Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Jonathan H]

Tight? I am just being specific as I am not guilty of what I am sometimes accused of; that I am proposing an institutional conspiracy involving Scotland Yard.

That's the opposite of my theory.

Druitt as 'Jack' emerges from outside Scotland Yard among his people in Dorset and picked up by the local MP, who was the first to semi-fictionalize the tale.

The 'North Country Vicar' was not entirely silent, as he also engaged in mixing fact and fiction, though openly in 1899. Sims also did this, on Mac's behalf, covertly.

While at the Yard Macnaghten played world against world, and I presume he had a wonderful time.

If people think that is immoral then he received his posthumous comeuppance, in terms of posterity, because 'Ripperology' took his deceitful games literally -- and banished him to the fringe of the story as a forgetful, ignorant, callous plod.

At his 1913 press conference and in his 1914 memoir, Macnaghten tried, up to a point, to come clean. eg. That the un-named Druitt was the only suspect worth mentioning, the Ripper was not a caged lunatic-Jew, that there was no witness who refused to testify, that the real 'Jack' was not known until years after the 1888 murders, that he was not necessarily a medical man, or middle-aged, or an asylum veteran and most definitely was not so destroyed by Miller's Court that he could not function and get away from the crime scene. He compresses Druitt's places of work and living abode into living with family; that they are, by implication, his informers (the need for a go-between is dropped) and their 'certain facts' led to this 'conclusion'.

It has been very gratifying to read Sims' crony Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) which Edwardian readers knew was [yet another] mixture of impenetrable fact and fiction about the un-named Montague Druitt. To protect the innocent he is called Mortemer Slade and is relocated to Yorkshire, as is Farquharson ('up north' where the 1899 Vicar is supposedly from) but he remains an Oxonian and an athlete.

That the Ripper was an accomplished, amateur athlete exists in no primary sources between 1888 and 1965 (when Druitt's full identity was publicly revealed by cullen) except Logan.

Much of what I have been arguing for some years has been vindicated by this previously undiscovered source.

[Lechmere]

Jonathan - you have drawn a tight definition of conspiracy - Macnaghten's co-conspirators if your theory is true - are the Druitt family, the vicar, the school, the Tory MP, Sims and Griffiths.
Quite a conspiracy of silence and to mislead - with Macnaghten dropping heavy hints for some mischievous reason.

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

From the Evening News on Oct 1st,.... from Eagle..."I frequent the club. I went into it about 12.40 on this night that you are asking me about, which was about 20 minutes before the body was discovered."

From Lave, "I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street."

As I said before, seems to me they state they were both in the yard at the same time, yet neither sees each other, and Eagle couldnt remember seeing anyone.

Mike,

I just want to touch on these 3 points if I may. The first two both use the word "about" when referring to time. And if either was leaving and not standing about, it would be more unusual if they ran into each other than not. If they said they had gone out and stood on the street for a long time, I might be swayed in your direction.

Also, Eagle didn't say he didn't see anyone. He was asked if he had met anyone, and he said, "Not that I recall." Maybe meeting and seeing meant the same thing back then, but it certainly doesn't now. And by saying he didn't recall, he's kind of covered for errors anyway.

Cheers,

Mike

[GUT]

G'Day Jonathan

Yea I realised I'd spelt it wrong after it was too late to edit. ....

[Jonathan H]

The name is a Scottish-Irish hybrid, and is spelt M A C N A G H T E N.

It is not a conspiracy if only a single person in an organization is misleading other members.

Consider that Anderson and Swanson thought 'Kosminski' had died soon after being sectioned, George Kebbell thought that William Grant had died in prison, Littlechild wrote that it was 'believed' (by somebody) that Dr. Tumblety may have taken his own life in France and Abberline--arguably--thinks that John Sanders drowned himself.

None of them were dead at the time their champions--of varying degrees--said they were.

Whereas Macnaghten knew that Kosminski was alive, that Grant was alive, and that Tumblety had not killed himself.

Tom Divall claimed in his 1930 memoir that Macnaghten had once told him that the Ripper fled to the States and died there in an asylum.

