Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

You see...

...
Major Griffiths opened the door again on the 1891 surgeon's son tale out of Dorset -- not that the Tory Major knew this of course -- and then, once the coast was clear in 1902, Macnagten, via his Liberal proxy Sims, went hard for the 'Drowned Doctor' as not a suspect but a solution.
'Said to be a doctor ...' (1894) means, well he might be a doctor, but then again he might not be? Whereas, with Sims he is definitely a doctor, then he becomes an ex-doctor who no longer practices medicine both before and during the murders, and then in the memoirs this concept of the Dr. Jekyllish recluse is dropped altogether.
...

You see, this is where, I think, that you stray from the path of reality. To you they have a fixed agenda with a reason and purpose for everything they say. Mistakes are not mistakes, they are deliberate remarks loaded with hidden meaning. Carelessness in writing is no such thing, it is carefully orchestrated word-play. Actually, they are probably merely none-too-deeply thought out popular crime pieces intended to entertain their readers.

[Jonathan H]

I think Macnaghten knew of what he spoke and wrote.

That's as close as we get, and, hey, that's not bad.

I respect those who think this professional certainty is more likely to be true of Anderson (and Swanson) than Macnaghten -- though I no not believe that the Polish suspect was confronted with and identified by a witness.

We will, as usual, agree to disagree.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
It's an escalating trajectory from 1895 to 1910 of both certainty and critical detail, eg. the so-called slam dunk witness 'confrontation'.
Macanghten, by contrast, is a tantalizing zig zag if you start with the MP story. But if you remove the 'Drowned Doctor' element it snaps into a rigid horizontal line from Farquharson to the Mac memoirs. Not a 'How Bill Adams won Waterloo' escalation, like Anderson.

Yes, it is indeed a jolly wheeze to read all sorts of things into these tales. After all, suspect-wise there is precious little valid material to work with anyway. We do, after all, have to try and make some sense out of these conflicting sources. But let's not get too carried away with our reasoning.

[Stewart P Evans]

Jonathan...

I think Macnaghten knew of what he spoke and wrote.
That's as close as we get, and, hey, that's not bad.
I respect those who think this professional certainty is more likely to be true of Anderson (and Swanson) than Macnaghten -- though I no not believe that the Polish suspect was confronted with and identified by a witness.
We will, as usual, agree to disagree.

Jonathan, I don't know how old you were in 1968 which was when I first read Griffiths. But my point is I've had a long time to think about it. I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but at least I've had plenty of time.

Ergo, when I was 16, in 1965, I was convinced that Druitt was the Ripper. Based mainly on Cullen, of course. Reading Griffiths a three years later sort of 'confirmed' my reasoning. By the time I first met Keith Skinner in 1986 (he was then working on his first Ripper book) I was pleased to see that Druitt was still in the frame.

By 1989 I met and was bedazzled by an enthusiastic Martin Fido who totally swayed me to the Polish Jew theory although, moderated by Keith and reading Paul's excellent centenary book I moved Kosminski into my 'favourite suspect' slot.

And such was Ripperology for me, for many years. But there comes a time when reality drops in with a resounding clang and you realise, hey, we simply do not know at all.

[Jonathan H]

Devolution?

My 'journey', if you like, is the exact reverse of yours.

I had no particular interest in the Ripper saga until a few years ago.

Before that I had heard that it was some doctor who drowned himself the night of the final and most horrific murder.

Except that the 'police' had got the man's profession wrong, he was not local, and he did not kill himself the same night -- but weeks later.

I glanced up at the TV doco in about 1988 and thought, well that's a dog's breakfast!

Then, in about 2003ish, I bought a book for a friend who had a penchant for true crime, and it was the one by the retired FBI profiler, something like 'The Cases that Haunt us Still'. Something like that.

That's when I discovered Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen, and thought yep, that's the fiend for sure: poor, obscure and mad. Or, somebody like them.

Eg. Not Dorian Gray meets Count Dracula via Edward Hyde.

Then I saw 'Secret History' about yourself and Tumblety and I was bedazzled.

I also thought, My God,it was a middle-aged doctor who supposedly killed himself -- after all!?

Then I read 'The Facts' and this put me onto the Mac Memoirs, which I felt were different from what secondary sources claimed.

I read 'Days of My Years' and discovered a reticent, hands-on charmer who would never shaft a fellow gentleman, even one who was a 'Protean' maniac.

Yet he had revealed so much to Sims that he was bound to be recognised by his immediate circle?

Except that the 'inaccuracies' meant that they would not recognise Druitt.

Gee, what luck ...

And that's when it hit me.

Macnaghteen shielded the Druitts via Sims, and that Sims was the source who generally gets short shrift in secondary sources -- 'The Lodger' being a major exception.

