Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

it is a second-hand opinion, therefore hearsay.

I'd suggest that that applies to most of what we have available to us today.

[Jonathan H]

The PMG article is a primary source for what police believed, or may have believed, or what just Swanson believed in 1895--the time when the safely caged suspect first enters the extant record via Anderson and Griffiths.

The article should not be viewed with suspicion but as potentially revelatory, as it matches exactly what the same alleged source within a source--Swanson--will write entirely to himself around fifteen years later.

If not, that is quite a coincidence.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon



I'd suggest that that applies to most of what we have available to us today.

Yes, most of what we know about the case comes from press articles.

Given the police did not share their case files with the press, and we know this from both sides, from the police and the protestations of the press, then how much faith do we put in case related speculations which appear in newspapers?

Not a lot.

[Wickerman]

The PMG article is a primary source for what police believed, or may have believed, or what just Swanson believed in 1895--

Without knowing that the expressed opinion did come from the police, or Swanson himself, that's a leap of faith.

By 1895 at least two 'speculated' suspects were dead.

The article should not be viewed with suspicion but as potentially revelatory, as it matches exactly what the same alleged source within a source--Swanson--will write entirely to himself around fifteen years later.

If not, that is quite a coincidence.

We have our fair share of coincidences already in this case, lets not assume the word was placed in the dictionary without good reason.

Swanson talking to the press is out of character for the otherwise reserved Chief Inspector who throughout the Whitechapel murder investigation is never once found to have provided anything to the press.
Even in retirement was apparently not tempted to write his own memoirs revealing case related material nor his private suspicions.

[Jonathan H]

Not according to an 1891 U.S. newspaper source in which it is claimed that Swanson [initially] thought the second woman's hat found at the Frances Coles murder scene proved his theory that the fiend disguised himself as a woman.

The PMG article is a primary source about Swanson claiming publicly what he will later assert prvately--the likeliest suspect was deceased.

[Jonathan H]

"The San Francisco Chronicle"

February 14, 1891.


A Clew to London's Brutal Murderer

Extra Efforts Being Put Forth to Capture the Ripper---His Latest Guise.

Special Dispatch to the Chronicle.

London, February 13.-- The latest victim of "Jack the Ripper" has been identified as "Carroty Nell." It was about 2 o'clock Friday morning, as Patrolman Thompson was passing under an archway of the Blackwall Railway leading from Chambers into Royal Mint Street, that he stumbled over the body of a woman.
She was lying in a pool of blood, which was oozing from a gash in her throat. As he stooped to listen to the sound as of heavy breathing coming from the prostrate form he suddenly heard receding footsteps.
In an instant he had darted forward, expecting to grasp the assassin, but nobody was to be seen. He raised the alarm, and when assistance came every nook and doorway was searched without result.
When the police surgeon, Dr. Phillips, arrived the woman was found stiff in death, she having breathed her last while the search for the murderer was being made.
The police declare, of course, that none but "Jack the Ripper" was guilty, and that the arrival of the constable prevented the usual mutilation which he has hitherto indulged in.
The spot where the body was found is a favorite resort for women at night, two having been arrested there for loitering early Thursday evening.
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.
Commissioner Sir Edward Bradford professes to be confident that he will unearth the murderer of "Carroty Nell," and the public hopes he will.
The location of the tragedy is near the city boundry in the vicinity of the docks, and viler in some respects than the scenes of the "Ripper's" former crimes. For this reason had not the officer actually stumbled over the body the "Ripper" might have returned to his horrible task after the policeman had passed, and the officer's statement indicates that the murderer was waiting in the darkness with this object when frightened into [retreat?] by the officer's detection of the body.
Constable Thompson is the most unhappy man in London to-night, as he fels that he had the most noted criminal of the age almost in his grasp.
The inquest will be held tomorrow (Saturday). Meanwhile, the police are scouring the city for suspicious characters, and Sir Edward has spent all day in his office directing the operations."

[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.

[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???

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Jonathan H]

Macnaghten knew ...