New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Monty]

Smith made no reference to it, Scott, and both Anderson and Swanson create the distinct impression that the affair was a Met operation.

If this is the case then Lewande and any witness in connection to Eddowes murder can be ruled out.

Monty

[PaulB]

Well, Paul, Macnaghten cast Ostrog as an uber homicidal manic, a claim which has since proven to have been utter nonsense. He also had Druitt as a much stronger Ripper candidate than either Ostrog or Kosminski, and yet was able to make only the flimsiest of cases against Druitt. This being so, it appears pretty self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence with which to link Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders.

Yes, Macnaghten did cast Ostrog in that role and I can only assume that he had reasons for doing so. Information which came to light subsequently has shown that Ostrog was not in the country when the murders were committed, a fact of which Macnaghten was self-evidently unaware. Or he was a complete tosspot, which he wasn't. And he did indeed favour Druitt over Kosminski and Ostrog, but whether or not he had the flimsiest of cases against him is unknown to me as I don't knew what that case was. And it isn't in the least self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence linking Kosminski with the murders. We don't know what evidence they had.

Sorry, Paul, but Anderson’s words leave no room for doubting Anderson’s opinions: ‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

That’s fairly unequivocal to my mind.

If that's how you read it, fine. But to me Anderson, never the clearest or carefullest of writers, is simply saying that that some basic conclusions were obvious - the murderer was a sexual maniac who lived in the area and, a no brainer, he either lived alone and nobody saw him clean himself up, or he lived with people who saw him get clean and didn't convey their suspicions to the authorities. This conclusion led to a house-to-house search of all men who were living on their own - two points of interest, one being that the house-to-house was probably organised and took place whilst Anderson was abroad. We're not told what the outcome of the house-to-house was but are left to infer that nobody living alone fitted the bill. Anderson then says what the conclusion was that "we" came to, the "we" arguably meaning the Metropolitan Police, or a group of policemen who may or may not have included Anderson.

The Met and City forces were exchanging case-related intelligence on a daily basis, Paul. Had the Met uncovered information implicating Kosminski in the Ripper series, Major Smith would have known about it. And yet Smith freely admitted to having been totally defeated by the Whitechapel Murderer. On top of this Smith’s own Kosminski investigation turned up nothing incriminating. So it is quite straightforward: if Smith either failed to uncover or learn of information that identified Kosminski as the killer, the evidence simply wasn’t there. This explains why Macnaghten concluded that Druitt was a more likely killer than Kosminski, and why Abberline dismissed the notion that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. It probably also goes some way to explaining Smith’s virulent condemnation of Anderson’s literary claims with regard to the killer’s identification.

Which boils down to Anderson and Swanson being tosspots along with Macnaghten who wrote that there were many circs which made Kosminski a strong suspects even though in your view there were none. That's fine by me, but unfortunately we have to demonstrate that these sources were tosspots and thus far it hasn't been done.

My feeling, Paul, is that Kosminski somehow came to the attention of the authorities and was investigated by the City with no tangible result. Anderson, on the other hand, noted that Kosminski met all of the criteria which constituted his ‘profile’ of the killer. Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home confirmed the issue beyond all doubt in Anderson’s mind, and Anderson then took Kosminski’s approximation to the profile as further evidence of guilt. This explains Anderson’s claim of moral certainty regarding the issue. No talk of evidence, just moral certainty. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is very revealing.

Fine. It's the "somehow came to the attention of the authorities" which worries me. Why would Kosminski have come to the attention of the authorities and been investigated as a potential Ripper if the authorities "had little or no tangible evidence" linking him to the crimes? Why would Macnaghten says there were many circs making Kosminski a strong suspect if there weren't any. Why would Kosminski have been positively identified if he wasn't anywhere near the crimes? And you have yet to prove that the profile, as you perceive it, was Anderson's favoured profile, or, even if it was, that it played any part whatsoever in Kosminski having come under suspicion.