The Ripper suspect who actually was deceased soon after the Kelly murder was Druitt (the timing of his suicide was wrong, as it could not include Mylett, McKenzie and Coles but the Chief Constable believed that the evidence was overwhelming).

Macnaghten can be traced as the likely deceiver of the other figures mentioned above.

If you have a primary source who can be shown to be more accurately briefed than other contemporaneous primary sources in the same organization, then why not go with it?

[GUT]

McNaughten knew Jack

[Jonathan H]

Macnaghten knew ...

[Errata]

Which is why so few Conspiracy Theories hold water.

The only thing I can think to add is that a lot of less valid theories, in Ripperology and elsewhere, seem to try this first, and if they can not ascribe a motive will seem to turn to the God of the Gaps for their appeal. Any gap in our knowledge that helps their favoured outcome is filled with speculation that best fits the conclusion they want. But any such gap that might harm their theory if filled is "Unsupported and not to be upheld".

So somebody may easily discount Kosminski (as an example already discussed) for there being no evidence how or why Swanson made his notes. On the other hand they will speculate there must be something about suspect X, based on identical speculation. Hoping all the time that the God of the Gaps favours their appeal.

I dismiss Kosminski, I admit. And I have to say, that a lot of it has to do with the fact that the cops thought they knew who they were looking for based on the best thinking of the time, and the best thinking was so clearly wrong in so many ways. I mean, if masturbation created serial killers, here would be maybe 100 people in England. Similarly if it caused violent insanity. There's also nothing in Kosminski's behavior that suggests he would be a serial killer. Only 2% of mentally ill people are violent, and those 2% have behaviors in common. None of which Kosminski is known to have indulged in. Except for compulsive behavior, but it's the wrong kind of compulsive behavior for a serial killer. There's a lot of reason I could go into.

But I do believe that Swanson and maybe others genuinely believed him to be the killer. They thought they were looking for an insane Jew, and Kosminski is certainly that. Also given that he roamed the streets at all hours, it's entirely possible that he was near the scene of one of these murders. It's possible someone did in fact see him at a scene. And it's possible someone did identify him as being at a murder site. But I don't think he did it. "Insanity" is actually kind of a predictable thing. You see someone wearing a uniform walk up to home plate with a bat in their hand, you can look at their behavior and say with a reasonable degree of certainty that they are not there to put on a production of the Mikado. I can look at Kosminski's behavior, and I can tell you exactly what would make him violent, but none of it would add up to serial killing. Spree killing maybe, but not serial killing.

So I think that Swanson believed experts who told them that the guy with a bat was about to bust out into "Three Little Maids", so to speak. I think Kosminski would have been their best bet given what they thought they had to look for. But what they were told to look for had nothing to do with these murders. They didn't screw up, they didn't lie, they weren't stupid. They just based their entire thought process on wrong ideas. Wrong ideas that were not their own. I mean, expert tells you something you believe it right? They didn't know that 50, 100, 150 years later that their "profile" was based on nonsense.

[TomTomKent]

I find that when I come across a situation when I have to decide whether or not a person was malicious or an idiot, idiot wins out almost every time. Do no ascribe malice to an action that can easily be explained by confusion or vanity without proof. It takes work to be malicious. It takes work for most people to NOT screw up or puff out their chest.

Which is why so few Conspiracy Theories hold water.

The only thing I can think to add is that a lot of less valid theories, in Ripperology and elsewhere, seem to try this first, and if they can not ascribe a motive will seem to turn to the God of the Gaps for their appeal. Any gap in our knowledge that helps their favoured outcome is filled with speculation that best fits the conclusion they want. But any such gap that might harm their theory if filled is "Unsupported and not to be upheld".

So somebody may easily discount Kosminski (as an example already discussed) for there being no evidence how or why Swanson made his notes. On the other hand they will speculate there must be something about suspect X, based on identical speculation. Hoping all the time that the God of the Gaps favours their appeal.

[Errata]

I find that when I come across a situation when I have to decide whether or not a person was malicious or an idiot, idiot wins out almost every time. Do no ascribe malice to an action that can easily be explained by confusion or vanity without proof. It takes work to be malicious. It takes work for most people to NOT screw up or puff out their chest.

