The only patient who fits Anderson's account?

[robhouse]

Jonathan,

How mature of you.

I am not clear exactly what I wrote that you took offense at. Knowing how you tend to respond, I took care to be simple and to the point.

If you had said something like: "I believe that the Police might not have learned about Kozminski until after he was in the asylum," I would have had no argument with you. Instead you stated (unless I misinterpreted) this, as if it was a known fact. I simply said that no one knows when, or why Kozminski came to the attention of the Police. What is so difficult to get?

You say: "Note that the substance of the rest of what I had posted is never dealt with? "

You know, your implication is that I cannot "deal with" your "challenging" theories. On the other hand, you present yourself as this maverick, judiciously and objectively assessing the material. In fact, I choose not to "deal with" your theory because there is no substance in it. It is just speculation. You seem to think not, but I don't really want to get into it.

You dismiss the Swanson marginalia. Fine. Let me just say... in a nutshell... I did not agree with Sugden's idea that Anderson and Swanson had both become delusional (living in a world of wish-dreams), nor do I agree with Evans and Rumbelow's "confusion theory" (Sadler), since it does not address the fact that the witness was clearly Jewish.

But I don't really see any point in continuing, since we are obviously working off different premises.

RH

[Jonathan H]

To Kasper

See what I mean?

In he swoops with a predictable lack of humour, and always with the tail-ender about not engaging with that infantile bastard from Down Under [my words] having done just exactly that -- of course this leaves me no opportunity to defend myself because my accuser has turned on his heel and left the building.

Kasper, I certainly do not 'dismiss' the Swanson Marginalia. I believe that it can be argued it is backing Anderson's claim that Kosminski was known to investigators before he was incarcerated.

I just think that on balance that argument is terminally weak.

By the way, on another current thread I defended the Marginalia on the basis that it was a private notation and therefore not encumbered by the need to please anybody but himself. And, that it was by not just any policeman but the operational head of the Ripper case who made this notation -- who named Kosminski.

In that same post, I also defended Anderson on the basis that he was the top cop of the whole case, who I believe was not an Anti-Semite, and who had the moral fortitude to not succumb to the intense pressure of just handing over to the baying mob -- and the wobbly Home Sec. -- any wretch to satisfy the hysterical clamour for a positive result.

Notice that this Buff gives me no support for any of that.

Not so much as a sausage.

Why not?

Perhaps he did not see it?

Let's be charitable.

Or, being uncharitable, perhaps because in the same post I put Kosminkis at Number 3, after Druitt and Tumblety, and challenged the holy orthodoxy about Anderson being not only sincere but also 100% accurate about his Polish Jew suspect.

As I write, every time, I mostly agree with the thinking of Rumbelow and Evans, two big guns, yet I am some described as some kind of appalling 'maverick'.

I believe that the Anderson-Buff's line of interpretation of the Marginalia -- that it straight-forwardly backs Anderson -- is weak compared to examining the other surviving primary and early secondary sources which, assessed in their totality, more likely show that there was, in 1891, not yet a 'definitely ascertained fact' about a Polish Jew suspect being the Ripper even in Anderson's mind.

Furthermore that Anderson can be shown to be a very unreliable, fumbling, even grumpy source in terms of his writings about the mystery in 1910. That the stronger theory is that suspects are being mixed and matched, either by accident or deliberately [of the latter, I personally think not].

That the Marginalia can be interpreted as Anderson's opinion as recorded by Swanson [my theory] or that the desk-bound, reclusive Anderson, who never obsessed over the case after it was done with, was misled in retirement by Swanson's self-sevingly, failing memory [Evans and Rumbelow, 2006].

After all, there are glaring errors in the Marginalia -- which I personally do not think are Swanson's fault at all. It says that once 'Kosminski' [no first name, you notice] was incarcerated there were no more murders of this kind [yes there was: Frances Coles mere days later] and that the suspect died soon after [no he didn't, that's Druitt after the Kelly murder as Kosminski was still alive until 1919].

This is what this fellow claims is just 'speculation' as if his interpretation is both strong and the most convincing. Arguably it is neither, but he never deals with any of this head on -- which is a shame because I would love to see how the sources can be interpreted in such a contrary way if it can be done credibly and not just, dare I say it, speculatively?

