Killer description and Suspect appearance

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Norma,

For what it is worth, I am arguing that the Schwartz interview with 'The Star' does not say pipe and does not say giant. Therefore, these details which appear in other sources maybe wrong, measured against Lawende's description of the man seen with Eddowes later that night

To Trevor,

It is Macnaghten who originally muddied the waters by reversing the ethnicity of the witness and suspect in the 1898, media-driven rewrite of his 1894 politically-driven Report, and in his 1914 memoirs.

Why did he do that? Poor memory is one explanation, but not the only one.

Lawende's description is a very good fit for Druitt rather than Tumblety [too tall and too old] or presumably Aaron Kosminski [he was younger and probably Slavic of feature rather than fair] but eyewitness descriptions are notoriously unreliable, then and now.

On the other hand. the police put great stock in Lawende who was confronted with only Gentile suspects: Sadler and Grainger, and Macnaghten -- who was certain about Druitt as Anderson was about his Polish Jew -- went to great lengths to wipe him from the history of the case in the public mind.

To Pirate

The reason it is not 'simple' about Kosminski being the fiend is that Anderson and Swanson seem to make a great many [self-serving] errors about their Polish Jew suspect.

They may well have sincerely communicated the truth as they understood it, but by 1910 their memories may also have become muddled or mistaken. The same can be argued about Macnaghten and Druitt [not so Littlechild who is much more accurate about Tumblety].

Aaron Kosminski appears in no official police source which has survived except the Mac Reports, and in both this suspect is dismissed by its author, perhaps wrongly, in favour of one who is his complete antithesis; an English gentleman with no business or residence in Whitechapel.

For what it is worth, I think that a strong historical argument can be made for Aaron Kosminski in spite of -- even because of -- Anderson's flaws as a late, primary source.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Pirate

The reason it is not 'simple' about Kosminski being the fiend is that Anderson and Swanson seem to make a great many [self-serving] errors about their Polish Jew suspect.

They make a number of errors agreed. It hasn’t been proved that these errors are self serving, that is pure speculation on your part. Besides we don’t actually know how many errors were made.

It isn’t particularly odd that they have made some errors, try remembering in detail something you did ten years ago? There simply will be gaps in your memory, especially if you have revisited that information in conversation at later times. Anderson clearly made errors as we know he must have gone back checked his notes and made alterations as his account in ‘TLSOMOL’ differs in detail from his earlier press feature.

They may well have sincerely communicated the truth as they understood it, but by 1910 their memories may also have become muddled or mistaken. The same can be argued about Macnaghten and Druitt [not so Littlechild who is much more accurate about Tumblety].

Again there is no factual evidence for this apart from Anderson claiming he was teird and mixing some stuff up after a long day. His memory wasn’t going anymore than some modern commentators today, who lets face it arn’t getting any younger.

Aaron Kosminski appears in no official police source which has survived except the Mac Reports, and in both this suspect is dismissed by its author, perhaps wrongly, in favour of one who is his complete antithesis; an English gentleman with no business or residence in Whitechapel.

Your not heading into that tierd old mantra that the Marginalia might be Fake are you? Or are you just ignoring ‘Kosminski was the suspect’?

For what it is worth, I think that a strong historical argument can be made for Aaron Kosminski in spite of -- even because of -- Anderson's flaws as a late, primary source.

Again your making an assumption for which there is no medical evidence apart from the fact that both Anderson and Swanson were suffering from what many around here themselves seem to be suffering. namely ‘that they weren’t getting any younger’.

So i agree with you that they were suffering from the same mental difficulties any human being would be faced with but not more than that.

General:

To make ‘Pipeman’ Liz’s killer we simply have to jump through a number of possibility hoops. For a start if he did persue Schwartz as he claimed the time frame is tight for him to return and kill Liz, as Mrs Mortimer is at her door around 12.50 (although admittedly if stood in her doorway her view directly south is not good)

Its simply more logical given the estimated time of death that Schwartz witnessed BSM attacking and killing Liz. If this was the case then from his angle (remember he had crossed the street) that BSM would have had his back to Schwartz, so if he did have a knife Schwartz couldn’t have seen it.