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

Since probably Dr. Anderson and certainly Donald Swanson were so misinformed about Aaron Kosminski, and misinformed by Melville Macnaghten (only the surname is used in the Marginalia, exactly as with the Chief Constable's dodgy reports) the question becomes not if but why?

I believe that Macnaghten hated Anderson (he liked Swanson) and since his loathed chief only started talking about the caged lunatic in 1895, in the wake of a Jewish witness affirming to a suspect caught red-handed (William Grant) trying to stab an East End prostitute and yet the case went nowhere, my theory is that 'Mac' told him about 'Kosminski' who was guilty, for the pious and prudish Anderson, of 'unmentionable vices' that lead to homicide (see his 1910 memoirs and letters).

Macnaghten cloaked this minor suspect from some 1888 list with three deceptions: that he was suspected by his family of being 'Jack' (that's really Druitt), that he was sectioned soon after the Kelly murder and that he passed away soon after that (Druitt again.)

By 1907, via Sims, Macnaghten (in 'Lloyds Weekly') has the Polish suspect no longer be a self-abuser and no longer live with family (no longer living with anybody) but he resided near the murder sites, and he had acquired 'anatomical knowledge' from a hospital in Poland, and he somewhat resembled, at least in outline, a suspect seen leaving the Eddowes murder, supposedly seen by a beat cop. All of this data is untrue of Aaron Kosminski except living in the heart of the kill-zone.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan,

Swanson believed that 'Kosminski' was deceased. Minimal checking would have shown this to be false. The second-in-command at CID knew the Polish suspect was not deceased. On the other hand this appears to have been the same mistaken belief as Swanson's chief, Dr. Robert Anderson (Macnaghten may have lied to both of them--why would they bother to check further?)

In the Aberconway version, Macnaghten said of Kosminski "He was (and I believe still is) detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889"

(Macnaghten may have lied to both of them--why would they bother to check further?)

Why would Melville Macnaghten do that? Tell them Kosminski was deceased if he knew different.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

I wish people would actually explain their counter-theories, rather than rely on condescension.

The cliche of Donald Swanson as an impeccable, competent and responsible primary source is attested to by the primary sources.

But not all the primary sources.

The other trick is to shift the goal posts.

Having lost the battle over whether the PMG is a primary source from 1895 (it is apr imary source by Swanson, if he is being interviewed) the issue now becomes whether the other newspaper account from 1891 is a credible source.

It is apparently a fact that it is not.

An unchallengable fact.

This is a kind of 'Stalinist' attitude where poltically incorrect sources are not to be discussed or even alluded to.

The deafening silence about the contents of the recently discovered "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) by Guy Logan--which arguably confirms much of the more recent theorising about Montague Druitt--being but the most recent example.

Swanson believed that 'Kosminski' was deceased. Minimal checking would have shown this to be false. The second-in-command at CID knew the Polish suspect was not deceased. On the other hand this appears to have been the same mistaken belief as Swanson's chief, Dr. Robert Anderson (Macnaghten may have lied to both of them--why would they bother to check further?)

At a minimum, I would argue that the US newspaper report, if true, matches other sources where Swanson is shown to be glaringly incorrect.

For that matter writing to yourself that there were no more 'Jack' murders after 1888 (or early 1889) when you yourself were in the thick of the Frances Coles inquiry in 1891, as a likely Ripper atrocity, may be due to embrassment over a theory which was shown quickly, by the arrest of Sadler, to be fallacious.

[GUT]

G'Day Jonathan

The theory has long been that he paraded in woman's attire, and Swanson thinks he dropped the hat while struggling with his victim.

So Swanson it was ...... ......

Why else would he have dropped his own hat???

[Wickerman]

Inspector Swanson says that any ruffian might have cut the unfortunate woman's throat in the way that this was done, but when a second soft felt hat rolled from under the victim's arm, in addition to the one she wore, he felt that this must have been done by the "Ripper." The theory has long been that he paraded in woman's attire, and Swanson thinks he dropped the hat while struggling with his victim.

That is one theory I would have been extremely reluctant to show off as attributed to Swanson.
I think you just sunk your own ship with that quote Jonathan.