He also makes an error in writing that the Evans/Rumbelow theory founders because it does not address the fact that the witness was clearly Jewish.

To be fair, I am sure that he meant to write 'suspect', not witness, because we all make errors trying to squeeze out these posts between everything else crowding our lives.

On the surface this seems like a strong point.

After all, how could Anderson and/or Swanson make such a glaring error, even factoring in fading memories, in such a sectarian-conscious age?

To confuse a Gentile sailor, Tom Sadler, with a poor Polish Jew, Kosminski?

I counter-argue that what Anderson does is not 'confuse' Sadler and Kosminski, but instead that Kosminski's incarceration in Feb 1891, and the arrest of Sadler later that month for the Coles murder-- and being 'confronted' by the Jewish witness Lawende who disappointingly said 'no' -- have been redacted back into 1888.

You see, Sadler is a figure in the Ripper investigation of early 1891. If Anderson had written also about the events of 1891, of the murder of Frances Coles, of getting in this Jewish witness who said 'no' to the sailor but then said a treacherous 'yes' to a Polish Jew suspect -- then this theory of a Anderson the Reliable, as put by another big gun: Paul Begg, would stand on firmer ground.

Instead what we actually see is that Anderson in 1910 has not substituted Sadler for Kosminski; rather he has obliterated the events of 1891 entirely.

1891 does not exist at all.

To only read Anderson you would be under the impression that the Ripper investigation petered out in early 1889, never to be reactivated. That some time before that loose date a Jewish witness had let them down over a Jewish suspect.

In fact, the Ripper hunt had a spectacular anti-climax in Feb/March 1891.

Not according to Anderson.

Therefore it makes sense that Anderson's fading, self-serving memory is recasting what happened to better suit his ego, especially if you realise that Rumbelow's theory from 1975 that Pizer [and his usless 'witness'] is also being half-remembered in a mental train-wreck at a distance of 22 years.

Because what Anderson does is not just remove Tom Sadler from existence in the case, but also the victim Frances Coles.

Quite understandably, because it was hugely embarassing to a man with a pretty high opinion of himself and his abilities. This is why Inspector Reid, in 1910, scoffs at Anderson's claims, because they leave out the 'last' Ripper victim: Coles. For whose murder they arrested a Gentile, and had him face a Jewish witness who said 'no'.

Why would you investigate Sadler as 'Jack' -- and in the glare of the vulture-tabloids -- if you already had the Ripper rotting in a nuthouse?

Because of course they wouldn't, not if they were sure.

More likely, at that moment Aaron Kosminksi, as a good bet to be the fiend, was not yet on their radar.

This always-provisional theory creates a through-line without loose ends regarding the sources, which are a vertigo-inducing puzzle without it. Its a theory, but the best one we now have.

But why does Anderson not remember the events of 1891?

Why does he also now remember in 1910 these definitive Ripper machinations of 1888/9, about which no other policeman backs him -- except maybe Swanson, also at the remove of over two decades?

The simple, straight-forward answer is that the events of 1889/9 are actually the events of 1891, remade and redacted -- as aging, fading memory does -- creating a much better story in which you look triumphant, and the smartest person in the room, and your critics look like the ignorant swine you always dismissed them as.

That is not suspect confusion, it is a suspect remake.

There is even the satisfying justice provided by Swanson and/or Anderson that although the insane Ripper could never be brought before a court he did, rest assured, expire soon after.

Tall tales, of course, are supposed to have satisfying endings in a way that messy, real life more often does not.

Anyhow, Kasper, it is one of the great theories of the case so please get a hold of the Evans/Rumbelow book as they argue it all a lot better than I do.

[robhouse]

Jonathan,

I will be charitable here. You may be surprised to learn that I have just now read your article again... giving you the benefit of the doubt. I have read it twice now. In my opinion, you have some interesting ideas, but you are still on the wrong track.

That said, I still disagree with what you wrote in the article, and in these posts. I do not see how anyone reading that previous post could (assuming they can make sense of what you are talking about) come to any conclusion other than that it is your own personal speculation over what may have happened. As opposed to fact, which was my problem with your post earlier today.

