify how one could trump Cutbush. Thatīs where the "good suspect" judgement enters my discussion

So you are, as you sit at home typing today, in a better position than Donald Swanson and Sir Robert Anderson who were experiencing the investigation at the time, to decide if Kosminski can NOT be called a good suspect?

We may - and should - realize that whatever it was that made him a suspect, it made Anderson enthusiastic. But to begin with, Anderson was a long way away from the factual epicenter of things, sitting behind his desk. He would have relied on what others told him, and others may have been only too willing to please the commisioner. No matter what happened and how, it earned Kosminski a place in the memoranda as a crafty guy, strongly homicidal and with a great hatred of women, particularly the prostitute class. As you well know, not many of us recognize this as an apt description of Aaron Kosminski. And when we look at the discrepancy between the memoranda Ostrog and the real one, our suspicions are further fed! If "Kosminski" WAS Aaron - and there is a vary fair chance that he was - then we may be facing a very unbecoming fitting up of the man.

Firstly Anderson would have been aware of any key incident, and it shows he was. You really need to do some research into the structure of the Met force at the time and gain some knowledge on Warrens tenure and what he expected from his men. To dismiss Anderson as a desk jockey really does show a gap in your knowledge of both how the upper enchelons of the met worked as well as Warren and Andersons personas.

Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?

Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders.

Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders.

Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders.


Monty

[Phil H]

Fisherman

And there is not very much I can do about your disrespect for me, unless you do something about it yourself... Then again, since I am not intellectually on par with you, why would you?

I was not speaking personally but academically.

I am concerned to see ripper studies progress into the future on the solid foundations laid by writers like Evans, Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, Skinner and others. These authors use academic method in the correct way and evaluate historical evidence in the correct way. By correct, I mean thy use an approach that would be accepted and respected by any scholar or historian. That approach should be our benchmark.

Theories such as that regarding Lechmere/Cross; the diary; Lewis Carroll and anagrams etc etc remind me of the McCormick era, only he was somewhat more soundly based!! (Joke!) We must surely now eschew these "bright ideas" based on a quasi-intellectual joining up of bits of information that may or may not go together. The next step is likely to be (not necessarily by you) the invention of facts to bolster a case - like Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime. the perhapses and the maybes become certainties as a weak case is argued further than it will really allow.

That is not only a disservice to those supporting such a weak case, but it denigrates and undermines the whole field of study. That is why I seek to resist your claims and assertions so strongly.

You ignore the approaches that have been built up for good reason and allow serious students to build and go forward with some confidence; and in its place you seek to rear up glittering, clever but unstable mirages and then try to argue they are as sound in method and conclusion as those built up using the accepted approaches.

Please join us in the real world sometime soon. Your contributions to these forums used to be stimulating and interesting. the alternative is to see yourself marginalised and mocked. I would, sincerely, not want to see that happen.

Phil H

[Chris]

That is completely irrational, Rob. Chris also recognized this, thankfully.

I certainly didn't say it was irrational. I just said my opinion was different.

It depends what weight you give to what Anderson and Swanson wrote, and what weight to statements by other officers who were evidently not convinced that Anderson's suspect was guilty. It also depends on what you mean by a "strong suspect", but for other reasons I am hesitant about accepting police theories, doubtful identifications and circumstantial evidence at the moment.

I do think these discussions would be easier if we could all recognise that people have different opinions without being confrontational about it - not that there aren't irrational arguments flying around, of course!

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"So you are, as you sit at home typing today, in a better position than Donald Swanson and Sir Robert Anderson who were experiencing the investigation at the time, to decide if Kosminski can NOT be called a good suspect?"

You are forgetting, Monty, that we are moving on two levels of time. We both know that Anderson was enthusiastic, and from that we may conclude that he believed he had something on Kosminski that was useful. Therefore, it applies that Kosminski may have been a good suspect at that stage. And it is only MAY, since we cannot judge how good the evidence/hunch/testimony was, can we? It therefore also applies that Kosminski may have been a rather weak suspect at that stage.