And while Schwartz story of a man stopping talking briefly and attacking an unknown prostitute might seem odd perhaps even irrational. It is not so strange if one factors in that the attacker might have been a ‘Schizophrenic asocial Lust killer’

It then becomes a simple matter of someone inside the yard spooking BSM and him leaving at a steady pace past Fanny’s door towards Mitre Square. Where he is spotted by church passage by three jewish gentleman leaving a club.

The fact remains that there is nothing in the witness statements and suspect descriptions that appear to rule this possibility out.

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

To Pirate

The reason it is not 'simple' about Kosminski being the fiend is that Anderson and Swanson seem to make a great many [self-serving] errors about their Polish Jew suspect.

They make a number of errors agreed. It hasn’t been proved that these errors are self serving, that is pure speculation on your part. Besides we don’t actually know how many errors were made.

It isn’t particularly odd that they have made some errors, try remembering in detail something you did ten years ago? There simply will be gaps in your memory, especially if you have revisited that information in conversation at later times. Anderson clearly made errors as we know he must have gone back checked his notes and made alterations as his account in ‘TLSOMOL’ differs in detail from his earlier press feature.

They may well have sincerely communicated the truth as they understood it, but by 1910 their memories may also have become muddled or mistaken. The same can be argued about Macnaghten and Druitt [not so Littlechild who is much more accurate about Tumblety].

Again there is no factual evidence for this apart from Anderson claiming he was teird and mixing some stuff up after a long day. His memory wasn’t going anymore than some modern commentators today, who lets face it arn’t getting any younger.

Aaron Kosminski appears in no official police source which has survived except the Mac Reports, and in both this suspect is dismissed by its author, perhaps wrongly, in favour of one who is his complete antithesis; an English gentleman with no business or residence in Whitechapel.

Your not heading into that tierd old mantra that the Marginalia might be Fake are you? Or are you just ignoring ‘Kosminski was the suspect’?

For what it is worth, I think that a strong historical argument can be made for Aaron Kosminski in spite of -- even because of -- Anderson's flaws as a late, primary source.

Again your making an assumption for which there is no medical evidence apart from the fact that both Anderson and Swanson were suffering from what many around here themselves seem to be suffering. namely ‘that they weren’t getting any younger’.

So i agree with you that they were suffering from the same mental difficulties any human being would be faced with but not more than that.

General:

To make ‘Pipeman’ Liz’s killer we simply have to jump through a number of possibility hoops. For a start if he did persue Schwartz as he claimed the time frame is tight for him to return and kill Liz, as Mrs Mortimer is at her door around 12.50 (although admittedly if stood in her doorway her view directly south is not good)

Its simply more logical given the estimated time of death that Schwartz witnessed BSM attacking and killing Liz. If this was the case then from his angle (remember he had crossed the street) that BSM would have had his back to Schwartz, so if he did have a knife Schwartz couldn’t have seen it.

And while Schwartz story of a man stopping talking briefly and attacking an unknown prostitute might seem odd perhaps even irrational. It is not so strange if one factors in that the attacker might have been a ‘Schizophrenic asocial Lust killer’

It then becomes a simple matter of someone inside the yard spooking BSM and him leaving at a steady pace past Fanny’s door towards Mitre Square. Where he is spotted by church passage by three jewish gentleman leaving a club.

The fact remains that there is nothing in the witness statements and suspect descriptions that appear to rule this possibility out.

Pirate

To put things in the right perspective the witness descriptions are totally unreliable. The persons they describe could be anybody who happened to be walking about at those times. Not necessarily the killer. It was dark so again that has bearing on what they could see and the accuracy of the descriptions they gave in any event.

So trying to match one of the band of likely suspects to these various decriptions is a complete waste of time. Unless of course anyone wants to side with me that one witness described a witness of sailor like appearance and the suspect Carl Feigenbaum was a merchant sailor

[Jeff Leahy]

To put things in the right perspective the witness descriptions are totally unreliable. The persons they describe could be anybody who happened to be walking about at those times. Not necessarily the killer. It was dark so again that has bearing on what they could see and the accuracy of the descriptions they gave in any event.