Then I saw your post, a few years ago, about the MP titbit and my jaw still carries the scars from hitting the floor.

I predicted to Andy Spallek that if we could just identity this politician he was bound to turn out to be connected to both the Druitts and to Macnaghten -- and this was soon followed by his momentous discovery of Farquharson's identity.

The missing link between the sympathetic Druitt obits and his unexpected and shocking re-emergence on a list of Ripper suspects, if not the suspect?!

Every single source which seems to make no sense now made sense based on a theory of a new Macnaghten as Brer Fox.

It doesn't even matter if Mac was adding fiction or just forgetting the real details, for in 1891 he was as certain as the Druitts, and the M.P., and others in-the-know, and that's that.

It's Druitt: the sort-of 'original' suspect.

Stewart, I appreciate that you are shaking your head in pity as you think my journey is more like the unedifying sight of a human devolving back, back, back into a gill-less fish, flapping and flailing about on a beach, but my interpretation of the sources forced me in that direction.

I was four in 1968.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cynic

My 'journey', if you like, is the exact reverse of yours.
I had no particular interest in the Ripper saga until a few years ago.
Before that I had heard that it was some doctor who drowned himself the night of the final and most horrific murder.
Except that the 'police' had got the man's profession wrong, he was not local, and he did not kill himself the same night -- but weeks later.
I glanced up at the TV doco in about 1988 and thought, well that's a dog's breakfast!
Then, in about 2003ish, I bought a book for a friend who had a penchant for true crime, and it was the one by the retired FBI profiler, something like 'The Cases that Haunt us Still'. Something like that.
That's when I discovered Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen, and thought yep, that's the fiend for sure: poor, obscure and mad. Or, somebody like them.
Eg. Not Dorian Gray meets Count Dracula via Edward Hyde.
Then I saw 'Secret History' about yourself and Tumblety and I was bedazzled.
I also thought, My God,it was a middle-aged doctor who supposedly killed himself -- after all!?
Then I read 'The Facts' and this put me onto the Mac Memoirs, which I felt were different from what secondary sources claimed.
I read 'Days of My Years' and discovered a reticent, hands-on charmer who would never shaft a fellow gentleman, even one who was a 'Protean' maniac.
Yet he had revealed so much to Sims that he was bound to be recognised by his immediate circle?
Except that the 'inaccuracies' meant that they would not recognise Druitt.
Gee, what luck ...
And that's when it hit me.
Macnaghteen shielded the Druitts via Sims, and that Sims was the source who generally gets short shrift in secondary sources -- 'The Lodger' being a major exception.
Then I saw your post, a few years ago, about the MP titbit and my jaw still carries the scars from hitting the floor.
I predicted to Andy Spallek that if we could just identity this politician he was bound to turn out to be connected to both the Druitts and to Macnaghten -- and this was soon followed by his momentous discovery of Farquharson's identity.
The missing link between the sympathetic Druitt obits and his unexpected and shocking re-emergence on a list of Ripper suspects, if not the suspect?!
Every single source which seems to make no sense now made sense based on a theory of a new Macnaghten as Brer Fox.
It doesn't even matter if Mac was adding fiction or just forgetting the real details, for in 1891 he was as certain as the Druitts, and the M.P., and others in-the-know, and that's that.
It's Druitt: the sort-of 'original' suspect.
Stewart, I appreciate that you are shaking your head in pity as you think my journey is more like the unedifying sight of a human devolving back, back, back into a gill-less fish, flapping and flailing about on a beach, but my interpretation of the sources forced me in that direction.
I was four in 1968.

Jonathan, I am a bit of a cynic. Do not be discouraged.

That Ripperology and Ripper media continue to be fascinating cannot be denied and many derive enjoyment from these things. Some even profit from it. So despite the fact the case can never be solved it still has a future. And the mystery continues to intrigue and draw in fresh interest and research. I have told you before I find you work well considered and thought-provoking.

In some ways I long for those far-off days of the sixties when I so enjoyed the subject and became immersed in every new book that came out. It really was fun not knowing too much and being inspired, often awed, by what I read.

Your undoubted enthusiasm for the subject rubs off on others and, I am sure, inspires new considerations, new ideas and new interest in the case. I would be very sad if you gave it up and it would be a great loss to Ripperology.

[Stewart P Evans]

By the way...

By the way, Don Rumbelow's usual response to me is, 'You miserable b*st*rd Evans.'

[Garry Wroe]

An excellent hat-trick of posts.

Cheers, Simon.

[Garry Wroe]

It also means that the theory that Mac was not involved directly in the invetigation is wrng. As he admitted in his memoirs and 1913 comments, he investigated Druitt 'some years after'.