Today, however, I have no problems at all to state that we cannot name Kosminski a strong suspect. To do so, we must have access to the evidence that made him a suspect in the first place. Just like I said, there has never been and will never be a case where we can conclude that somebody is a strong suspect without knowing on what grounds he is suspected.

This should be schoolboy stuff, I would think. He was a suspect, he may have been a good or a bad suspect, but today, since the grounds for his suspect status are lost to us, he is not a strong suspect. We may harbour strong feelings and hunches that the once existing evidence was good, and we may harbour a sense that it was nothing of the sort. No matter what feelings we harbour, it alters not that the evidence is lost, and with it the possibility to rank Kosminski as a strong suspect.

"To dismiss Anderson as a desk jockey really does show a gap in your knowledge"

Not at all - Anderson WAS normally tied to his desk, and did rarely join the investigations on the street. This is not to say that he was an uninformed man - many men do great jobs of leading from behind a desk, and many of them keep themselves aptly informed about what happens on street level. That, however, does not alter the fact that you need to introduce different levels of information in a hierarchical system like the Met was, and this means that you get second-hand information when you speak to the boss. Or third-, fourth- or fifth-hand information. That involves risks for the veracity of the information.
This too, Monty, would be schoolbook stuff.

Witness testimony is evidence therefore there is evidence that Kosminski was a violent man. How you dismiss this based on?

I donīt dismiss that this evidence is there. Nor do I dismiss that this violence amounts to a chair wielded against a Colney Hatch official. Nor do I dismiss that the REST of the written evidence we have, does not involve any further violence at all. A threat of violence is not violence in itself, and even that threat was a singular occurrence, as far as we know. We may conclude that apart from these two incidents, one of violence, and one of a threat about it, Aaron Kosminskis records show a man not given to violence in any sort or shape over a period of many, many years.
Take Cohen as comparison, Monty - I would describe him as a violent man. Kosminski is, given the period we have recorded, much less violent than I am/have been. And I am a pacifist.

"Evidence also supports that he was in the area at the time of the murders."

Oh, come on, Monty - you cannot pooh-pooh Lechmereīs being very closely geographically knitted to the exact streets of the murders (or did you not do so?), only to then claim that Kosminski "was in the area". Hundreds of thousands of people were in the general area - and Kosminski was one of them. It means we canīt rule him out on those grounds, and thatīs about it.

"Evidence supports that he attended an Identity Parade with regards the murders."

Perhaps not a parade - he may well have been the only contender. Otherwise, yes. Nobody is contesting that.

"Evidence supports that Kosminski was suspected with regards the murders."

Absolutely. But the point remains that we donīt know what that evidence looked like. Therefore he remains a rather weak suspect, and nothing else. he is POTENTIALLY a very strong suspect. He is POTENTIALLY the Ripper. But we have no specific, caserelated evidence telling us that he was. We donīt know what made him a suspect, what convinced Anderson that he was a good bid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Please join us in the real world sometime soon. Your contributions to these forums used to be stimulating and interesting. the alternative is to see yourself marginalised and mocked. I would, sincerely, not want to see that happen."

Okay, then. I will drop Lechmere as a suspect, given that you know so much better how one should look for the Ripper, and I will never more ... Nah, Phil - just kidding! Lechmere is factually the best suspect out there. I am quite prepared to be marginalized and mocked for acknowledging this, if it is what it takes.

But if I should ever feel like lying about what I believe and think, and taking leave of my convictions in order to be able to share a cup of tea with you, I promise that you will be the first to know, Phil!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. KOSMINSKI. K-o-s-m-i-n-s-k-i. And Swanson. Those are the men this thread should be about.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"I certainly didn't say it was irrational."

Thatīs right, you did not. I apologize, Chris!

But it IS irrational at any rate. There is nothing irrational about thinking that the Kosminski evidence may have been hard and useful. But it IS irrational to conclude that it must have been.

Once again, Iīm sorry for my leaping to conclusions, Chris.

