The only patient who fits Anderson's account?

[Rubyretro]

I think that there's a great deal of truth in the phrase "the truth is stranger than fiction ".

One of the reasons that this case endures is because of the wealth of facts
associated with it -not because of the lack of them ; there must be a wealth of unsolved crimes out there, but none which have such a number of disparate and fascinating details attached to them.

Personally, I think that it IS still possible to discover the identity of JtR, because the time elapsed is not long as far as history goes. My mum who is '70 remembers her grand parents & great grand parents talking about it -(her
grandmother was at the ragged school in Mile End). Therefore oral information may not be totally lost. There are records & photos which exist from this period. The internet means that it's getting easier to do research.

I think that we put too much relience on police theories from the period -if the police had really been on the right track then they would have caught Jack. I think that he got away with it because they were looking for someone totally different -but we know much more about serial killers & their behaviour than police did at that time.

I'm sure that if people start spending time researching new areas of the case, then new info will come out -even if it is circumstancial, it might be as near as damn it conclusive...and the truth might not be damp squib at all, but
very fascinating.

[Phil Carter]

Simon is an old hand at Ripper research and his words should be heeded by those with an interest in the case. He is, of course, just the sort of person we need to reignite interest in the case.

Here he refers, of course, to the never revealed Special Branch files that were known to contain tantalising references to the Whitechapel murders. For a long time a 'no go' area these files have never been seen by Ripper researchers and may have contained some valid new leads. Alas, I fear we shall never know how relevant they were.

Hello all,

I agree with you both totally Stewart and Simon, and realise that the chances of these files re-appearing are small. As Stewart states, the files regarding any Ripper related material may well (sadly) have been lost forever.

However for those (like myself) still believing in the existance of anything materialistic, it should be noted that a few eminent historians endeavouring to find other historical material have been surprised by the sudden re-emergence of items that Scotland Yard themselves have said were either "burned due to lack of space" or "destroyed by a bomb in World War Two".

It seems that at various times over the last 70 years, Scotland Yard themselves have, for one reason or another, been cagey regarding certain other historical documents. A few very fortunate, have indeed had access to historical documents that "officially" were not in existance, yet were known to exist through little known publications relating to those documents made available to a selected few many many years previously.

From my own experiences, I agree with Simon's comment "....The Whitechapel murders remain a mystery because someone [I use the term loosely] does not want the solution revealed...."

Hot potato? Let us all hope it it hasn't become mashed.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Heeded

Hi All,
Stewart asked, " . . . whatever reason could there be within police circles to hush up a solution that offered up a mad 'poor Polish Jew' suspect?"
It's a good question, and the crux of a mystery which we have all been addressing based on the unlikely premise that Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild and the person who wrote the endpaper notation [or any combination of the aforementioned] were telling the truth.
The Whitechapel murders aren't still a mystery today because they were the work of a mad Polish Jew or an effete barrister. The Whitechapel murders remain a mystery because someone [I use the term loosely] does not want the solution revealed. This is fairly apparent due to the fact that, despite the Freedom of Information Act, as late as 2008 certain documents dating from and around 1888 [some displaying a "secret" interest in JtR] were redacted by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] prior to their [not as yet] appearance in the National Archives.
Forget Anderson and his contemporaries. The truth was not within their gift.
Think instead "hot potato".
Regards,
Simon

Simon is an old hand at Ripper research and his words should be heeded by those with an interest in the case. He is, of course, just the sort of person we need to reignite interest in the case.

Here he refers, of course, to the never revealed Special Branch files that were known to contain tantalising references to the Whitechapel murders. For a long time a 'no go' area these files have never been seen by Ripper researchers and may have contained some valid new leads. Alas, I fear we shall never know how relevant they were.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fascination

And one wonders how much pleasure the whole subject would give 'if' a definitive answer were found. The fascination and enjoyment surely come from Jack remaining elusive. In Cluedo, the fun ends when the murder cards are revealed!

A good point and one which reminds me of how much fascination and pleasure in trying to 'solve' the mystery existed back in my early days of research in the 1960s.

