Druitt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The suspect that Macnaghten was especially interested in was Druitt. So is your suggestion here that Mac's noting that Druitt had died may have caused Swanson to think that Kosminski was dead?

No.

I am suggesting that, having read Macnaghten's Memorandum, Swanson could hardly have believed that Kosminski was dead; and that the dead suspect he had in mind in 1895 was in fact the same as Macnaghten's.

I do not know what caused Swanson to think 15 or more years later that Kosminski had died before 1895.

It could be that he confused him with Druitt, or it could be that Kosminski's early death was part of the tall story that Anderson evidently told him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Valid speculation. Nothing definitive.

I did not state in my # 447 that you were definite about there having been two Kosminskis.

I wrote that you suggested it.

I would not call it valid speculation.

It is obviously far fetched.

[Lewis C]

Would you not agree with me, however, that it is quite a coincidence that Swanson was reported in 1895 to believe that the murderer was a certain dead person and that only the year before, Macnaghten had recorded that the suspect he was especially interested in had died soon after the last murder in the series?

Is it really believable that these two men were coincidentally expressing their views that the murderer was a certain dead person, that the press knew not only of Swanson's opinion but of the strong opinion at Scotland Yard that the murderer was dead, and yet that the two men were unaware of each other's opinion?

The suspect that Macnaghten was especially interested in was Druitt. So is your suggestion here that Mac's noting that Druitt had died may have caused Swanson to think that Kosminski was dead?

[Scott Nelson]

Valid speculation. Nothing definitive.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Kelly was the last in the series, Kosminski had no known accomplice.

The actual "Kosminski" police suspect, when he was caught, may have implicated Aaron, a relative already incarcerated as a lunatic, as an accomplice to the murders.

An Alternate Kosminski Suspect and Police Witness: Some Perspectives and Points to Ponder

Scott Nelson

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html

Or, just maybe, Aaron Kosminski was an accomplice of another family member. Maybe the arrest of Aaron provided information which led the police to the real suspect?

Coles, Kosminski and Levy – was there a Victim/Suspect/Witness connection?

Scott Nelson

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-ckl.html

[Scott Nelson]

Swanson: The Life and Times of a Victorian Detective by Adam Wood.

Essential reading for participants in this discussion (less Druitt).

https://www.amazon.com/Swanson-Life-.../dp/1911273868

[Scott Nelson]

Kosminski had an alibi for the Coles murder!

That has not, however, prevented Scott Nelson from suggesting that there were two Kosminskis - Aaron and an accomplice - which leaves open the possibility that a Kosminski committed the Coles murder.

Anderson and Macnaghten both considered the murder of Kelly to be the last in the series.

Kelly was the last in the series, Kosminski had no known accomplice.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Careful. That's not actually in evidence. Let's proceed with caution.

1. First off, we don't know that Swanson read Macnaghten's 'Confidential' 1894 memo. He could have done, but there is no direct evidence for it.

Finally, and--this is highly relevant to this conversation--I'm not really insisting that Swanson WAS referring to a dead Polish Jewish suspect in the 1895 Pall Mall Gazette article. I did make this suggestion back in 2003, but theoretically, he could have been referring to someone else--Druitt for instance--and his thoughts changed over the years.

I take your points, Roger.

It is true that I cannot prove that Swanson read Macnaghten's first draft of his memorandum by the time that he was reported in 1895 to believe that the murderer was dead.

Would you not agree with me, however, that it is quite a coincidence that Swanson was reported in 1895 to believe that the murderer was a certain dead person and that only the year before, Macnaghten had recorded that the suspect he was especially interested in had died soon after the last murder in the series?

Is it really believable that these two men were coincidentally expressing their views that the murderer was a certain dead person, that the press knew not only of Swanson's opinion but of the strong opinion at Scotland Yard that the murderer was dead, and yet that the two men were unaware of each other's opinion?

Although mention of Kosminski's still being alive was not made in the final version of the memorandum, the fact is that having mentioned that he was still alive, Macnaghten wrote nothing about his being dead.

In the circumstances, if Swanson had had any doubts, he could hardly have failed to check for himself, in which case he would have realised that Kosminski was alive.

[rjpalmer]

How can Swanson have believed in 1895 that Kosminski, aged 29, was dead when he had read the year before that he was still alive?