Now, you say that ‘policemen don’t usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence’, and by and large you are correct. But policemen can and do get things wrong – especially policemen possessed of an authoritarian personality as was certainly the case with Anderson. I have already referred to the case of Terry Hawkshaw, and there are plenty more examples besides. Remember Colin Stagg? Or Tim Evans? The Birmingham Six? The Guildford Four? Stefan Kiszko? Sean Hodgson? Sally Clark?

Absolutely. But they also get things right. Our problem is that we don't know which applies in the case of Kosminski. But let's make it absolutely clear that we're not talking about guilt here. This isn't about whether or not Anderson was right that Kosminski was the Ripper, this is about whether suspicion justifiably existed against him.

Again, look at the ‘evidence’ cited by Macnaghten in support of his Druitt theory. It is nonexistent. Yet Macnaghten clearly believed that the case against Druitt was more compelling than that relating to Kosminski. Thus one is bound to conclude that, beyond the Seaside Home identification, there wasn’t a scrap of tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. Not a scrap. And there was certainly nothing to justify Anderson’s contention that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’.

I don't know how you can say the evidence against Druitt was non-existant. Of course evidence against Druitt existed, MAcnaghten obviously found it more persuasive than the evidence against Kosminski, but he acknowledges that there were many things which made Kosminski a strong suspect. Many things. Not just a positive eye-witness identification, which arguably Macnaghten may not have known about. And Anderson didn't say that the killer's identity was "a definitely ascertained fact", he said that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the man he believed was the Ripper was a Polish Jew.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gary,

You quoted Anderson..my emphasis..

‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

I would like to know a thing or two that has me a little puzzled.

Umm, Anderson says in certain terms that the police are well aquainted with this Polish Jew suspect..Really?

Because he apparently doesn't know if this suspect is living on his own or not. Then later...

He also says that the Polish Jew suspect comes under the catagory of a person who could "..go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
Now that really is a revelation. Anderson would therefore know that this was a fact for his suspect, Kosminski, according to Swanson.

He also says that "During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him"..ahhh.. so Kosminski was known to the police BEFORE Anderson took charge of the investigation proper?

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

Finally, a cracker of the Christmas sort...

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;"...this comment followed the sentence..
"During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."..err.. the two sentences have nothing to do with each other if the police don't know whether he lived alone or not...or where he lived and with whom.

I just wonder, thats all.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

There is a very real problem here which means this is a "dialogue" of the deaf. Paul B, myself and others have been seeking to discuss the HISTORICAL METHOD. that is not something we have invented but is the academic structure and approach that underlies most serious works and all historical scholarship.

Evidence, and the remarks of Anderson, Swanson et al are EVIDENCE, cannot be lightly discarded or dismissed. They can be discussed, weighed and a rational given for accepting or discounting what is said - the judgement of others is then on whether those arguments are valid and accepted. That is as true in discussing Augustus Caesar; the Black Death or JtR. A contemporary view has to be given weight, even if modern historians believe other perhaps scientific or archaeological evidence, or the views of other contemporaries contradict it.

It is through the careful analysis and comparison of what is said that understanding emerges, but more important a concensus is reached so that the conclusion established can be used as a building black in further discussion.

Others of you - either unaware of, uneducated in, or because you dislike its disciplines - seem to be relying on a looser and more subjective view based on reason or logic or just personal preference.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, but views that do not based themselves on the accepted approach are less likely to receive wide acceptance and will provide a less stable platform for continuing work.

Phil H

Halleluiah!

[PaulB]

Hello Gary,

You quoted Anderson..my emphasis..



I would like to know a thing or two that has me a little puzzled.

Umm, Anderson says in certain terms that the police are well aquainted with this Polish Jew suspect..Really?

Because he apparently doesn't know if this suspect is living on his own or not. Then later...

He also says that the Polish Jew suspect comes under the catagory of a person who could "..go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."
Now that really is a revelation. Anderson would therefore know that this was a fact for his suspect, Kosminski, according to Swanson.

He also says that "During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him"..ahhh.. so Kosminski was known to the police BEFORE Anderson took charge of the investigation proper?

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

Finally, a cracker of the Christmas sort...

