New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Nemo]

There is a missing point to your logical chain.
And that's how Kosminsky came to the attention of the authorities.
Not everyone in the East End was paraded in front of Lawende.
That's the missing piece of "evidence" that we can only guess at.

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

When they came across him, his lunacy, habits, hatred of prostitutes, and "homicidal tendencies" led to an attempt at identification, which was successful

Where is there any mention of any other evidence or the requirement for such?

And we don't know how many people were subjected to identification by eye witnesses

Regards

Nemo

[PaulB]

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

I don't think so. Where was this clearly stated?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I beg to differ Robert

The deduced character and location of the Ripper was clearly stated to have led the authorities to Kosminski

Hi Nemo!

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that they were honing in on Eastern European Jews as suspects, and specifically lunatics, and a dragnet pulled Kos in? No clues or tips or detective work done? (As an aside I think a doctor the family took Aaron to see may have expressed concerns to the police.....but that's another matter.)

And that they then paraded the hundred or so men that might have fit the bill past Lawende, and one of them flinched or gave a start? And then Anderson was off to the races....

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is this a reasonable summary of your position?

[Nemo]

Hi Robert/Paul

Anderson states quite clearly that assumptions and deductions were made, such as that the Ripper crimes were done by a madman, that he lived in the area local to the murders, and that he was from the same social strata of the victims. He also considered that if the Ripper did not live alone, that "his people" knew of his guilt and must be refusing to report it

In locating Kosminski, or even after being pointed in his direction, it was ascertained that all the deductions were "correct"

The case against him being bolstered by reports that Kosminski hated the unfortunates and had "homicidal tendencies" he was subjected to an identification which was "successful" - case closed

There appears to be an expectation of more damning evidence which hasn't been mentioned, whereas it seems clear to me that at the most we might come across are verbal accusations against Kosminski

These accusations are not hard evidence and are not unique, many people having been accused of being the Ripper, or even confessing to be the Ripper

The evidence against Kosminski was that he fitted the bill and was identified by an eyewitness

If there was any other hard evidence don't you think it might have been mentioned or even hinted at?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

If there was any other hard evidence don't you think it might have been mentioned or even hinted at?

I'm not saying "hard" evidence as in good enough to convict, but I don't think it was "profiling" or a wholesale dragnet that led them to Kos. Something did, and we don't know what it was. Some bit of information that hasn't made its way down to us, unfortunately. Even if a door to door called him to their attention, there had to be something more to elevate him from a person of interest to a suspect to "The Murderer".

There is a missing piece of the puzzle, and that is what caused them to parade Kos in front of Schwartz (or Lawende). We don't know what that was.

I don't believe in a scenario where Anderson had dozens and dozens of suspects put in front of Schwartz.

[Cogidubnus]

At the time Warren issued this order it was not known what circumstances might develop. He was laying out protocol while allowing Swanson some latitude to act without conference with the aforesaid officials if Swanson felt urgency was required; which means that the responsibility to make that determination rest with him... i.e. - he was in charge. This is very similar to many 'general orders' issued to military commanders in the field. The chain of command is followed except when officers in key positions may have to exercise initiative instead of compromising a fluid situation by waiting on orders. Of all people, Warren would have understood this.

The situation you refer to in the Nov. 6 reports was handled directly by Warren in this instance. He assumed responsibility for the actions taken in Goulston Street. That others than he made reports on the same instance is because the Home Office requested them to ascertain if his decision was valid or the situation was as he depicted, or they were requested by Warren to back him up. We know from Warren's report that the Home Office made this request on the 5th of Nov. and it was immediately complied with. Why the Home Office waited this long is anybody's guess considering what happened just days after.

I know I've come late upon it, but this is the best analysis of the full implications regarding Warren's definition of Swanson's role that I've seen to date...(sorry if that's clumsy construction)...thanks Cris

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

You may want to check out Swanson's own [previously posted] description of his duties during the WM investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon...I'm a simple soul...for the benefit of the record, Swanson's thoughts contradict Cris's analysis of Warren's order where?

All the best

Dave

[CATscan]

Long time reader- first time poster. Probably not the best subject to start out with but I have a question- Im not a subscriber so I havent read the article so Im trying to figure out the evidence from what you are posting. Theres a blank that Id like filled for me if it is possible. The Kominski sentence is being proved genuine based on the article from the news of the world that was found that referenced it if I understand right. Can someone tell me what the evidence was in the article that meant the line wasnt added before it was shown to the newspaper?

Please dont say buy the magazine and read it thats not possible for me right now.

[PaulB]

Hi Robert/Paul

Anderson states quite clearly that assumptions and deductions were made, such as that the Ripper crimes were done by a madman, that he lived in the area local to the murders, and that he was from the same social strata of the victims. He also considered that if the Ripper did not live alone, that "his people" knew of his guilt and must be refusing to report it

In locating Kosminski, or even after being pointed in his direction, it was ascertained that all the deductions were "correct"

The case against him being bolstered by reports that Kosminski hated the unfortunates and had "homicidal tendencies" he was subjected to an identification which was "successful" - case closed

There appears to be an expectation of more damning evidence which hasn't been mentioned, whereas it seems clear to me that at the most we might come across are verbal accusations against Kosminski

These accusations are not hard evidence and are not unique, many people having been accused of being the Ripper, or even confessing to be the Ripper

The evidence against Kosminski was that he fitted the bill and was identified by an eyewitness

If there was any other hard evidence don't you think it might have been mentioned or even hinted at?