"I do think these discussions would be easier if we could all recognise that people have different opinions without being confrontational about it "

You are once again correct, of course. Iīll do my very best, and I hope others will too.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

There are,in my opinion,three stages to consider when evaluating Kosminski.The first is that he did come to the notice of police.Without knowing when or why,the most that can be said is that he was a person of interest.Nothing more.In such a situation,he may be subject to investigation,to questioning,survilance,and even identification.That does not make him suspect.The second stage,suspect,would apply if,during the above,evidence surfaced which led police to a suspicion that a crime had been committed,a nd Kosminski was involved in that crime.The third stage,accusation,would result if the evidence against Kosminski was such,that the police considered guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
I have read nothing that persuades me,that at present,we can go beyond the first stage.

[AdamNeilWood]

PS. KOSMINSKI. K-o-s-m-i-n-s-k-i. And Swanson. Those are the men this thread should be about.

Actually, this thread is about the article written by Keith Skinner and myself for Ripperologist magazine. The only on-thread discussion in the past 200 or so posts have been made by Lechmere, which is why I'm keen for him to post his thoughts so that they can be answered as best we can.

Adam

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"Ruling out Kosminski is ten times worse. "

Of course it is. He was a suspect for some goddamn reason, we can figure that out with no effort at all. But letīs stay away from dubbing him a very good or strong suspect until we know why, thatīs what I say.

I think Chris said it eminently: Kosminski is a historically important suspect. End of story - so far. Letīs hope there is more to come, allowing us to get a better picture.

The best,
Fisherman

We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have. And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise.

Not knowing why these people thought what they did is not in any sense evidence that they were wrong to think it. They may have been. They may not have been. But I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have."

Correct in every instance, Paul - I agree.

"And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise."

There is no reason for us not to acknowledge that these men tought Kosminski a good or even excellent bid. I agree with that too.

But when it comes to making the call that Kosminski was a good or even excellent suspect on useful and sound grounds? No, we can never do that! What if it surfaces that all they had was his madness and the knife threat and a failed identification? Where would that put us?

It would make us look very ridiculous, thatīs were it would put us. Therefore, I once again say that we donīt condemn anybody on no evidence, Paul. Strong suspects are people who are brought to court, to face the legal system. Letīs assume that we could do so, retrospectively, with Kosminski. What on earth would we tell the judge and jury? That we somehow sense that the suspicions that once were there were sound suspicions and that he should therefore be sentenced to eternal Rippership?

When did jumping to conclusions ever do any branch of research any good? If you want to do it, be my guest. But I hope you recognize that those who wonīt join in, refuse to do so on very good grounds.

"I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect."

What I would say is that we can safely say that he was regarded as a strong suspect. Whether he WAS or not hinges on one thing and one thing only - the quality and amount of evidence. And we canīt say that since we will perhaps never find it, we must accept that it must have been pretty damn good. Andersonīs enthusiam is tempered by MacNaghten, and Littlechild and Smith pour ice-water over it.

And we are left with nothing at all to make a fair call. Thatīs as conclusive as itīs gonna get.

Now, I will withdraw for the moment, Iīve got other things to do. But please make sure that you donīt make yourself guilt of any miscarriage of justice while Iīm gone! Enthusiasm is fine - I have it in Lechmereīs case, lots of it! - but letīs not take leave of all moderation and sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

There are,in my opinion,three stages to consider when evaluating Kosminski.The first is that he did come to the notice of police.Without knowing when or why,the most that can be said is that he was a person of interest.Nothing more.In such a situation,he may be subject to investigation,to questioning,survilance,and even identification.That does not make him suspect.

The second stage,suspect,would apply if,during the above,evidence surfaced which led police to a suspicion that a crime had been committed,and Kosminski was involved in that crime.

The third stage,accusation,would result if the evidence against Kosminski was such,that the police considered guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

I have read nothing that persuades me,that at present,we can go beyond the first stage.