There can be no doubt that had the mystery been solved the enduring interest in the case would have disappeared with that solution. Even though not solved the subject does, every so often, get to a stage of overkill and requires a 'shot in the arm' such as a 'new' suspect or some relevant and exciting new information to revive it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Stewart asked, " . . . whatever reason could there be within police circles to hush up a solution that offered up a mad 'poor Polish Jew' suspect?"

It's a good question, and the crux of a mystery which we have all been addressing based on the unlikely premise that Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild and the person who wrote the endpaper notation [or any combination of the aforementioned] were telling the truth.

The Whitechapel murders aren't still a mystery today because they were the work of a mad Polish Jew or an effete barrister. The Whitechapel murders remain a mystery because someone [I use the term loosely] does not want the solution revealed. This is fairly apparent due to the fact that, despite the Freedom of Information Act, as late as 2008 certain documents dating from and around 1888 [some displaying a "secret" interest in JtR] were redacted by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] prior to their [not as yet] appearance in the National Archives.

Forget Anderson and his contemporaries. The truth was not within their gift.

Think instead "hot potato".

Regards,

Simon

[Hamrammr]

And one wonders how much pleasure the whole subject would give 'if' a definitive answer were found. The fascination and enjoyment surely come from Jack remaining elusive. In Cluedo, the fun ends when the murder cards are revealed!

[Stewart P Evans]

Objective

Thank you for your reply Stewart, as one of the leading researchers into JtR I value your opinion a lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but it is essential for those interested in the Ripper murders to assess all the available material and to draw their own conclusions. We are all capable of making errors and the subject is a continuing learning curve as new material still comes to light.

It is very easy to be influenced by authors and we all have our own particular bias and preferences although I do try to remain objective. It's fine for an author to publish his theories and ideas but the difference between opinion and fact should always be apparent. Honesty should be a prerequisite for authors.

Although the conclusion that the Ripper will never be identified is, realistically, unavoidable, that should not stop anyone having a preferred suspect or theory. The pleasure is in the search for a personal answer to the mystery.

[Kaspar]

I must hasten to say that I regard 'Kosminski' as a valid suspect in as much as he has been named in Macnaghten's 1894 report, by Anderson in his memoirs as a 'Polish Jew' and by Swanson in the annotations in the Anderson book. My argument has always been that he has been overrated by certain authors and students of the case.

There is no evidence to suggest that 'David Cohen' was ever a police suspect, this being merely a 1987 Martin Fido hypothesis. I do not agree with his theorising and I think that statements accredited to various police officials, including Anderson, obviate Cohen as a viable suspect. I have discussed this in the past and it is a point upon which Paul Begg and I, in this instance, both agree.

Thank you for your reply Stewart, as one of the leading researchers into JtR I value your opinion a lot.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cohen

Stewart,
from what I gather from your posts Kosminski is a no-go as a suspect as there too many flaws. But what is your opinion on David Cohen?

I must hasten to say that I regard 'Kosminski' as a valid suspect in as much as he has been named in Macnaghten's 1894 report, by Anderson in his memoirs as a 'Polish Jew' and by Swanson in the annotations in the Anderson book. My argument has always been that he has been overrated by certain authors and students of the case.

There is no evidence to suggest that 'David Cohen' was ever a police suspect, this being merely a 1987 Martin Fido hypothesis. I do not agree with his theorising and I think that statements accredited to various police officials, including Anderson, obviate Cohen as a viable suspect. I have discussed this in the past and it is a point upon which Paul Begg and I, in this instance, both agree.

[Stewart P Evans]