Careful. That's not actually in evidence. Let's proceed with caution.

1. First off, we don't know that Swanson read Macnaghten's 'Confidential' 1894 memo. He could have done, but there is no direct evidence for it.

2. More importantly, Macnaghten doesn't say that 'Kosminski' is still alive. He states in the rough draft that he thinks Kosminski is still confined, but in the final draft that comment has been removed, and, in fact, Macnaghten refers to Kosminski in the past tense (though it is fair to note that he also refers to Ostrog in the past tense):

"Kosminski, a Polish Jew, & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specifically of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies; he was removed to a lunatic asylum around March 1889. There were many strong 'circs' connected with this man which made him a strong "suspect."

That the line removed from the Aberconway version is the very part about Macnaghten thinking that Kosminski was still in the asylum undercuts your argument. Macnaghten seems to have changed his mind--or someone changed it for him.

3. There seems to be a growing sense in some circles that a mistake has been made and that 'Kosminski' is not Aaron Kosminski. I personally find this difficult to accept, but others do not. It's quite a complex series of arguments and can't be reduced to a simple sound bite.

Finally, and--this is highly relevant to this conversation--I'm not really insisting that Swanson WAS referring to a dead Polish Jewish suspect in the 1895 Pall Mall Gazette article. I did make this suggestion back in 2003, but theoretically, he could have been referring to someone else--Druitt for instance--and his thoughts changed over the years. I have speculated this myself on a number of occasions, just as Chris George and Jon and George from Oz and others have. People's reasoning isn't static, so we can't confidently assume that Swanson's was, either. So, your own thoughts on the matter are worthy of consideration.

In the final analysis, we only have access to a journalist paraphrasing Swanson in 1895. As I wrote clear back in 2003, it's not 'much to go on.' It still isn't.

[GBinOz]

I have to say that I can’t see why it’s such an unlikely suggestion either George.

Thank you Herlock. I appreciate your expressing your opinion.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

I know that is not the answer you are looking for, but we might be making too many assumptions in expecting Swanson to be directly involved in the ID.

Yes, I agree that it is best not to assume that, especially since there are other indications that point toward the ID being earlier than 1896.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Indeed, 'those were the days.' This is an old battle with some familiar combatants.

How can Swanson have believed in 1895 that Kosminski, aged 29, was dead when he had read the year before that he was still alive?

[rjpalmer]

It's not a new suggestion, way back in the archives you should find myself & Chris George both agreeing that the Marginalia does not suggest Swanson was claiming that Kozminski was also his suspect.

Indeed, 'those were the days.' This is an old battle with some familiar combatants.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon. I said the same thing on another thread and Steve commented that he'd never seen that idea expressed before and couldn't believe that anyone would think it. Nice to know I'm not entirely on my own, on this opinion at least.

Cheers, George

It's not a new suggestion, way back in the archives you should find myself & Chris George both agreeing that the Marginalia does not suggest Swanson was claiming that Kozminski was also his suspect.

[Wickerman]

Thank you Wickerman and PI for your responses. I had a thought though: If the ID took place no earlier than 1896, it seems odd that Swanson said that after the ID, "no other murder of this kind took place in London".[ It's unclear which murders would qualify as being "of this kind", but even if we include the Coles murder, that was in 1891. The murders would have already stopped long before the ID.

The ID had to take place in or after 1890, the year the Seaside Home opened, but you are asking about a comment made by Swanson in or after 1918.
Even the best of people make mistakes, memory is not the most reliable source, you can inadvertently telescope events together that in reality happened years apart, and vice versa. I would say if it is not an exaggeration by Swanson, he could have been repeating something he heard Anderson say.

Certainly, Swanson should have had firsthand knowledge of something as important as an ID of a Ripper suspect if he was still in the same position Warren put him in. I don't know if he was, much of the investigation relaxed the year after the Kelly murder, so methods may have changed.

I think the main problem with answering your question is, we like to think Swanson had to be involved. If he wasn't, was he on vacation, was he off sick?
If he was not directly involved, I mean not present for the ID, then there is your answer.
I know that is not the answer you are looking for, but we might be making too many assumptions in expecting Swanson to be directly involved in the ID.