Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, he must be right up there for research until anything arises to qualify that status, such as in the case of Ostrog.

However, and as I contend, the importance, or level, for research that is accorded to 'Kosminski' must be subjective, and commensurate with the veracity and reliability the individual researcher is prepared to bestow upon Anderson. You feel he is the best historical source, I, personally, don't, for the reasons I have given in the past.

That said, and apropos of Anderson, we also have to take into account both Macnaghten's 1894 report and Swanson's undated (but 1910 or later) annotations in his copy of Anderson's book, both of which mention 'Kosminski'.

Having regard to the issues previoulsy debated about the authenticity of the marginalia. If you were to take that out of the equation it would change the whole complex of the case would it not ?

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Having regard to the issues previoulsy debated about the authenticity of the marginalia. If you were to take that out of the equation it would change the whole complex of the case would it not ?

If you mean by the complex of the case against Kosminski, yes, of course it would. But there is no evidence to cast serious doubt upon the authenticity of the Swanson annotations.

[Stewart P Evans]

Problems

I also have problems squaring the author of the intense, brutal, short-lived, series of mutilation murders in the East End in August to November 1888 with a man, with no known criminal record, taken to court over a year later for walking an unmuzzled dog in the City.

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson

Of the two main players in this saga we know the most about Anderson as a result of the published and unpublished material (books, newspapers, reports, letters etc.) that we have on him.

Superintendent Donald Sutherland Swanson is the more enigmatic and unknown (character-wise) of the two. Yet he is, arguably, the more important of the two in relation to Ripper studies and the allegations concerning 'Kosminski' and his perceived 'confirmation' of what Anderson claimed. Unlike Anderson he was a career police officer, and he says more about the alleged identification in his annotations than Anderson does in his Lighter Side.

Because of the positive 'known to the police' claims as to the identity of the Ripper much more attention has been paid to the character of Anderson than that of Swanson. So what do we know?

The Special Branch Officer Detective Inspector John Sweeney says of Swanson, 'One of the best class of officers was Superintendent Swanson, who has recently retired on a pension. Several times he has had occasion to speak with me shortly after some individual has been reduced in rank or otherwise severely punished, and I have always felt almost certain from his bearing and conversation that he was, if possible, feeling more pain than the man punished.'

The main caveat we must apply to this reference is, of course, the fact that Swanson was still very much alive and would, almost certainly, be reading these words himself. But there is no reason to doubt their veracity. I always think that police officers are a breed apart from other professionals with a job that affects them to a much greater degree than many other occupations. There are very few 'old sweats' of my acquaintance who are not very much more cynical than the everyday man in the street and no one understands an ex-policeman better than another ex-policeman.

[Chris]

Or it was never required and never sent, or it is a file copy of a document that was sent to the Home Office and was put with the Cutbush papers and culled. Either way it would lack the customary received and seen markings.

Nothing fitting the description is mentioned in the Home Office register of incoming correspondence around the time it was written.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

Nothing fitting the description is mentioned in the Home Office register of incoming correspondence around the time it was written.

Thanks for that Chris, it is very much what I would have expected as I don't think the report advanced any further than Bradford's desk. The mere fact that it is an original report and remained in the Scotland Yard archives indicates that this would be the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you mean by the complex of the case against Kosminski, yes, of course it would. But there is no evidence to cast serious doubt upon the authenticity of the Swanson annotations.

A doubt is a doubt, serious or otherwise is it not.There doesnt have to be evidence to create a doubt, If there were evidence then there wouldnt be a doubt.

[PaulB]

Yes but, surely, and not putting too fine a point on it, this is deceit on Anderson's part.

Yes it is, although I'd like to know why Anderson wrote what he did, but it has always been the real possibility or even probability that Anderson was exaggerating or simply got it wildly wrong. What initially mattered was whether or not the incident he described - the eye-witness identification - actually took place or not. If it did then the character of Anderson and a host of other considerations come into play, as, indeed, they are doing, but if it didn't then we'd be dealing with an altogether different problem.

[Jonathan H]

Stewart, I don't understand what perplexes you about that previous post?

To all

Just consider the significance of the fact that Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive in 1894, even as late as 1891, whereas Swanson seems to think that he died 'soon after' the final murder (Kelly or Coles?)

What does that suggest about who had a firmer grip on the real information about this 'suspect'?

[Stewart P Evans]

Doubt

A doubt is a doubt, serious or otherwise is it not.There doesnt have to be evidence to create a doubt, If there were evidence then there wouldnt be a doubt.

Well it has to said that any such document, given its relevance, is going to be controversial and there will always be some who cast such doubt, usually to fit their own agendas.

When I say 'serious doubt' I mean, doubt as to provenance (there is no doubt that this was always in the Swanson family) or doubt as to the handwriting (in my opinion it is as certain as any such thing can be that it is Swanson's handwriting).

Therefore although there are those who will try to cast doubt, such as yourself, they usually have their own reasons for doing so (in your case it doesn't fit your own theorising).

[PaulB]

Thanks for that Chris, it is very much what I would have expected as I don't think the report advanced any further than Bradford's desk. The mere fact that it is an original report and remained in the Scotland Yard archives indicates that this would be the case.

Me, too. If, indeed, it got as far as Bradford's desk!

[Stewart P Evans]

Enjoying

Me, too. If, indeed, it got as far as Bradford's desk!

Bugger, I'm enjoying this. Paul and I can debate with each other in a civil way without getting all precious or prima donna-ish. And no one screws (sorry, bad word I know) better responses out of me than Paul, he is so knowledgeable.

[Stewart P Evans]

Belton Cobb

In his book Critical Years at the Yard (The Career of Frederick Williamson of the Detective Department and the C.I.D., London, Faber and Faber, 1956) Belton Cobb touches upon the Whitechapel murders. In Part Seven of the book, 'The Fourth Crisis', Chapter 16 'The Yard Against Itself', page 237 is the below footnote, which I thought might be of interest.

[Stewart P Evans]

Race

Me, too. If, indeed, it got as far as Bradford's desk!

I think that the report did advance as far as Bradford and I think it was Bradford who had called for it as a result of the recent publicity about the revelations of a Scotland Yard inspector (Race) whose suspect (Cutbush) was detailed (anonymously) in the February 1894 Sun series of articles.

[Jonathan H]

It's not addressed to Bradford, or anybody for that matter.