Harry, I'm sorry but I don't follow you here at all. A person of interest is a suspect, but one against whom there is no or insufficient evidence. If no suspicion was entertained against such a person then he wouldn't be a person of interest.

A crime had been committed and as the police don't generally investigate, question, maintain surveillance on, and try to identify people who they don't suspect, it therefore follows that evidence of some sort existed which caused the police to think Kosminski was involved in the crime. And for two senior and informed policemen that evidence convinced them of Kosminski's guilt.

The forgoing does depend on whether you are drawing a distinct between the suspect Kosminski and Aaron Kosminski, but as there is no viable alternative to the latter, such a distinction is moot.

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"We may never "know why". That information may not exist anymore. If it does turn up one day, fantastic. Right now we have to do what we can with the information we have."

Correct in every instance, Paul - I agree.

"And the information we have is that Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a good suspect and Anderson and (presumably) Swanson believed he was Jack the Ripper. They obviously thought Kosminski was a good or strong suspect (Anderson thought he was more than that!) and given that they are credible voices, there is little reason for us to say otherwise."

There is no reason for us not to acknowledge that these men tought Kosminski a good or even excellent bid. I agree with that too.

But when it comes to making the call that Kosminski was a good or even excellent suspect on useful and sound grounds? No, we can never do that! What if it surfaces that all they had was his madness and the knife threat and a failed identification? Where would that put us?

It would put us in a different ball game. The trouble is, we don't know that that was all they had. We don't even know that they had that, as the threat to the sister may have been utterly unknown to the police. So, as is repeatedly stated, we have no idea what the evidence against Kosminski was and therefore we can't assess it and it is impossible for us to form any conclusion as regards the probability of their conclusion being correct.

It would make us look very ridiculous, thatīs were it would put us.

Why would it make us look ridiculous? We theorise on the basis of the evidence in our possession and we adapt, change, and sometime abandon our theories as and when new information comes to light (or sometimes when existing evidence is reinterpreted). That's how theories work (or should work). It's how well we use the tools we have that matters. It's doing a bad job with the tools we have makes us look ridiculous.

Therefore, I once again say that we donīt condemn anybody on no evidence, Paul.

Nobody is condemning anybody on no evidence. The evidence is what our sources tell us, just as it is for anything that happened in the past and of which we have no direct personal experience. All we can do is do our best to assess the reliability of our sources.

Strong suspects are people who are brought to court, to face the legal system. Letīs assume that we could do so, retrospectively, with Kosminski. What on earth would we tell the judge and jury? That we somehow sense that the suspicions that once were there were sound suspicions and that he should therefore be sentenced to eternal Rippership?

We wouldn't attempt to bring Kosminski before the judge and jury, but needless to say this isn't a court of law and the rules of law don't apply. This is history. The rules are different.

When did jumping to conclusions ever do any branch of research any good? If you want to do it, be my guest. But I hope you recognize that those who wonīt join in, refuse to do so on very good grounds.

Who is jumping to conclusions? We have a source which states that Kosminski was a suspect and we have two sources which seem to say he was Jack the Ripper. We can assess the reliability of those sources, but we can do little beyond that.

"I think we can safely say that Kosminski was a strong suspect."

What I would say is that we can safely say that he was regarded as a strong suspect. Whether he WAS or not hinges on one thing and one thing only - the quality and amount of evidence. And we canīt say that since we will perhaps never find it, we must accept that it must have been pretty damn good. Andersonīs enthusiam is tempered by MacNaghten, and Littlechild and Smith pour ice-water over it.

And we are left with nothing at all to make a fair call. Thatīs as conclusive as itīs gonna get.

Now, I will withdraw for the moment, Iīve got other things to do. But please make sure that you donīt make yourself guilt of any miscarriage of justice while Iīm gone! Enthusiasm is fine - I have it in Lechmereīs case, lots of it! - but letīs not take leave of all moderation and sense.