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews;"...this comment followed the sentence..
"During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret."..err.. the two sentences have nothing to do with each other if the police don't know whether he lived alone or not...or where he lived and with whom.

I just wonder, thats all.

best wishes

Phil

Sadly a complete misreading/misunderstanding of what Anderson wrote.

[Garry Wroe]

So they knew of Kosminski and were looking for him, amongst others, during the house to house investigation? Yet they didn't know exactly where he lived or whether he lived alone or not.

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

[Garry Wroe]

If this is the case then Lewande and any witness in connection to Eddowes murder can be ruled out.

Not really, Monty. If Lawende was summoned by the Met in relation to the Sadler affair, there is no reason why he couldn't have been used for the purpose of the Seaside Home identification.

[Chris]

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

No, I think that - as Paul is saying - Anderson means that the house-to-house search investigated men who could come and go in secret, and the result of that was that (because such men had been eliminated) "we" decided that the killer was being protected by the people he was living with, and from that concluded that they were "low-class Polish Jews". So there were two different "profiles" involved.

I'm not surprised that "Mentor" found what Anderson wrote offensive, but I'm sure that's what Anderson was getting at.

[Monty]

Yes Garry,

Indeed, however I was referring to the Eddowes murder, not the others.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

News of the World reporter Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 typewritten version of the Swanson story and marginalia contains a glaring omission.

In quoting the end-paper notation Sandell left out the crucial and incriminating last line, "Kosminski was the suspect."

An odd omission for the story of the century.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

News of the World reporter Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 typewritten version of the Swanson story and marginalia contains a glaring omission.

In quoting the end-paper notation Sandell left out the crucial and incriminating last line, "Kosminski was the suspect."

I presume that was in order to avoid repetition, as the quotation from the annotations was preceded by

The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man.
He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski.

and followed by

Said Mr. James Swanson, commenting on the notes:
"Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure, my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

You may well be right, although it's hard to tell with Sandell employing such a mixed bag of direct quotes, edited quotes and misleading paraphrasing.

I simply find it difficult to understand a journalist omitting such a definitive statement.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Simon

I certainly wouldn't have done it like that myself, though I suppose the News of the World was never renowned for its use of scholarly apparatus...

[Fleetwood Mac]

What I believe Anderson is saying, Phil, is that the authorities had developed firm ideas regarding the wanted man and so mounted a detailed search of the area in order to identify any men who conformed to these expectations. Later, when Kosminski attracted police attention, it was found that he fitted the bill precisely.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case.

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

1) The investigation focused on men who could have returned home undectected, rather than Jewish men.

2) It seems they didn't find anyone who fitted the bill.

3) They concluded that he did not live alone, and was protected.

I think you are correct Garry in that they had a firm idea as to the background of this man prior to Kosminski coming along, but I feel you are incorrect in that they did not base the house to house search on their pre-conceived notions.

Anderson tells us McKenzie was by another hand. Not because they had their man, but rather it appeared to be an 'ordinary murder' in the opinion of Anderson.

So the sequence of events appears to be thus:

1) They conducted the house to house search with an open mind looking for any man who could go and come.

2) Nothing turned up.

3) They must have had a pre-ordained belief that the man lived in the area, and when no man who could come and go turned up, they concluded that it was a man living in the area whose guilt would have been known to the family.

4) They then concluded he was a Polish Jew based on 'giving up justice'.

5) McKenzie is murdered. Anderson recalls that it was not Jack because it was an ordinary murder, not because they had their man.

6) At some point after July 1889, Kosminski turns up.

So yes, it appears that the core idea was formed prior to Kosminski coming to the attention of the police, but not before the house to house search.

[Stephen Thomas]

Anderson tells us McKenzie was by another hand. Not because they had their man, but rather it appeared to be an 'ordinary murder' in the opinion of Anderson.

Or rather he knew JTR was already banged up.

McKenzie was an archetypal Ripper victim.

It's totally impossible to rule her out as a potential JTR victim. all things being equal.

Yet Macnaghten and Anderson did just that. Why?