Mr Blotchy

[Wickerman]

We don't?
By all means, explain this remark from the Aberconway version.

"He had got the victim behind a kind of stable door through which three Jews drove up to an Anarchist Club in Berners Street"

[Batman]

We need to keep the various police officials theories separate.
It's clear none of the officials agreed on who JtR was, or whether he died or was incarcerated.

If we can justify assuming Mac. confused the two Double-event murders, then we only have one PC who was known to have seen a genuine suspect, and that was PC Smith. This has nothing to do with Kozminski, that was Swanson/Anderson. Abberline is different again.
Then there is Reid, Arnold, and a handful of others.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-mysteryplay.html

I assume you are familiar with the MM here on Casebook, but the Aberconway version has a few differences and was published in The Ripperologist #124.

http://www.mangodesign.biz/rip124.pdf

It's the Aberconway version where we read "three Jews drove up to the Club...." which tends to indicate Mac. confused the two cases. Therefore the only known PC who did see a genuine suspect was PC Smith, none other.

If PC Smith was the best witness, then why did Swanson say that during the Brighton PC convalesce home parading of a suspect that it was a Jewish witness who IDed JtR and that they wouldn't testify because they were both Jewish? Surely if PC Smith saw her murderer, and likely isn't a Jew, then he can testify can he not? What was holding that back?

[Varqm]

https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Mary_Ann_Cox.html

If for some reason investigators dropped Hutchinson as a witness, one would think that their next best witness would, therefore, be Cox, not Lewende or Schwartz.

Yet they skipped Cox and went for Lewende, which doesn't make sense if they dropped Hutchinson. They would drop him because they would feel he didn't see JtR for whatever reason, but why should impact Cox as a witness?

Schwartz was a better witness than Lawende because he saw an assault and looked at the BS man or perhaps Pipeman longer,at least better than "I doubt I could identify the man again".Like Baxter's decision Schwartz was dropped too,like Hutchinson.They choose the worst witness in Lawende,but they had no choice.
Cox's sighting was around 12:00 AM ,far from the around 4 o'clock "Oh Murder" cry.But there was already a newspaper in 1888 I think which suggested Blotchy should be or should be the one investigated but I forgot which.


---

[Wickerman]

If PC Smith was the best witness, then why did Swanson say that during the Brighton PC convalesce home parading of a suspect that it was a Jewish witness who IDed JtR and that they wouldn't testify because they were both Jewish? Surely if PC Smith saw her murderer, and likely isn't a Jew, then he can testify can he not? What was holding that back?

I think we make the case more difficult by assuming each official opinion must be mutually supportive and they are not.

If Mac. thought PC Smith was the best witness, then what about Swanson.....or what about Anderson.....or what about Abberline?
Thats the wrong approach, Mac., Swanson & Abberline didn't agree on who the Ripper was, so we can't offer their individual comments as mutually supporting any given suspect.

Mac. doesn't mention the ID confirmation suggested by Anderson, and he suggests Kozminski & Druitt were equally suspect. Swanson doesn't tell anyone who he thinks the Ripper was, only that Anderson thought it was Kozminski.
Abberline didn't agree with any of his peers.

So lets not dismiss one official opinion because another doesn't agree, they have different suspects, so they are not going to agree.

[Batman]

I think we make the case more difficult by assuming each official opinion must be mutually supportive and they are not.

I don't think my question involves that requirement. They can all have contradictory suspects. However, the best witness is something else. It is the person who got the best look at JtR, right?

If Mac. thought PC Smith was the best witness, then what about Swanson.....or what about Anderson.....or what about Abberline?
Thats the wrong approach, Mac., Swanson & Abberline didn't agree on who the Ripper was, so we can't offer their individual comments as mutually supporting any given suspect.

Why should it matter that they have different suspects? A witness is a witness, right? And regardless of who their suspect is, a witness would likely be asked to view a suspect if an investigator had both.

So we are back to the original question...

If PC Smith was the best witness, then why did Swanson say that during the Brighton PC convalesce home parading of a suspect that it was a Jewish witness who IDed JtR and that they wouldn't testify because they were both Jewish? Surely if PC Smith saw her murderer, and likely isn't a Jew, then he can testify can he not?

[Wickerman]

I can see I will have to break it down.....

If PC Smith was the best witness,..

That was just Mac's opinion.
Anderson didn't think so, neither did Abberline.

......then why did Swanson say that during the Brighton PC convalesce home parading of a suspect that it was a Jewish witness who IDed JtR and that they wouldn't testify because they were both Jewish?

Because Anderson didn't agree with Mac., thats all.

....Surely if PC Smith saw her murderer, and likely isn't a Jew, then he can testify can he not?