So trying to match one of the band of likely suspects to these various decriptions is a complete waste of time. Unless of course anyone wants to side with me that one witness described a witness of sailor like appearance and the suspect Carl Feigenbaum was a merchant sailor

I think your miss understanding what I'm saying.

That is that Anderson made a claim that the identity of the killer 'was known'.

For years commentators for various reasons have dismissed his claims.

In essence therefore I guess i'm agreeing with you that the witness statements are vague, but there is nothing within them that would appear to rule out the POSSIBILITY that Anderson was indeed telling the truth when he made his claim.

ie there doesn't appear to be anything within the witness timings or descriptions that rule out the possibility that a suspect was identified locked in an asylum and from then on the murders stopped.

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

I think your miss understanding what I'm saying.

That is that Anderson made a claim that the identity of the killer 'was known'.

For years commentators for various reasons have dismissed his claims.

In essence therefore I guess i'm agreeing with you that the witness statements are vague, but there is nothing within them that would appear to rule out the POSSIBILITY that Anderson was indeed telling the truth when he made his claim.

ie there doesn't appear to be anything within the witness timings or descriptions that rule out the possibility that a suspect was identified locked in an asylum and from then on the murders stopped.

Pirate

Hi Pirate
my reply was not directed at you or anyone specific it was a general observation surrounding the validity of the witnesses and the witness statements in relation to the suspects

[DVV]

Unless of course anyone wants to side with me that one witness described a witness of sailor like appearance and the suspect Carl Feigenbaum was a merchant sailor

Hi Trevor,

replace Feigenbaum by Grainger and we can make a deal.

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Trevor

That’s OK, it was just that you did quote my original post.

I think bye and large I am agreeing with you. What we have is largely quite vague and it’s not impossible that they are all describing the same man or talking about different men. That said this is what we have to go on so sticking as closely as possible to what is known would appear advisable.

I guess Sarah Cox’s description is more out there. I’m not certain if Carroty moustache fellow can be married with our Sailor and BSM character? But it’s not completely beyond the realms of belief in terms of height. But I believe both Sarah Cox and Schwartz got fairly close up views of their suspects the others didn’t.

Let me say that I am aware of your Sailor theory and for my money its one of the better conceived JtR theories. I’m not certain that I would go along with some of your views on organ removal. But I always enjoy following your posts. Many thanks.

Yours Jeff

[Gman992]

Is it just me or did every guy in England at the time have a moustache? I mean, it just seems from the description of JtR, that it could've been everyone from Sir Charles to Joseph Barnett to MGDruitt to Prince Eddy to Munro to Dr. Tumblety. Were moustaches the new rage or just being "english?" I'm just saying--if everyone thinks that JtR had a moustache, if I was JtR, the first thing that I would do is shave it off.

The police would then by like the stormtroopers from Star Wars.

STR 1: This isn't the guy were looking for. JtR had a moustache
JtR: "Nope not me, guvenor. You see, Jack the Ripper had a moustache, and I don't have one..."
STR2: He doesn't have a moustache.
STR1: You don't have a moustache. You can move along. Move along.
JtR: Thank you. (ahh...foiled them again)

[Jonathan H]

No, no not that the Marginalia is fake, but rather that the limitation of this source is that it is not official in itself though by a retired police official.

It is a private annotation and can be as accurate or as inaccurate as one likes. For My eyes only. Swanson arguably thought so little of this annotation that he did not show his family the 'name' of the Ripper. Because, I think, the entire story came from Anderson's crumbling, egocentric memory, not the other way round.

That's a theory which tries to make sense of the complicated puzzle bequeathed us.

It could not be less 'simple', but then historical methodology is always like this. A new book has just been published and reviewed which upends the conventional wisdom about Evan Braun. No longer a blond simpleton who may not even have had sex with Hitler, she is now proposed as a committed Nazi and anti-Semite who had frequent trysts with the Fuhrer. Not because of new evidence turning up, but by re-interpreting the contradictory primary sources and creating a new through-line to join them together.

With all due respect, to deny there is a Ripper puzzle, that there is not a mystery inside the mystery of Jack the Ripper is, to reverse the expression, to see the forest but not the weirdly different trees which grow there side-by-side -- palms with pines.

