Tweet
To Garry
You make a really good point about how come other police did not know about this and that.
How serious and definitive can this all be?
I would defend Anderson on the basis that when he first learned of Aaron Kosminski -- as Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' -- which I believe happened only in 1895, he forthrightly disseminated this opinion to the public via Major Griffiths.
At that time Anderson mentioned no positive eyewitness identification because his memory had not faded to the point where he conjured up this confusion with Lawende's 'no' for Sadler and 'yes' for Grant. Also this arguably redacted element is after Sims' 1907 opus, in which a cop allegedly sees a man who resembles 'Kosminski' with the fourth victim -- and later sees this man again and thinks the resemblance is strong but inconclusive.
I would defend Macnaghten on the basis that Druitt being an entirely posthumous suspect he told nobody at the Yard about him. When he disseminated this story to Griffths, and then Sims, the suspect was so disguised that Littelchild thought, understandably, that this was some garbled version of Tumblety.
Consider that in 'Aberconway' Macnaghten gives the wrong date for the start of 'The Sun' articles about the un-named Cutbush. The majority view is that this is just the sort of error you make in a draft, and then correct in a final version.
I think, on the contrary, that this is a backdated rewrite from 1898 and, in this instance, Mac wanted to remind Griffiths and then Sims of the delicate nature of what they were dealing with in 'Jack' identified as a member of the 'better classes':
'The Sun' 14 Feb 1894
"But at this moment our readers must be satisfied with less information than is at our disposal. Jack the Ripper has relatives; they are some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity - for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections. We are the more resolved to do so at the moment as a pathetic point in this otherwise hideous and awful story is the tenacity with which some of his relatives have clung to this awful type. They have tended him, nursed him, watched for him, borne with him with a patience that never tired, with a love that never waned. While he has been out through the watches of the night on his fiendish work, one of them has sat up, waiting anxiously for his return - frightened at every noise - apprehensive of every possible form of mishap; in imagination picturing this tiger who marched from crime to crime as some innocent, harmless, and helpless child in need of protection from the violence of others. In human history there is not a more remarkable case of the difference in the view between the relative of a human being and the world generally."
Of course, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog were unrecognisable too, but they were, arguably, mere window-dressing.
You make a really good point about how come other police did not know about this and that.
How serious and definitive can this all be?
I would defend Anderson on the basis that when he first learned of Aaron Kosminski -- as Macnaghten's 'Kosminski' -- which I believe happened only in 1895, he forthrightly disseminated this opinion to the public via Major Griffiths.
At that time Anderson mentioned no positive eyewitness identification because his memory had not faded to the point where he conjured up this confusion with Lawende's 'no' for Sadler and 'yes' for Grant. Also this arguably redacted element is after Sims' 1907 opus, in which a cop allegedly sees a man who resembles 'Kosminski' with the fourth victim -- and later sees this man again and thinks the resemblance is strong but inconclusive.
I would defend Macnaghten on the basis that Druitt being an entirely posthumous suspect he told nobody at the Yard about him. When he disseminated this story to Griffths, and then Sims, the suspect was so disguised that Littelchild thought, understandably, that this was some garbled version of Tumblety.
Consider that in 'Aberconway' Macnaghten gives the wrong date for the start of 'The Sun' articles about the un-named Cutbush. The majority view is that this is just the sort of error you make in a draft, and then correct in a final version.
I think, on the contrary, that this is a backdated rewrite from 1898 and, in this instance, Mac wanted to remind Griffiths and then Sims of the delicate nature of what they were dealing with in 'Jack' identified as a member of the 'better classes':
'The Sun' 14 Feb 1894
"But at this moment our readers must be satisfied with less information than is at our disposal. Jack the Ripper has relatives; they are some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity - for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections. We are the more resolved to do so at the moment as a pathetic point in this otherwise hideous and awful story is the tenacity with which some of his relatives have clung to this awful type. They have tended him, nursed him, watched for him, borne with him with a patience that never tired, with a love that never waned. While he has been out through the watches of the night on his fiendish work, one of them has sat up, waiting anxiously for his return - frightened at every noise - apprehensive of every possible form of mishap; in imagination picturing this tiger who marched from crime to crime as some innocent, harmless, and helpless child in need of protection from the violence of others. In human history there is not a more remarkable case of the difference in the view between the relative of a human being and the world generally."
Of course, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog were unrecognisable too, but they were, arguably, mere window-dressing.
Comment