When I say that Macnaghten was not directly involved in the investigation, Jonathan, I am referring to the murders from Nichols through to Kelly. And since Macnaghten himself stated that he did not become a police officer until six months after Jack the Ripper committed suicide, I’m at a loss to understand your persistence regarding this issue.

If Druitt, amongst police, begins with Macnaghten why not Aaron Kosminski who was sectioned two years after he joined the Met?

You have a point there, Jonathan. If a senior official such as Macnaghten either remained unaware of, or unconvinced by the Seaside Home identification, the matter cannot have been as decisive as Anderson would have us believe.

[Garry Wroe]

I get the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about, but are just repeating something you have read somewhere.

I have worked with schizophrenics, Rob, and have seen schizophrenics attempting to gouge out their own eyes, bite chunks of flesh from their bodies, and even remove goldfish swimming through their veins. Of the two of us, I suspect that I’m the one with the direct experience.

You seem to be suggesting that schizophrenics cannot be serial killers.

I’m suggesting nothing of the kind.

Can you name one schizophrenic serial killer?

I can name many.

Can you tell me anything about schizophrenic serial killers?

If you wish to engage me in debate, I would suggest that you drop the attitude.

[Jonathan H]

To Stewart

Thanks very much for your positive words.

To Garry

I thought you were referring to the suspects and not the victims, my mistake.

My other advice is that certain posters are temperamentally unsuited to disagreement, and thus slip into a fragile and defensive rudeness without even realising it -- or at least let's hope so.

[Garry Wroe]

However, I am not claiming that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper …

I understand that, Paul.

… I am trying to learn why Anderson thought he was. Likewise why Macnaghten thought Druitt was the murderer, why anyone thought Ostrog was, or why Tumblety was suspected.

I understand that, too. The problem for me is the seeming reality that such names have been proposed for the flimsiest of reasons. And clearly those ‘in the know’ thought so too, otherwise there would have emerged a consensus amongst senior officials as to the killer’s identity. That this didn’t happen is suggestive that there never was a compelling argument against any one individual. Meantime, we are expected to accept that Kosminski, Druitt and others must remain realistic ‘suspects’ merely because they were named contemporaneously by officials who had a great deal more in the way of detailed information than do we. Whilst I can see the sense in such an argument, I cannot ignore the fact that this same detailed information was available to other senior personnel and yet it proved unconvincing.

That Aaron Kosminski is a non-starter on the basis of his psychological profile is also why Martin Fido, way back in the mists of time of 1987, dismissed him, concluded that Anderson would never have suspected him, and stayed with his original conclusion that Anderson's suspect was David Cohen. I disagreed with Martin that Anderson wouldn't have suspected a "harmless lunatic"; I think he could have done and thus been wrong in his claim that Jack the Ripper had been identified.

But then we have the conflicting information from Macnaghten depicting Kosminski as a homicidal misogynist – assuming, of course, that Anderson and Macnaghten were referring to the same man. We also have the Seaside Home identification corroborated by Swanson. The real enigma, however, is why, given the apparent importance of this event, it failed to convince other senior investigators. I have often wondered if Anderson gave us the whole story in this respect. Let’s imagine that three witnesses were taken to view Kosminski at the Seaside Home. Suppose that Lawende and Long failed to recognize Kosminski, but Schwartz immediately identified him as the man he had seen manhandling Stride in Berner Street. Technically speaking, Anderson would have had his identification and could quite legitimately have described his witness as ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. The fact that he conveniently neglected to mention the two dissenting witnesses might conceivably explain why the identification cut no ice with those senior investigators who must surely have known about it.

Granted, this is an entirely hypothetical scenario, but there must be an explanation as to why the Seaside Home identification received not so much as a mention by anyone other than Anderson and Swanson.

[mklhawley]

Is Hindsight 20:20 in this Case?

Hypothetically speaking; if these men knew then (during the murders) what they know now (later in life when they discussed the case), would the killer have been caught? No one saw the murders. Their best informed guesses might not have been correct.

Is Hindsight 20:20 in this case?

Sincerely,

Mike

Sorry about posting over your post Garry

[Garry Wroe]

I thought you were referring to the suspects and not the victims, my mistake.

No problem, Jonathan.

[Chris]

I mean, Chris has made tons of information available here, he made all those photographs of Swanson available here, and he began to make Jim Swanson's correspondence with the News of the World available here, until you popped up to insinuate that the material was emerging because you had shaken the tree.

Just in case anyone takes that as a cue to claim that information about the correspondence is being withheld, I did post everything about it that I had planned to.

In the matter of the photos, I was acting as Rob H's agent (no, that's not like a secret agent, Trevor), and the real credit must go to members of the Swanson family for providing the material and giving up their time to meet me.