Plausibility of Kosminski

[Jonathan H]

Then that is what we are agreeing to disagree about.

I don't think for a moment that this was by 'chance'.

Mainly because it is so crucial to 'Kosminski' being a viable Ripper suspect in the police primary sources; the 'Reports', and then in Anderson and Swanson's subsequent remarks, or implied timeline in the memoirds and the marginalia.

You would never know from those sources -- as Fido did not -- that Aaron Kosminski was sectioned so late, though as Evans and Rumbelow argue (2006) it was very near the time of the 'final' Ripper murder of Coles, and there was, very soon after, a suspect 'confronted' with a Ripper witness -- who was Jewish.

[Stewart P Evans]

William Nixon Race

...
I know Stewart has stated different, but I can imagine a man like Macnaghten compiling something like this without being asked to do it by his superiors... possibly in anticipation that something might develop or give him a chance to be a part of an investigation that he missed the bulk of and the 'Cutbush' controversy was his chance to give his opinion -officially- on a case that was an obvious interest to him and one which he had gotten some side information himself outside of the normal CID procedure.

It seems odd to me that everyone seems to be unaware of, or ignore, the part that Inspector William Nixon Race who had arrested Cutbush back in 1891, played in all this. Race was convinced that Cutbush was the Ripper and had made a nuisance of himself pushing this theory with his superiors.

The whole thing came to a head in February 1894 when he went to the press with his story and the Sun series of articles was published. Perhaps Race hadn't foreseen the result of his obsession with Cutbush and going to the press with his story. Needless to say, the Scotland Yard hierarchy would not be too pleased with what he had done. Race's chances of promotion were doomed by his actions, he had rocked the proverbial boat and incurred the wrath of his superiors. By December 1897 he was on sick leave, his sickness brought on by the loss of his son 'and also through being treated indifferently in the police force.' It was noted that despite being recommended several times for promotion by his superintendent, which was richly deserved because of an excellent record, 'through some unknown reason he never heard anything further, a thing almost unprecedented in the Service, and which worried him greatly...unfortunately after this honourable career, he was reduced without fair trial and was invalided out with a small pension of 16s. 3d. per week.'

Race's actual retirement date was 1 April 1898, he was 43 years old and had completed almost eighteen years service in the Metropolitan Police Force. He never got over his belief that he had arrested Jack the Ripper in the person of Thomas Hayne Cutbush, and his achievement had gone unrecognised.

[Stewart P Evans]

Macnaghten

Apropos of Macnaghten, what has to be remembered is that although he missed the 'canonical five' murders of 1888 (a fact that he himself acknowledged) he did not miss being involved in the investigation which was still running when he commenced duties on 1 June 1889, just before the McKenzie murder.

The reason that he stated, after he retired, that he joined the force six months after 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide was because of his later 'inclination to the belief' that Druitt was the Ripper. However, when he joined it was still a live investigation and he was very much involved with it, and the still open files. He would have been fully aware of the content of the files and the investigations that had been made.

[PaulB]

Then that is what we are agreeing to disagree about.

I don't think for a moment that this was by 'chance'.

Mainly because it is so crucial to 'Kosminski' being a viable Ripper suspect in the police primary sources; the 'Reports', and then in Anderson and Swanson's subsequent remarks, or implied timeline in the memoirds and the marginalia.

You would never know from those sources -- as Fido did not -- that Aaron Kosminski was sectioned so late, though as Evans and Rumbelow argue (2006) it was very near the time of the 'final' Ripper murder of Coles, and there was, very soon after, a suspect 'confronted' with a Ripper witness -- who was Jewish.

Jonathan,
I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. Why is the date provided by Macnaghten any more crucial to Kosminski being a viable suspect than Druitt becoming one some years after mid-1889. In both cases they emerged as suspects long after the event. Macnaghten's date misled researchers into looking for Kosminski at an earlier date, insofar as any researchers had been looking for him at all prior to 1986/7, but his viability as a suspect emerged with Martin's argument that Kosminski was the same person as Anderson's Polish Jew, and at the end of 1987 with the Swanson marginalia naming him as Anderson's suspect, and with Anderson's expression of certainty compared with Macnaghten admission of conjecture. Points have indeed been raise, especially in recent years, which may cause us to question whether Anderson was as certain as he thought or claimed and whether Macnaghten was conjecturing, and these may change our perceptions of the primacy of one of these suspects over the other, but how is Macnaghten's misdating crucial to Kosminski's viability? It never made him more viable.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Three Musketeers

...
Why is the date provided by Macnaghten any more crucial to Kosminski being a viable suspect than Druitt becoming one some years after mid-1889. In both cases they emerged as suspects long after the event. Macnaghten's date misled researchers into looking for Kosminski at an earlier date, insofar as any researchers had been looking for him at all prior to 1986/7, but his viability as a suspect emerged with Martin's argument that Kosminski was the same person as Anderson's Polish Jew, and at the end of 1987 with the Swanson marginalia naming him as Anderson's suspect, and with Anderson's expression of certainty compared with Macnaghten admission of conjecture. Points have indeed been raise, especially in recent years, which may cause us to question whether Anderson was as certain as he thought or claimed and whether Macnaghten was conjecturing, and these may change our perceptions of the primacy of one of these suspects over the other, but how is Macnaghten's misdating crucial to Kosminski's viability? It never made him more viable.