For example, I argue that Swanson knew that his annoatation was all a hopeless muddle from Anderson because the only Jewish witness of such significance was Lawende, and he said 'no' to a Gentile suspect [Sadler] and 'yes' to another Gentile [Grainger] and moreover could not have been 'confronted' with Kosminski as he was already 'safely caged' by his family.

I cannot prove that Anderson and Swanson's errors are 'self-serving' but what we can see is that they can be strongly interpreted as such. Historical methodology, for what it is worth, teach us that memoirs are amongst the most biased of all sources: inevitably self-justifying.

Anderson would be expected, in terms of bias, to telescope the Ripper hunt from two and half years to a few months, even 'weeks', because that is how long the murderer was actually active. He did not want to admit, as Macnaghten did that they were embarrassingly chasing a phantom for so long. [To needle his despised ex-chief Mac even calls his much longer Ripper chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper'. And yes, he too is self-serving trying to square-the-circle of taking credit for finding the suicided fiend whilst supposedly remaining true to his 1913 comments that he would not expose any secrets about the un-named Druitt].

As expected, Anderson does this on cue from 1895 to 1910. As in, he keeps giving the impression that the un-named Polish Jew suspect was positively identified as early as 1888 -- which does not match the other primary sources; the actions of the police, and Swanson, in 1891, over the Coles murder.

One of the proofs that the Marginalia is real, in my opinion, is that Swanson names 'Kosminski', a suspect who goes against the expected bias because he was at large for two years after the Kelly atrocity, and yet frustratingly not quite long enough to kill Coles -- the worst of both worlds [That is why an initially stunned Fido thought it must be a mistake, he must have meant Cohen.]

I think Anderson, not Swanson, sincerely believed in Kosminsi's guilt. But he also wanted his memoirs to make it look as if he was super-efficient and that the fiend was stopped as soon as possible.

Thus Anderson's memoirs read like every other I have studied regarding a multitude of historical topics; not only inaccurate but self-servingly so as they make the author appear right, and everybody else wrong.

From Napoleon to Mrs Thatcher memoirs carry the same value and limitation regarding self-serving bias [the late Viet Nam War architect Robert McNamara is a notable exception in his mea culpa over that tragic quagmire -- up to a point].

For example, Swanson writes that once the suspect was incarcerated there were no more murders of this type. In fact mere days after Aaron Kosminski was institutionalized Frances Coles was murdered -- and the police did not act as if they had private knowledge that Sadler could not be the Ripper, quite the contrary. Swanson also writes that the suspect died soon afterwards when he was, in fact, still alive when Swanson scribbled his notes.

It is not a coincidence that it is much more satisfying that the fiend be long, long dead rather than still alive in a 'cushy' asylum [which Mac certainly knew in 1894, and perhaps as late as 1898].

These are not just 'mistakes' about Kosminski. They make for a better and more satisfying story. Yet for Swanson to write so flatly that 'Kosminski was the suspect' instead of '... the Ripper' goes against the expected bias of a good story. It's a flat ending? One he showed it to nobody, so far as we know. Nor did he assist his ex-chief by writing a letter to the 'The Times' to back him up once when Anderson was under siege in 1910.

This suggests to me that Swanson was aware of Kosminski as a strong suspect [learned from the man who found and rejected him, Macnaghten. who also could not recall his first name] but did not think that it was a 'definitely ascertained fact' that A] he was the murderer, or B] that any Polish Jew was the murderer, or C] that such an ethnic sub-group was harboring the murderer.

Regarding the controversy over the comings and goings and who saw what at the scene of Stride's murder I think a definitive account is lost to us as it was dark, and everybody was later excusing themselves over not helping a woman who may have been a Ripper victim -- who might have been saved. I am trying to suggest that in that mishmash of sightings and chases the real fiend may not have been the stout man seen hitting Stride, as he is not that great a match for 'Jack the Sailor', either in physique, attire, or discretion about his violence. Therefore, perhaps it was somebody else glimpsed that night? Perhaps not.