"The Anderson-Buff's line of interpretation of the Marginalia" is simple. Swanson said Kozminski was watched at his brother's home after the ID. Hence (unless we are to dismiss this) he was a suspect before being incarcerated. Your answer to this is twofold:

1. You open up about 100 different non-related issues, and attack me personally, and bring up all sorts of issues that have nothing to do with my initial objection to you post.

2. You brush off Swanson's statement as either lying, failed memory, confusion, self-aggrandizement ... whatever.

As to #1: I have answered most, if not all, of the points you raised before, elsewhere, on various threads, and I do not have time to do it again.

To #2: I do not agree with your assessment of this. Nor do I agree with your tendency to see all the Police officials as infighting, clueless, confused and petty people, whose primary concern is self-serving protection of their reputations etc.

OK? Can we leave it at that?

RH

[Jonathan H]

To Kasper

Just to be clear, I am not writing to him I am writing you.

He's as regular as clockwork. He attacks me first [I was not even writing to him as its pointless] but somehow I am to blame for defending myself.

You must be wondering if I am really both people, as it is like he is following my script, a repetetive script at that; once again we have the same pitiful tail-ender: that's enough you bastard now don't dare reply.

Notice how he does not deal with what I actually wrote. And that the theory of suspect confusion was the brilliant idea of Rumbelow and Evans, and that to interpret the Anderson of 1910 and Swanson of that year, his way, means not to face that this DOES NOT MATCH any of the other sources.

Oh, that's all brushed aside as '100 non-related issues'.

But then it has to be brushed aside doesn't it ...? Or else down goes the house of cards.

Anyhow, Kasper, before we were interrupted, I hope that what I wrote before clarifies your questions about Lawende, Kosminski, Sadler and Grainger.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Confusion Theory'

...
You dismiss the Swanson marginalia. Fine. Let me just say... in a nutshell... I did not agree with Sugden's idea that Anderson and Swanson had both become delusional (living in a world of wish-dreams), nor do I agree with Evans and Rumbelow's "confusion theory" (Sadler), since it does not address the fact that the witness was clearly Jewish.

It is natural that we do not all share the same theories and ideas and that we disagree over certain points.

Phil Sugden's examination of the Kosminski theory is detailed and valid and whilst you might not agree with him it still remains a possible answer to the conundrum. As has been stated the whole Anderson theory might be based on Swanson's word only, as opposed to Swanson corroborating Anderson, anyway. It is also very relevant that not a whiff of a 'definitely ascertained fact' as to the identity of the murderer appeared until 1910 - some twenty plus years after the murders, and then in a boastful and self-aggrandizing memoir.

The so-called 'confusion theory' as regards Sadler is actually based on the fact that there was the amazing coincidence, in February 1891, of the detention of Kosminski immediately followed by the arrest of Sadler for the Coles murder and the police suspicion that he was the Ripper, supplying all the ingredients for the identification deception of Swanson/Anderson which does not require the suspect to be Jewish (a Begg argument) given that Swanson and Anderson probably deliberately deceived.

What is a totally untenable idea is that the police should be certain of the identity of the Ripper but that only one man, Anderson, ever stated such a thing with the questionable 'support' of a second, Swanson. All other police authorities denied the notion that the identity of the Ripper was known.

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson and Anderson

It is should be noted that the two senior police officers who had the most vested interest in the Ripper case, and whose reputation the unsolved series of murders most significantly touched upon, were Anderson, head of the CID at the time, and Swanson, who had been given personal charge of the investigation.

There is ample evidence to show that these unsolved murders remained relevant to these two men over the years and that, signally, they are the very two senior officers whose word we are asked to accept that the police actually knew who the killer was and that he was successfully incarcerated in an asylum. All this, it must be said, without a jot of hard evidence. So we are asked to accept their word as neither had any reason to deceive and Anderson simply would not state an untruth in his published work.

Sorry, I am not that naive. We also have no explanation as to why Anderson should claim in a previous book, Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement (1907), that he had 'definite confirmation' of his statement that it was one Arthur O'Keefe who had written the allegedly forged 'Parnell letter' of May 15, 1882, whilst history records the forger as Richard Pigott.