Paul, you and I witnessed the sea change in Ripperology that took place around and post-1988. Prior to the centenary Ripperology was pretty primitive although things had begun to improve with the work of the likes of Robin and Don.

However, 'the three musketeers' (Begg, Fido and Skinner) 'ushered in a new era of informed and meticulously researched work on the case' (as I put it in my essay in Who Was Jack the Ripper?). Many contributors to the boards did not witness these momentous events and, perhaps, do not realise the great influence that you, and the A-Z, had on the subject.

[Jonathan H]

To Stewart

I agree, and argue, furthermore, that Macnaghten was quietly scrambling with a document -- never used -- that would not only 'cut the knot' over Druitt to keep 'everyone satisfied', but also make it appear as if Cutbush and Cutbush were related.

Why?

My theory is that Mac wanted to imply to a Liberal govt. sniffing a Tory debacle, that Race was motivated not by any upper echelon need to cover-up, but due to some scumbag, lower echelon 'sour grapes' over guilt-by-association by a poor cop having a madman as a nephew.

To Paul

Yes, but ...

The alternate version in which 'Kosminski' was ramped up for the public with a potential police witnes, was disseminated to the public by Major Griffiths in 1898:

'The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined to an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court. The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a convict both in England and Siberia. This man was in the habit of carrying about surgical knives and instruments in his pockets; his antecedents were of the very worst, and at the time of the Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known. The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. It is at least a strong presumption that "Jack the Ripper" died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair, which ended this series of crimes. It would be interesting to know whether in this third case the man was left-handed or ambidextrous, both suggestions having been advanced by medical experts after viewing the victims. Certainly other doctors disagreed this point, which may be said to add another to the many instances in which medical evidence has been conflicting, not to say confusing.'

The case was 'weak' against the un-named 'Kosminski' is the excuse for not arresting him, which covers the true reality; which is that he was not even known about until after he was sectioned -- in my opinion.

But from the public's point of view you would not be able to tell from this authoritative source that the Polish Jew was incarcerated four months after the Kelly murder.

Just the vague 'afterwards' plus the so-called 'police' theory that the cessation of the murders may have happened because a madman was sectioned. Eg. pretty soon after Kelly.

Plus, the Jew seem to be a quite good suspect as he may have been seen by a police witness -- who does not of course exist.

This story would be quite untenable if Macnaghten informed Griffiths of the truth: that the witness was a Jew, not a cop, who saw a Gentile-featured young 'sailor'. And that this dangerous lunatic was at large for over two years after the Kelly murder -- without killing any harlots.

Whereas here this 'modified' tale does its job very neatly (Sims in 1907, Mac's proxy, would begin to hint at a much lengthier period that the Pole was on the prowl to try and put the genie back in the bottle).

And no, I do not think that this all by happy chance.

[PaulB]

Paul, you and I witnessed the sea change in Ripperology that took place around and post-1988. Prior to the centenary Ripperology was pretty primitive although things had begun to improve with the work of the likes of Robin and Don.

However, 'the three musketeers' (Begg, Fido and Skinner) 'ushered in a new era of informed and meticulously researched work on the case' (as I put it in my essay in Who Was Jack the Ripper?). Many contributors to the boards did not witness these momentous events and, perhaps, do not realise the great influence that you, and the A-Z, had on the subject.

Thank you, Stewart, although, like you and Keith, I kind of worry about being attributed with "great influence". That we bought and made full use of the files changes things a lot, and the Ultimate is probably the single most influential book in the sea-change because it enabled anyone to access the files for a few coppers in comparison to the second-mortgage they cost us! But it is tough to remember that when I sat down to write we didn't know who Kosminski was, didn't know who Ostrog was, Tumblety was unknown, Le Grand was a name... Times have changed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes, but...

Thank you, Stewart, although, like you and Keith, I kind of worry about being attributed with "great influence". That we bought and made full use of the files changes things a lot, and the Ultimate is probably the single most influential book in the sea-change because it enabled anyone to access the files for a few coppers in comparison to the second-mortgage they cost us! But it is tough to remember that when I sat down to write we didn't know who Kosminski was, didn't know who Ostrog was, Tumblety was unknown, Le Grand was a name... Times have changed.

