Mr Blotchy

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, I'm familiar with what Anderson said, so why does his claim not settle the matter?

As for Swanson & his margin notes. The fact that Kozminski died in 1919 and Swanson wrote that the Anderson suspect was Kozminski, and that he was dead, only serves to date the marginalia after 1919. Otherwise, Swanson was wrong.

And, if Swanson was wrong (because he made the same claim in 1895), then what does that do to your claim - " it surely must have happened".
Making such an error devalues your supposedly credible source, doesn't it?

[J6123]

Yes, I'm familiar with what Anderson said, so why does his claim not settle the matter?

As for Swanson & his margin notes. The fact that Kozminski died in 1919 and Swanson wrote that the Anderson suspect was Kozminski, and that he was dead, only serves to date the marginalia after 1919. Otherwise, Swanson was wrong.

And, if Swanson was wrong (because he made the same claim in 1895), then what does that do to your claim - " it surely must have happened".
Making such an error devalues your supposedly credible source, doesn't it?

I 'tend' to believe Anderson's claim. I would say his claim is the best thing we have to go on because he was in a position to know. But he doesn't name the supposed murderer. But clearly he's saying the killer was a mad polish Jew from Whitechapel who went into an asylum.

Swanson Marginalia. I believe Swanson wrote that the suspect died shortly after being sent to Colney Hatch. I think Martin Fido's theory - the Kosminski/Cohen confusion - is the most compelling by far.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

It matters not, they are all nothing more than opinions, and opinions are of no evidential value in the grand scheme of things.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But it should be noted that no other police officers who were involved in the investigation ever mention anything about this so called ID parade. Now to me I find that very strange. Who escorted the so called suspect to the seaside? Surely not Anderson and Swanson on their own. There is nothing recorded anywhere to show it actually happened other than in these two officers later ramblings.

It should also be noted that Macnaghten was Swanson's immediate superior yet he mentions nothing, and I would have expected him to have known. In fact he eliminates the suspect he named as Kosminiski.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

Hi, Wick, I take your point but when Abberline was interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette he had a sheaf of documents in front of him. Were these personal notes or some official? I am not sure. He also said they made no fewer than 1600 sets of papers regarding the investigation. I can imagine the filing system would be haphazard compared to today. If bits where taken by senior officers,[even after they retired, would they still have access, personal favours etc?], for their own private collection/memoirs I can imagine some confusion reigned and people would have to rely on memory. Regarding Kosminski I have long thought that he was a City police suspect, Sagar? If he was just being investigated for the Eddowes murder by them. Again maybe some confusion if the separate police forces didn't correlate their info properly. Just a few thoughts

[Batman]

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.

Sadler was connected to a Whitechapel Murder and became an official ripper suspect. This was sufficient for Macnaughton's police force to get Lawende for him to have a look. Lawende said it wasn't him... but that doesn't mean Sadler wasn't JtR. He was exonerated from the first four murders because he was at sea.

Why didn't Macnaughton use PC Smith if PC Smith is his best witness? Why wasn't he saying... hold off on Lawende, I got Smith!

The answer is clearly because Lawende was the witness of choice that the department was using, even under Macnaughton.

[Wickerman]

Sadler was connected to a Whitechapel Murder and became an official ripper suspect. This was sufficient for Macnaughton's police force to get Lawende for him to have a look. Lawende said it wasn't him... but that doesn't mean Sadler wasn't JtR. He was exonerated from the first four murders because he was at sea.

Why didn't Macnaughton use PC Smith if PC Smith is his best witness? Why wasn't he saying... hold off on Lawende, I got Smith!

The answer is clearly because Lawende was the witness of choice that the department was using, even under Macnaughton.