Historical Sources

...
"More likely, at that moment Aaron Kosminski, as a good bet to be the fiend, was not yet on their radar."
And this was my initial objection. If you want, you can go ahead and toss out everything... Anderson Swanson, Macnaghten, whatever. I prefer to try to interpret historical documents using an Occam's razor approach... the simplest answer is likely to be the correct one. For this reason, I prefer to read the Swanson marginalia and other sources at face value, accepting that there may be errors (of memory confusion, etc) in any document. Of course this does not always work, especially when you are dealing with secondary sources (newspaper reporters, etc.) But Swanson was right in the thick of the investigation. He is a primary source. It is not (presumably) hearsay. And the tone of the marginalia also "reads" in my opinion, as if he was very well acquainted with what he is talking about.. indeed to me it seems likely that he was probably there during the ID.
This is why I brought up the subject of memory, and why I did some reading on it... on what people forget. On how memory works, what types of facts they will forget. In short... most people tend to forget the smaller details of events, but they do not forget larger things, and especially important things. If Anderson or Swanson actually believed they knew who the Ripper was, then they would not have (both) forgot who the witness was, or confused large and important aspects of the situation. They may have forgot exactly when crtain things occurred, or where (Stepney Workhouse)... they would not have forgot who the suspect was, or the major details of the incident. I for example remember going to my brother's wedding. I can tell you who his wife is, but I can't really remember where it took place, or even when exactly. In summer or spring probably. You forget things that your brain decides are not important, especially if your brain does not "rehearse" the memory.

I think that most of us would agree that the best way to interpret historical sources is to go for the simplest and most uncomplicated answer. However, that involves a little more than simply reading them 'at face value'.

There will always be errors, confusion of memory and other factors to consider. Unfortunately although you are quoting Swanson as a 'primary source' what he says is inevitably devalued by the fact that it is in the form of pencil annotations made in a book over 22 years after the event. Not only that, there are indications that the most important part of those annotations were probably written much later than that, thus increasing the probability of error and confused memory.

There is nothing to indicate that Swanson (or Anderson for that matter) was present at any identification and in this case Swanson's words that the suspect was 'sent by us' rather than 'taken by us' is suggestive of his non-presence. The fact that the suspect (i.e. Aaron Kosminski) was still alive in 1895 and post 1910 when Swanson stated he was dead is surely a 'larger thing' and not a 'smaller detail' thus belying the memory argument.

[Kaspar]

Stewart,

from what I gather from your posts Kosminski is a no-go as a suspect as there too many flaws. But what is your opinion on David Cohen?

[Stewart P Evans]

A Good Case

...
So your theory is basically that Anderson completely blanked out the whole Sadler thing from his memory, and somehow combined the Sadler events with Pizer's identification in 1888. And that the reason Anderson and Swanson seem to agree on this is that one or the other of them was the "source" of the story, and the other was just regurgitating what he had been told. You also argue that the Police would not have bothered to investigate Sadler as the Ripper if Anderson already knew the Ripper's identity.

In short, I think the whole "confusion" theory is too confusing. Yes (as I see Stewart has just written), it is a remarkable coincidence that the Coles murder happened right around the time Kozminski was committed to an asylum. I do not see that it goes much farther than this. As to the point about the Police not have bothering to investigate Sadler if Anderson already knew the Ripper's identity:

a) There was no hard evidence against Kozminski, which would convict him. Anderson admits this on several occasions.
b) Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" was, in my opinion, more along the lines of a very strong suspicion of guilt, without absolute proof. In other words, a "moral certainty," to Anderson's mind. Despite Anderson's reference to "definitely ascertained fact" the more accurate reading of his words is "moral certainty." This was a topic he returned to over and over again in reference to the Ripper case. In short it means a strong suspicion, without absolute proof.
c) There was apparently disagreement at SY over who was the best suspect in the case. Swanson may have agreed with Anderson or not. Macnaghten apparently, did not. However, it is common for various detectives working a case to have different favored suspects. This is why I made the comparison to the Green River killer case.
d) It is quite possible that many of the facts surrounding the Kozminski inquiry were kept as a guarded secret. Swanson (arguably) alludes to such a scenario in the marginalia. Also, such a tactic would have been par for the course for people like Anderson and Monro, who were essentially Special Branch types.
e) When the Coles murder took place, the Ripper case was still an open case, technically speaking. So regardless of Anderson's "theory," or whatever you want to call it, the Police would have investigated any viable suspect that came along. After all, not everyone agreed with Anderson, and moreover, Anderson may have been wrong.

As I have pointed out I think there is a good case to be made for the whole identification story being contrived as a support for the otherwise unproven Kosminski theory.