The best,
Fisherman

"Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it? Pretty meaningless too. Obviously Kosminski was regarded as a strong suspect by those who suspected him. And Macnaghten, Littlechild and Smith don't throw ice-water over that. They maybe throw ice-water over him being Jack the Ripper, although we can't be entirely sure that they knew all the evidence known to Anderson and Swanson, but they don't pour ice-water over Kosminski being a strong suspect. Indeed, Macnaghten actually tells us Kosminski was a strong suspect, albeit he favours Druitt.

Enthusiasm for a suspect doesn't enter into the equation. Nor should it. I am not and never have been enthusiastic for any suspect. It's the facts that matter.

[Phil Carter]

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski is ten times worse than ruling him in.

Until you can demonstrate that that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the Kosminski named by Swanson and Macnaghten then you are just playing silly name games. And you are downplaying valuable source material from two informed and senior sources who to all intent and purposes are stating that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. And ignoring a third source who acknowledges that "Kosminski" was a good suspect.

And you are ruling out Kosminski because you don't know the evidence on which their conclusion was based, but that's your ignorance, an ignorance forced on you because those sources said all they thought was necessary and because the vagaries of time and fate have destroyed what other paperwork may have existed. That's not unusual. It isn't rare. There are other crimes cases where no paperwork exists at all.

So, there are three senior sources, three sources who had information that we don't, who say that Kosminski was a suspect, two of those sources overtly and tacitly saying he was Jack the Ripper. And you think it's okay to dismiss what they say and count Kosminski out. You in fact think it is better to count him out than to give fair and considered attention to three senior and informed contemporary sources and count Kosminski in. Sorry, but that's just nuts.

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence. And no matter how hard you try to claim that the absence of evidence supporting Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten diminishes the case against Kosminski, it doesn't diminish anything at all.

So, sure Aaron Kosminski may not be the Kosminski, but so far there is no viable alternative and there may never be a viable alternative. Produce one and maybe you'll have an argument worth listening to, but just saying maybe he wasn't the suspect because we don't have the evidence that he was doesn't mean diddly.

Hello Paul,

Our opinions differ. You have the right to yours.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

"Was a strong suspect" or "was regarded as a strong suspect" is a rather pedantic distinction isn't it? Pretty meaningless too. Obviously Kosminski was regarded as a strong suspect by those who suspected him. And Macnaghten, Littlechild and Smith don't throw ice-water over that. They maybe throw ice-water over him being Jack the Ripper, although we can't be entirely sure that they knew all the evidence known to Anderson and Swanson, but they don't pour ice-water over Kosminski being a strong suspect. Indeed, Macnaghten actually tells us Kosminski was a strong suspect, albeit he favours Druitt.

I take a deep breath, and feel thankful that there are people like Paul Begg, who can express what I am trying to say much more eloquently than I can. Thank you Paul.

Let me be very clear:

1. I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation.

2. I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because there is nothing I have seen that eliminates him as a suspect, there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected, and much of what we do know about him fits with what we would expect the Ripper to be like. Many of the pieces fit, circumstantially, etc. And new pieces of information that come to light also fit, often. We should really be trying to find out more about him, as opposed to endlessly arguing about things that have been argued endlessly before.

RH

[Phil Carter]

I take a deep breath, and feel thankful that there are people like Paul Begg, who can express what I am trying to say much more eloquently than I can. Thank you Paul.

Let me be very clear:

1. I think it is quite obvious, and hardly debatable, that Kozminski was "regarded as" a strong suspect by the men who were at the head of the Ripper investigation.

2. I also think that today, we as historians must still consider Kozminski as a strong suspect in the Ripper case. I say this because there is nothing I have seen that eliminates him as a suspect, there is so much we do not know about why he was suspected, and much of what we do know about him fits with what we would expect the Ripper to be like. Many of the pieces fit, circumstantially, etc. And new pieces of information that come to light also fit, often. We should really be trying to find out more about him, as opposed to endlessly arguing about things that have been argued endlessly before.

RH

Hello Rob,

Was Abberline at the Head of the Ripper investigation?

best wishjes

Phil