I don't think the context in which Anderson was writing made it necessary to mention or hint at other evidence. Anderson wasn't presenting a case against a specific person, he was simply stating that the identity of the murderer was known. Anderson was saying this because he was trying to make it clear that undiscovered (unsolved) murders in London were rare, and that sometimes the police knew the identity of the murderer but lacked the evidence to bring him to justice. This made the British police look less effective than their foreign (French) counterparts, but the British police had to work within constraints that the French police didn't (the French could arrest and hold someone almost indefinitely while they worked up a case against him; the British police couldn't).

All Anderson says is that some simple deductions led to a house-to-house investigation from which we infer the conclusion was that the murderer lived with people. This led to an opinion that those people must have had cause to wonder at and be suspicious about his bloodstained person and clothing, and self-evidently were not conveying those suspicions to the police, and that this led to the suggestion that the murderer was an immigrant Jew. Nothing in what Anderson says allows us to infer that this suggestion led the police to Kosminski and the fact that he doesn't out-and-out say that it did should probably cause us to conclude that it didn't. All Anderson says is that it was ultimately proved correct in every particular.

It is probably worth emphasising that The only kudos to which Anderson seems able to lay claim is that the murderer fitted a particular hypothesis. He does not say that hypothesis in any way led to the murderer and if the murderer had turned out to be a doctor or an escaped lunatic or to have dressed in women's clothing, Anderson would probably have recited how and why the police had evolved that hypothesis.

It's rather like a profiler today saying after the arrest of a murderer that the murderer fitted the profile the police had evolved and considered, but omitting to mention that the profile was one of several, wasn't the primary one, maybe wasn't even treated seriously, and in no way led to the detection of the murderer. But, hey, the murderer fitted that profile so the police were (or maybe eventually would have been) heading along the right lines.

[Lechmere]

Anderson was also effectively saying that the biggest crime series of his generation was not unsolved and didn't baffle the head of the CID - as he knew who did it. He knew the man was out of circulation. This man matched the profile that he had determined upon. He (Anderson) was one hell of a clever dick and he had not, under any circumstances, been useless and thwarted. And if he had been able to act like the French police then everyone would know and Anderson would be feted as a hero for catching the ripper.
That is what he is really saying.

[PaulB]

Anderson was also effectively saying that the biggest crime series of his generation was not unsolved and didn't baffle the head of the CID - as he knew who did it. He knew the man was out of circulation. This man matched the profile that he had determined upon. He (Anderson) was one hell of a clever dick and he had not, under any circumstances, been useless and thwarted. And if he had been able to act like the French police then everyone would know and Anderson would be feted as a hero for catching the ripper.
That is what he is really saying.

No it isn't.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think the context in which Anderson was writing made it necessary to mention or hint at other evidence. Anderson wasn't presenting a case against a specific person, he was simply stating that the identity of the murderer was known. Anderson was saying this because he was trying to make it clear that undiscovered (unsolved) murders in London were rare, and that sometimes the police knew the identity of the murderer but lacked the evidence to bring him to justice. This made the British police look less effective than their foreign (French) counterparts, but the British police had to work within constraints that the French police didn't (the French could arrest and hold someone almost indefinitely while they worked up a case against him; the British police couldn't).

All Anderson says is that some simple deductions led to a house-to-house investigation from which we infer the conclusion was that the murderer lived with people. This led to an opinion that those people must have had cause to wonder at and be suspicious about his bloodstained person and clothing, and self-evidently were not conveying those suspicions to the police, and that this led to the suggestion that the murderer was an immigrant Jew. Nothing in what Anderson says allows us to infer that this suggestion led the police to Kosminski and the fact that he doesn't out-and-out say that it did should probably cause us to conclude that it didn't. All Anderson says is that it was ultimately proved correct in every particular.

It is probably worth emphasising that The only kudos to which Anderson seems able to lay claim is that the murderer fitted a particular hypothesis. He does not say that hypothesis in any way led to the murderer and if the murderer had turned out to be a doctor or an escaped lunatic or to have dressed in women's clothing, Anderson would probably have recited how and why the police had evolved that hypothesis.

It's rather like a profiler today saying after the arrest of a murderer that the murderer fitted the profile the police had evolved and considered, but omitting to mention that the profile was one of several, wasn't the primary one, maybe wasn't even treated seriously, and in no way led to the detection of the murderer. But, hey, the murderer fitted that profile so the police were (or maybe eventually would have been) heading along the right lines.

Hi Paul
I agree. Do think it probable that they went back and checked the list of men they checked out previously AFTER Kosminski came to there attention and found his name on that list?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
I agree. Do think it probable that they went back and checked the list of men they checked out previously AFTER Kosminski came to there attention and found his name on that list?

Hi Abby,
What list?
Paul

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
What list?
Paul

Hi Paul
Did they not keep a list of all the men they checked out during the house to house search Anderson spoke of?