As Rob correctly points out there was no hard evidence against Kosminski. A strong suspicion of guilt, which is surely subjective, does not amount to proof nor is it 'a definitely ascertained fact'. Needless to say, where there are suspects with a lack of proof as to their guilt we will often find a failure to reach any consensus amongst the ranks of the police.

I am not sure how much of what Rob states here is his own original thinking or is what he has taken aboard from Fido, and primarily, Begg, who have been arguing these points for many years. Needless to say the 'guarded secret' idea is an old Fido/Begg solution to answer the fact that there is no other police or official support for the Kosminski theory.

As regards the 'guarded secret' solution to this problem, perhaps we should consider it further. It is all very well suggesting that Anderson and Monro were 'essentially Special Branch types' but so was Littlechild and others. And whatever reason could there be within police circles to hush up a solution that offered up a mad 'poor Polish Jew' suspect?

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson

...
Actually, if you bother to actually read the source, it says "And after this identification which suspect knew no other murder of this kind took place in London." In my opinion, Swanson was implying that the suspect stopped killing because he was aware he was under Police surveillance. In any case, this implies that Swanson was referring to the C5 murders... and that he apparently did not think either McKenzie or Coles were Ripper murders. So is this a mistake on Swanson's part? It depends who he thought were actually Ripper victims. I am not actually sure whether Swanson believed McKenzie or Coles was a Ripper victim... maybe I will look it up later.
"and that the suspect died soon after" - as I have said many, many times, yes this is an error. It is the only demonstrable error in the marginalia, apart from the reference to Stepney workhouse, which, as I have written elsewhere, was an understandable mistake since MEOT was one of the largest workhouses in Stepney, and Stepney Workhouse was not even in Stepney when Swanson wrote the marginalia.
...

In May 1895 it was reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that "Mr Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead." In the endpaper annotations in the Anderson book Swanson wrote "...he was sent to Stepney Workhouse then to Colney Hatch and died soon afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect."

As we know Aaron Kosminski was still alive in 1910, let alone 1895! So we are asked to believe that the most notorious series killer of the age was to the knowledge of the police locked up in a lunatic asylum but that Swanson failed to follow his progress and was not even aware that he was still alive when he gave his opinion in 1895 and post 1910, and, in fact, lived until 1919. We are asked to accept that it was a simple 'mistake' by Swanson who appears to have been failing to keep tabs on this dangerous inmate.

It simply won't wash, the whole theory is seriously flawed and simply cannot be held up as the probable solution to the case. Both the McKenzie murder and the Coles murder were intially thought by the police to be possible Ripper murders at the initial stage, although this idea was not sustained.

[Stewart P Evans]

Investigation

...
The entire gist of this paragraph is entirely speculation. We do not know if Anderson was present at the ID, or if Swanson was, or if both were.
"Desk bound" - there are several examples of Anderson not being desk bound. He interviewed suspects personally, he involved himself personally in the Millet case, he went to Miller's Court. In my opinion, if a very serious suspect poppoed up, Anderson might have wanted to see this suspect in person, and may have personally involved himself in aspects of the inquiry.
...

We do not have any information on an identification, merely what Anderson and Swanson say, and the report of the attempted identification of Sadler.

The Assistant Commissioner is essentially a supervisory position and the fact that he turned up at a high-profile crime scene did not mean that he was actually investigating himself, this, of course, was done by the 'on the ground' detectives assigned to the case.

[Stewart P Evans]

A 'Fact'

...
There is no real evidence to show that Anderson did not believe in his theory as early as 1891, or even earlier. If you want to cite your sources, please do so. I am expecting you will simply fall back on your usual tactic, of referencing the theories of other people, namely Stewart Evans, and then expecting me to argue against them. I know Stewart and respect him greatly. But I do not agree with his idea that Anderson's "theory" evolved into a "fact" over the years.
...

Well, at least we have consensus on one point, it was only a theory on Anderson's part and not a 'definitely ascertained fact.'

When taking into account all the references to the Polish Jew theory over the years there is every reason to think that Anderson's theory started life as merely that, a theory, but by 1910 hardened into a 'fact'.