Using Lawende was not recorded in a police document, we learn it from the press.
The press are not likely to know if an internal ID was conducted using a policeman. The very fact we learn about the ID at all had to be because Lawende spoke about it, whereas a constable wouldn't.
Therefore, we are in no position to claim that Smith was not approached, but if Smith couldn't be sure, or declined to confirm Sadler, then they turn to the next best witness.
For some reason the police were adamant that Sadler had to be pursued even though it was obvious he was not the Whitechapel murderer.

[Scott Nelson]

As for Swanson & his margin notes. The fact that Kozminski died in 1919 and Swanson wrote that the Anderson suspect was Kozminski, and that he was dead, only serves to date the marginalia after 1919.

Maybe Swanson was referring to Cohen. What if Cohen's non-anglicised name was "Kosminski"?

[Batman]

Maybe Swanson was referring to Cohen. What if Cohen's non-anglicised name was "Kosminski"?

Fido's original book on this was bouncing around between both of those. I believe he suspected whoever wrote down the names of admitting in patients at the time would just write down some equivalent name they could pronounce or something.

[Wickerman]

Hi, Wick, I take your point but when Abberline was interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette he had a sheaf of documents in front of him. Were these personal notes or some official? I am not sure.

Hi Darryl.
Yes I noticed that.
Copies of police files, or his personal notes, who knows?
Probably not original police files.

He also said they made no fewer than 1600 sets of papers regarding the investigation. I can imagine the filing system would be haphazard compared to today.

I took that to mean 1600+/- files on the case.

If bits where taken by senior officers,[even after they retired, would they still have access, personal favours etc?], for their own private collection/memoirs I can imagine some confusion reigned and people would have to rely on memory.

I recall reading somewhere that one official (was it Mac.?), had a photo of Kelly in his drawer in his office. So, it looks like bits an pieces may have been pilfered from within.

Regarding Kosminski I have long thought that he was a City police suspect, Sagar? If he was just being investigated for the Eddowes murder by them. Again maybe some confusion if the separate police forces didn't correlate their info properly. Just a few thoughts

Kozminski does strike me are a good fit for the Duke Street (sailor?) suspect.
The forces apparently worked well together so the City may have undertook surveillance on behalf of the Met. from time to time.
Swanson did write that he & M'William, Chief of the City Police, met on a regular basis to share details on the case.

[J6123]

Maybe Swanson was referring to Cohen. What if Cohen's non-anglicised name was "Kosminski"?

I think that was probably the case Scott. I would go as far as to say that, if Swanson's "died shortly afterwards" comment is correct (and why would he make something like that up?), then surely he can only have been talking about David Cohen?

He was a young, mad polish Jew from Whitechapel who was listed as dangerous to self and others. He fits Mac's "later developed strong homicidal tendencies" comment and Anderson's description of "maniac' to a tee. His incarceration was I think late December 1888 and that would explain the end of the murders (that is if you believe the Ripper murders ended with Kelly - which I do). Mac wrote "Incarcerated about March 1889" and that's not too far off. And as Swanson said, taken to Colney Hatch under restraint and died shortly afterward (the "died" part fits Cohen uniquely, Fido has checked the records). He was also the same age as Kosminski and I believe he was listed as 'Aaron' originally (Aaron Davis Cohen)? So I can see why Fido was convinced he'd found the real suspect. Or at least the joint-best suspect along with Kosminski.

[J6123]

But it should be noted that no other police officers who were involved in the investigation ever mention anything about this so called ID parade. Now to me I find that very strange. Who escorted the so called suspect to the seaside? Surely not Anderson and Swanson on their own. There is nothing recorded anywhere to show it actually happened other than in these two officers later ramblings.

It should also be noted that Macnaghten was Swanson's immediate superior yet he mentions nothing, and I would have expected him to have known. In fact he eliminates the suspect he named as Kosminiski.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Yes, it is indeed strange, although Mac does mention that Kosminski was said to strongly resemble the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. Do you think some records could have been lost or some information suppressed? Do you think there could have been some 'unofficial' goings on? Anderson said in his book he was almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter, and in relation to that Swanson wrote 'known to head officials at Scotland Yard', and Swanson underlined the word "head" twice. So could it be that this ID parade was a pretty secret affair?