He could, but Mac. did not make any claim that an ID occurred.

So which official opinion was wrong?
They can't both be right.
Therefore, as they clearly cannot both be right, then there is no point in expecting two different officials to make mutually supportive arguments.

See what I mean?

Mac. had a theory/suspect.
Anderson had a theory/suspect.
Abberline had a theory/suspect.
Much like here on Casebook. everyone has a different theory/suspect.

[Batman]

Surely Macs is least likely to be accurate because he was only brought onto the case a year after MJK was murdered, whereas the others were there, well at least Swanson was 'there' in the same way 'Abberline' was and some might say Swanson was the one who did most of the work overseeing overarching lines of evidence coming from different parts of the force. Makes sense that Mac would be confused if he was only learning about the case later and then recalling from memory, rather than people who learned about the case as it unfolded because they were there at the time working on it.

[Wickerman]

Surely Macs is least likely to be accurate because he was only brought onto the case a year after MJK was murdered, whereas the others were there, well at least Swanson was 'there' in the same way 'Abberline' was and some might say Swanson was the one who did most of the work overseeing overarching lines of evidence coming from different parts of the force. Makes sense that Mac would be confused if he was only learning about the case later and then recalling from memory, rather than people who learned about the case as it unfolded because they were there at the time working on it.

I think it is the date of writing that we should look at.
How long after 1888 did Swanson, or Anderson, or Abberline write down their opinions?

Mac. is surely the shortest time after 1888 (in 1894), and as he was not involved in the murders then his knowledge had to come from reading the files. Whereas, Swanson (in 1910), Anderson (in 1910) & Abberline (in 1903) are writing from memory, several decades after the murders.

So who should we think is likely to have the more accurate opinion?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think it is the date of writing that we should look at.
How long after 1888 did Swanson, or Anderson, or Abberline write down their opinions?

Mac. is surely the shortest time after 1888 (in 1894), and as he was not involved in the murders then his knowledge had to come from reading the files. Whereas, Swanson (in 1910), Anderson (in 1910) & Abberline (in 1903) are writing from memory, several decades after the murders.

So who should we think is likely to have the more accurate opinion?

Depends if they were writing from memory or they reinvolved themselves by going through what official files they could lay their hands on to maybe jog said memories.

[Scott Nelson]

Whereas, Swanson (in 1910), Anderson (in 1910) & Abberline (in 1903) are writing from memory, several decades after the murders.

Swanson opted his opinion in 1895.

[Wickerman]

Depends if they were writing from memory or they reinvolved themselves by going through what official files they could lay their hands on to maybe jog said memories.

Abberline resigned in 1892, Swanson retired in 1903, Anderson in 1901.
None of them will have access to any files after they leave the force.

[Wickerman]

Swanson opted his opinion in 1895.

Ah yes, "Mr Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead". (May 1895).
Druitt or Kozminski?

Was that truly the private opinion of Donald Swanson?
Except, Kozminski was not dead in 1895.

[Batman]

MacNaughton was Assistant Chief Constable of Scotland Yard's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from June 1889 to December 1890, when he was promoted to Chief Constable; a position he held until 1903.

Frances Coles in Swallow Gardens, on 13th February 1891 -- for which Thomas Sadler, a fireman, was arrested. Lewende was brought in to look to see if Sadler was the man he saw the night of Eddowes murder. He said not.

So under MacNaughton, Lewende, not a PC, was the witness he used for possible JtR identification.

[J6123]

Hello all,

Wickerman - Anderson said a positive ID of the Ripper took place. Swanson corroborated it. So for the Assistant Commissioner of the Met Police/Head of CID (at the time of the murders) to state this, and then the Chief Inspector (at the time of the murders) to back it up, it surely must have happened.

Swanson believing the Ripper died? I imagine it was his opinion yes - he mentioned the suspect's death in his marginalia.

[Wickerman]

MacNaughton was Assistant Chief Constable of Scotland Yard's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from June 1889 to December 1890, when he was promoted to Chief Constable; a position he held until 1903.

Frances Coles in Swallow Gardens, on 13th February 1891 -- for which Thomas Sadler, a fireman, was arrested. Lewende was brought in to look to see if Sadler was the man he saw the night of Eddowes murder. He said not.

So under MacNaughton, Lewende, not a PC, was the witness he used for possible JtR identification.

Which is just another example of why bringing Lawende in to identify Sadler supports no-one's theory.
The man seen by PC Smith clearly was not Sadler, and Sadler was not a Jew (per Anderson), and Sadler looked nothing like Chapman (per Abberline).

I don't know anyone who thinks Sadler looked like the man seen by Lawende in Duke St. either.
It's a puzzle all round.