Yes, but...it was to a great extent that I was inspired by the A to Z (remember your listings of all the official files published for the first time) to start work on the manuscript which evolved into the Ultimate.

[PaulB]

To Stewart

I agree, and argue, furthermore, that Macnaghten was quietly scrambling with a document -- never used -- that would not only 'cut the knot' over Druitt to keep 'everyone satisfied', but also make it appear as if Cutbush and Cutbush were related.

Why?

My theory is that Mac wanted to imply to a Liberal govt. sniffing a Tory debacle, that Race was motivated not by any upper echelon need to cover-up, but due to some scumbag, lower echelon 'sour grapes' over guilt-by-association by a poor cop having a madman as a nephew.

To Paul

Yes, but ...

The alternate version in which 'Kosminski' was ramped up for the public with a potential police witnes, was disseminated to the public by Major Griffiths in 1898:

'The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined to an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court. The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a convict both in England and Siberia. This man was in the habit of carrying about surgical knives and instruments in his pockets; his antecedents were of the very worst, and at the time of the Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known. The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. It is at least a strong presumption that "Jack the Ripper" died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair, which ended this series of crimes. It would be interesting to know whether in this third case the man was left-handed or ambidextrous, both suggestions having been advanced by medical experts after viewing the victims. Certainly other doctors disagreed this point, which may be said to add another to the many instances in which medical evidence has been conflicting, not to say confusing.'

The case was 'weak' against the un-named 'Kosminski' is the excuse for not arresting him, which covers the true reality; which is that he was not even known about until after he was sectioned -- in my opinion.

But from the public's point of view you would not be able to tell from this authoritative source that the Polish Jew was incarcerated four months after the Kelly murder.

Just the vague 'afterwards' plus the so-called 'police' theory that the cessation of the murders may have happened because a madman was sectioned. Eg. pretty soon after Kelly.

Plus, the Jew seem to be a quite good suspect as he may have been seen by a police witness -- who does not of course exist.

This story would be quite untenable if Macnaghten informed Griffiths of the truth: that the witness was a Jew, not a cop, who saw a Gentile-featured young 'sailor'. And that this dangerous lunatic was at large for over two years after the Kelly murder -- without killing any harlots.

Whereas here this 'modified' tale does its job very neatly (Sims in 1907, Mac's proxy, would begin to hint at a much lengthier period that the Pole was on the prowl to try and put the genie back in the bottle).

And no, I do not think that this all by happy chance.

Hang on a tick... okay, so in an official memorandum to the Commissioner in 1894 Macnaghten supplied a date which he knew was wrong and misleading, and he supplied for no purpose other than, as you see it, to enhance the viability of a suspect he didn't think was the Ripper anyway, and he supplies this false information to Griffiths four years later for semi-nefarious reasons and not simply because he wanted Griffiths and the public alike to think the police were on the murderer's track in or shortly after 1888?

[Jonathan H]

Exactly, Paul! Exactly!

That was my great revelation as to why there were two versions.

They were propagandist through and through.

That 'Aberconway' suits the cronies who read it, or learned of its contents, and disseminated it to the public.

Cunningly, and ecumenically, one was a Tory worthy and the other a Liberal Radical with a huge readership.

Harmless deceit which nobody would know: not the govt., not the public, not the press, not the families -- except the Druitrs who would gratefully appreciate the deception -- and if the whole thing went belly-up in Dorset, well, you could claim that it was all just 'inaccuracies', sorry.

Exactly his memoir defence, in the preface, which people accept today?

I just don't know where you get 'semi-nefarious' from though?

Anderson, sincerely, I think, had talked for the first time about the locked-up lunatic suspect as the best bet, to Griffiths, in 1895.

Now, three years later, Macnaghten was manouvering Griffiths to see that, yes, there was some suspicious indications for the Polish Jew -- for one thing there may have been a reliable witness (sound familiar?) -- but the Gentile, middle-aged respectable physician is much more likely to have been 'Jack' and, make no mistake, we were onto him too in 1888, 1889.

Mac's 1914 memoirs revealed that he knew this was all bunkum, eg. the Polish Jew and the Russian doctor are nothing, he does not confirm that the suspect was a doctor or even drowned, but he does admit he was not known about in 1888, or 1889, or 1890, or ...

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Maria. Yes, I am aware of that. Nevertheless, he was a great researcher for the Druitt angle. I believe he will return to the boards some day.

John Ruffles is one of the previous generation of Ripper students. We all stand on his shoulders.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Very interesting about William Nixon Race.

It was intended as an inside joke. Unfortunately, Maria likes to follow behind me and 'explain' what I say.