Yes, Mac went for Druitt over Kosminski I believe? He got Druitt's age and occupation wrong if I remember correctly, and he favoured the 'suicide' explanation for the murders ending.

[Varqm]

Look at the inquests again,who was the witness in the position to give a positive ID? Unless they had another witness who had a good look at the "suspect" and was not included in the inquests which I doubt,the inquests were clear enough and this was not the case.From those in the inquests only Mary Ann Cox said "I should know the man again, if I saw him.".PC William Smith could only say "but I did not notice him much." but perhaps he could.James Brown's man was facing the wall and Long saw the man fron the back.Schwartz (2 versions in one day,Sept.30) and Hutchinson were flaky witnesses and dropped.Swanson on Schwartz and Abberline on Hutch were wrong,at least on the day their opinions were written.
Lawende was used in Sadler's case and was their only witness - he had doubts and "Oh No" he could identify the man again and could not give a positive ID,Cohen or Kosminsky.

As posted before,What was the basis why the "suspect" was in the ID in the first place,if the "reasons" were masturbation,eating from the gutter and attack sister with a knife,or even roam at night,these are mild and not evidence.And they had all those years to mention the other evidence against him but always returned to those "reasons" which means there were no other reasons.Not really a positive ID.
Did the witness told Anderson' verbally he won't testify against the suspect because he was a fellow Jew or was it just a hunch/read?.
He did not say the witness verbally told him which would made it definite/unassailable proving his "detractors" wrong, so it was a hunch,
especially if Lawende was the witness.
So Anderson did not have a good basis for saying "positive ID" and "ascertained fact".

---

[Batman]

I think Macnaughten liked the idea that if a suspect coincidentally vanished or died or was put away that this explains why JtR 'stopped' with MJK. Druitt, Kozminski...

[chubbs]

Apologies if I'm covering old ground - I'm new here and I defy anyone to read this entire massive and amazing forum. So please be gentle with me if my thoughts are incorrect, illogical or covered elsewhere.


Timeline of events leading to the murder of MJK:
11.45pm - Mr Blotchy and an already-drunk Mary Jane Kelly go into her room at Miller's Court. He is carrying a pail of beer. She starts singing inside the room.
1.00am - Mary Jane Kelly is heard, still singing in her room.
2.00am - Mary Jane Kelly and another man go into her room Miller's Court, according to George Hutchinson.
3.00am - George Hutchinson states that he leaves the area at 3.00am, so the 2nd man was there for at least an hour.
4.00am - Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis, in separate rooms, hear a cry of 'murder'. This is probably the time Mary Jane Kelly is murdered.



My thoughts:
Firstly, does anyone know if prostitutes in Victorian London were hired by the hour, or were paid by result? - serious question, as you can see below.

1. The 1st man (Mr Blotchy) clearly left MJK's room before 2.00am. He spent less than 1hr 15mins in her room. Did he pay for an hour?

2. The 2nd man (was it also Mr Blotchy?) went back with MJK to her room at 2.00am. Probably not Blotchy, if we believe Hutchinson's description. He may also have left within an hour, if indeed he'd bought 'an hour's worth'. (If he did leave before 4.00am, he may have left the door unlocked, but if he didn't leave he was the murderer.)

3. Someone murdered MJK at approximately 4.00am.

• It could have been Mr Blotchy returning.
• It could have been the man 'seen' by George Hutchinson.
• It could have been someone else entirely, who simply turned up at approx 4.00am, went in through an unlocked door, strangled* the sleeping, drunk MJK (who woke up and cried, "Murder!" as she was being strangled) and then proceeded to carry out his maniacal deeds.

4. Whoever killed MJK, I believe he must already have known her, as a friend, an acquaintance or as a customer.


*Edit - or he may have just cut her throat?