The undeniable strength of Anderson [who at least published his opinion, but a private memoir is still not an official source either] and Swanson is that they were senior police with distinguished careers, that they were there in 1888 to 1891, and they seemed to have agreed on the prime suspect.

The limitations include that the only only surviving official police record contradicts their certainty and does not mention a witness id., the passage of time is damaging to memory, and Anderson [unlike Mac and Littlechild] had not only a big ego but a public need to prove that he was not in any way outsmarted by the Whitechapel assassin -- not even when he was abroad recuperating. They were just constrained, he harumphs, by police laws less draconian than the Frenchies, and by a vile, Judas witness -- which did not matter as the 'vile creature' was shoved into a nuthouse anyway.

How fortuitous. A messy but satisfying yarn typical of memoirs.

[Chris]

Swanson also writes that the suspect died soon afterwards when he was, in fact, still alive when Swanson scribbled his notes.

Obviously Swanson was wrong in saying that Kozminski "died shortly afterwards", but of course we don't know when the annotations were written, so we can't say that Kozminski was still alive at that time. Kozminski died in 1919, and Swanson in 1924.

[Jonathan H]

That Swanson might be writing in, say 1920, that Kosminski is dead which would be correct, but would still be wrong about ' ... shortly afterwards' which would be spectacularly incorrect, both in 1910 or later.

Yes, it is possible, Chris.

Historical methodology is about arguing probabilities from fragments and contradictions, and the one you make is not very probable -- in my opinion.

However, I will not use Swanson's 1895 comment about the Ripper being dead to buttress my opinion, as I think that is just as likely to be an oblique reference to Montague Druitt. You know, Jack the Ripper.

[Chris]

Historical methodology is about arguing probabilities from fragments and contradictions, and the one you make is not very probable -- in my opinion.

I was only pointing out that it's possible the end-paper annotation was written after Kozminski's death in 1919.

As to the probability of that being the case, I don't think we have much evidence at all about when the annotations were written. But I think the evidence of the handwriting tends to indicate a later rather than an earlier date.

[Jonathan H]

Sorry, I do not see Swanson as being so mentally enfeebled in his memory that he would project the death of Aaron Kosminski, in 1919, back into 1888 to 1891.

Discovering that Kosminski had died just after the Great War would have completely upended what Swanson thought he knew about this suspect, or what he had been told about this suspect by Anderson -- in fact confirmed for him that the whole story was a hopeless, exaggerated muddle.

That he may have written the Marginalia the day before he died, for sure, but his memory, or the self-serving story he was told by Anderson, is that the suspect himself died soon after being incarcerated.

This is because the Marginalia says that no other murder of this kind took place, and that the suspect died shortly after-wards. In other words, it strongly suggests that Swanson is recording the outline of a story all of which is set in 1888, or at the most between 1888 and 1891. Not bits of information, some of which he acquired as late as 1919 -- though I agree he may well have produced his annotation in that year.

[Chris]

Sorry, I do not see Swanson as being so mentally enfeebled in his memory that he would project the death of Aaron Kosminski, in 1919, back into 1888 to 1891.

I agree. I was only pointing out that the annotations may have been written after Kozminski's death.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

replace Feigenbaum by Grainger and we can make a deal.

Amitiés,
David

I think you are getting a bit carrried away with Grainger. I have reviewed this case and it has to be said there are many negatives and very few positives to suggest he is a viable suspect.

Great mention has been made about the seriousness of the wounds he inflicted on the victim. But i note he was only charged with intent to cause grievous bodily harm had the wounds been of a serious nature then the charge would have been causing grievous bodily harm or attempted murder.

What we have is another case of the press getting carried away as usual.

If he had been looked upon by the police as a viable suspect in 1895 they would have taken steps to interview him or we would have something written in someones autobiography saying "in my opinion" or there would have been a police record.

I also note that Forbes Winslow says he wasnt and Kebbel says he was but I have seen nothing by either to corroborate either of their beliefs.

Everyhting about the attack and all that led up to it is contary to other murders. Its a bit like poor old Kosminski who threated his sister with a long sharp knife, and suddenly becomes a prime supsect, Cutbush is another in the same catergory.

As far as him being a sailor i think the only time he took to water was when he took a bath