The parallel to his 'definitely ascertained fact' as to the identity of the Ripper in The Lighter Side of My Official Life in 1910 is glaringly obvious.

[robhouse]

Against my better judgement, I will reply to your post. I am going to skip addressing your rude personal insults.

(ie. "In he swoops with a predictable lack of humour..." "my accuser has turned on his heel and left the building..." "the Buff", "the Anderson-Buff," etc)

"I believe that the Anderson-Buff's line of interpretation of the Marginalia -- that it straight-forwardly backs Anderson -- is weak compared to examining the other surviving primary and early secondary sources which, assessed in their totality, more likely show that there was, in 1891, not yet a 'definitely ascertained fact' about a Polish Jew suspect being the Ripper even in Anderson's mind. "

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.

"That the Marginalia can be interpreted as Anderson's opinion as recorded by Swanson [my theory] or that the desk-bound, reclusive Anderson, who never obsessed over the case after it was done with, was misled in retirement by Swanson's self-sevingly, failing memory [Evans and Rumbelow, 2006]."

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.

"who never obsessed over the case after it was done with" - Anderson wrote numerous times about the case after it was done with, said on many occasions that the Police knew who the Ripper was, that the police were unfairly blamed for not catching him, and that they were hampered by legal procedures etc.

"It says that once 'Kosminski' [no first name, you notice] was incarcerated there were no more murders of this kind..."


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.

"To only read Anderson you would be under the impression that the Ripper investigation petered out in early 1889, never to be reactivated. That some time before that loose date a Jewish witness had let them down over a Jewish suspect."

Where are you pulling these dates from. What did Anderson ever write that suggests that the identification took place before early 1889?

"I counter-argue that what Anderson does is not 'confuse' Sadler and Kosminski, but instead..." etc, etc.

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.

"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.

[Kaspar]

To Jonathan H

My knowledge of the case is severely limited compared to must people on these boards. Only within the last couple of months I discovered the Ripper podcasts and my level of knowledge has increased by these - I am still hoping for a special on Jacob Levy and a one-on-one with Don Rumbelow.

Anyway I am not able to put any arguments towards must theories that appear on these boards, my knowledge is too limited. I follow the boards from time to time because it is the primary source for new information about the murders.

I agree that Rumbelow and Evans are at the top when it comes to researching this. I would however also place Begg and Fido at the summit.

I find David Cohen as a suspect more likely than a lot of other suspects (Jacob Levy is a prime suspect for me as well), when someone like Fido put the theory forward that lends credence to me. The Druitt as a suspect case is intrigueing, but to me there is to little liking him to the area.

I will try and pick up the Rumbelow/Evans book you mentioned as I sounds like a very good read.

Finally do you think that Cohen is a no-go or could he still be a valid suspect?

[Jonathan H]

To Kasper

Yes I think Cohen is a viable suspect, and Fido argues it ingeniously, if originally somewhat convolutedly, but he faced something that the previous a poster and a big gun like Begg has not, or not quite.

That the theme of Anderson, by 1910 -- and the Marginalia -- is that the Ripper was efficiently zeroed in on by Scotland Yard amongst a spcific minority group in a specific location, an individual was suspected, then positively identified but by a Judas, then fortuitiously banged up in an asylum soon after the 'autumn of terror' [Swanson records that he even deied soon afterwards].

This does not fit Kosminski, who seems mostly too docile to be a serial killer in Fido's estimation and many others [not mine], and who was not incarcerated until years later -- whereas it does fit the insane, violent and sort-of 'soon after' dead David Cohen.

This is a solid theory, with a serious flaw, a fatal one for me. That is that there is no direct reference to such a suspect, with that name, in the admittedly meagre police files which remain to us.

In my opinion, Fido is falling for Anderson's fading memory; his redaction of the unsatisfying events of 1891 projected back into 1888, and rendered mostly satisfying.

But do your own research. It's all theoretical and that's the fun of the puzzle.

As for the previous poster to yourself -- yes, he was right for once, it was against his better judgement.

[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'.

[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]

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]

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?

[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]

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.