Mine wasn't intended as an insider joke, it was an explanatory post addressed specifically to Lynn, about whom I was wrong in misunderstanding that he was not aware of the situation. I apologize for quoting Tom Wescott and I most certainly wasn't “following him around“ on the boards. Good heavens!
Hunter is probably right that this should have been addressed in a PM to Lynn, but still, I didn't divulge any details, did I?

Hello Maria. Yes, I am aware of that. Nevertheless, he was a great researcher for the Druitt angle. I believe he will return to the boards some day.
John Ruffles is one of the previous generation of Ripper students. We all stand on his shoulders.

Lynn, it's better not to discuss this on the present thread. Agree about the capable researcher part and his posts/work remaining on casebook, but don't hold your breath about him returning some day.
Thanks for explaining about John Ruffels from Down Under, whom I very much appreciate and about whom I wasn't yet aware about his work on Druitt.

To Simon Wood:
Packer's statement to Abberline or Moore (similar to Hutchinson's statement) has not survived. Alexander Carmichael Bruce must have gotten involved in the matter (as in studying the statement and taking notes) due to pressure applied on the police by the press for “miscarriage of investigation“. Likewise, Packer's lack of credibility was commented upon in Swanson's report.
(I'm posting this aware of the possible consequences of Tom Wescott turning up and accusing me of following him around the boards, explaining his posts.:-))

[PaulB]

Exactly, Paul! Exactly!

That was my great revelation as to why there were two versions.

They were propagandist through and through.

That 'Aberconway' suits the cronies who read it, or learned of its contents, and disseminated it to the public.

Cunningly, and ecumenically, one was a Tory worthy and the other a Liberal Radical with a huge readership.

Harmless deceit which nobody would know: not the govt., not the public, not the press, not the families -- except the Druitrs who would gratefully appreciate the deception -- and if the whole thing went belly-up in Dorset, well, you could claim that it was all just 'inaccuracies', sorry.

Exactly his memoir defence, in the preface, which people accept today?

I just don't know where you get 'semi-nefarious' from though?

Anderson, sincerely, I think, had talked for the first time about the locked-up lunatic suspect as the best bet, to Griffiths, in 1895.

Now, three years later, Macnaghten was manouvering Griffiths to see that, yes, there was some suspicious indications for the Polish Jew -- for one thing there may have been a reliable witness (sound familiar?) -- but the Gentile, middle-aged respectable physician is much more likely to have been 'Jack' and, make no mistake, we were onto him too in 1888, 1889.

Mac's 1914 memoirs revealed that he knew this was all bunkum, eg. the Polish Jew and the Russian doctor are nothing, he does not confirm that the suspect was a doctor or even drowned, but he does admit he was not known about in 1888, or 1889, or 1890, or ...

Right, okay...

[GregBaron]

Three Amigos...

Many contributors to the boards did not witness these momentous events and, perhaps, do not realise the great influence that you, and the A-Z, had on the subject.

Just wanted to say that I, for one, am aware of the contributions of the “Three Musketeers” and am very grateful. I’m also very much enjoying this discussion of the 3 stooges (Anderson, Macnaughten, Swanson).

P.S. I find Jonathan’s theory to be amazingly inventive but very difficult for my small mind to grasp.

Please carry on gentlemen.

Greg

[Hunter]

It seems odd to me that everyone seems to be unaware of, or ignore, the part that Inspector William Nixon Race who had arrested Cutbush back in 1891, played in all this. Race was convinced that Cutbush was the Ripper and had made a nuisance of himself pushing this theory with his superiors....

Apropos of Macnaghten, what has to be remembered is that although he missed the 'canonical five' murders of 1888 (a fact that he himself acknowledged) he did not miss being involved in the investigation which was still running when he commenced duties on 1 June 1889, just before the McKenzie murder.

The reason that he stated, after he retired, that he joined the force six months after 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide was because of his later 'inclination to the belief' that Druitt was the Ripper. However, when he joined it was still a live investigation and he was very much involved with it, and the still open files. He would have been fully aware of the content of the files and the investigations that had been made.

Thank you for your reply, Stewart. Your considerable knowledge in this department is much appreciated. Macnaghten was probably acting on instructions, which could have been verbal. My comment that he may have anticipated the need for such a memo was in consideration of his character and that he appeared to be a man of initiative who was eager to impress others with his prowess... and a hint that by exposing the Aberconway version to Griffiths an Sims, this was displaying that initiative and prowess to them. In other words, despite the fact that he arrived after the core murders had taken place, he had 'hit the ground running', was up to speed in the continuing investigation that followed and could be counted on in that regard to put Race (for telling tales out of school) and the Sun in their 'proper' place.

As mentioned in a previous post, he would have been the man delegated to write such a memo.