Plausibility of Kosminski

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

Thanks.

I like your use of the word "supposed".

Rest assured, there's more to all the Goulston Street nonsense than meets the eye.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. While most of us won't agree on what the GSG means, I'm glad we an agree that it was a legitimate clue in the case, and not Coincidence #131 as many commentators would have it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Writing years after the murders, Jon, Major Smith said something to the effect that he and every other policeman in London had been utterly beaten by Jack the Ripper. He also castigated Anderson for his claim that the killer had been identified as a Polish Jew.

Yes Garry, this was his, From Constable to Commissioner, 1910, which I provided the quote from.
What he actually say's, "...he completely beat me and every police officer in London, and I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago." (p.147).

Earlier in another post you offered:

The relevance of this observation lies in the fact that Major Smith subsequently declared that he had no clue as to the killer’s identity.

This was the sentence I was looking for because I didn't think such an opinion existed, and I couldn't find it.
It goes without saying that none of the officials actually knew who the killer was, so suggesting that Smith also did not know is of no surprise. However, specifically with reference to the 'Lawende as witness' argument, if Smith actually stated "I did not Know" it might argue against Lawende being the witness. However, because Smith doesn't appear to have voiced that opinion we cannot use it as circumstantial evidence against Lawende being involved in the ID.

If Schwartz had been Anderson's witness and had recognised the suspect, but refused to swear to him, why then would they use a City witness (Mitre Sq.), which they did, for the Sadler ID?

Though this is also an observation on Anderson, if Anderson' (actually Swanson's) witness had recognised Kosminski, and we can safely assume both Swanson & Anderson both knew Kosminski was not Sadler, that they were definitely different people, why bring a "Ripper" witness to identify Sadler?

If both officials were so convinced about Kosminski in 1890/1, then why repeat the process with Sadler, purely on the strength of their convictions Sadler could not have been the Whitechapel murderer. Or, the Anderson/Swanson story is not as reliable as some like to think.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

The Best Show in town?

From Wickerman

It goes without saying that none of the officials actually knew who the killer was, so suggesting that Smith also did not know is of no surprise.

That is only a theory of the case, and not one I share.

I subscribe to the alternate theory that Macnaghten knew very well who the Ripper was:

Washington Post (Washington, D.C.)
4 June 1913

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the force.

'That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."

And,

Pittsburgh Press
6 July 1913

'Following out his observation regarding the necessity of the ideal detective "keeping his mouth shut," Macnaughton (sic) carried into retirement with him knowledge of the identity of perhaps the greatest criminal of the age, Jack the Ripper, who terrorized Whitechapel in 1888 by the fiendish mutilation and murder of seven women.
"He was a maniac, of course, but not the man whom the world generally suspected," said Sir Melville. "He committed suicide six months before I entered the department, and it is the one great regret of my career that I wasn't on the force when it all happened. My knowledge of his identity and the circumstances of his suicide came to me subsequently. As no good purpose could be served by publicity, I destroyed before I left Scotland Yard every scrap of paper bearing on the case. No one else will ever know who the criminal was - nor my reasons for keeping silent."

And,

'Days of My Years'
Sir Melville Macnaghten
1914

'Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.'[/I]

I am not saying: see, you are wrong.

I am saying that the sources do not agree and therefore Major Smith is one view, but he's not the only show in town -- and neither is Anderson.

Especially since Macmaghten in 1913 is suggesting that the knowledge came to him -- as in him alone -- entirely posthumously. Which would have exluded Smith.

Interesting that Mac in his memoir mentions Smith and his tome, with uncharacteristic sarcasm, though not the person by name:

'Only two or three years ago I saw a book of police reminiscences (not by a Metropolitan officer), in which the author stated that he knew more of the " Ripper murders " than any man living, and then went on to say that during the whole of August 1888 he was on the tiptoe of expectation. That writer had indeed a prophetic soul, looking to the fact that the first murder of the Whitechapel miscreant was on 31st August of that year of grace.'

Against Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect, Macnaghten is subtle in his dissension. Against Smith, apart from not naming him, he is comparatively brutal; making him look very foolish -- and also making it clear that he completely disparages his we-were-all-beaten opinion.

I am just arguing that mulitple interpretations are possible; eg. Smith was right and the rest is froth and bluster, or that Mac knew all.

[Phil H]

I don't think it is odd, in any way, that senior police officers and officials should have developed their own theories as to the identity of JtR.

They knew the case was high-profile, were probably frustrated at the inability of the the authorities to close the case, and (like us) were fascinated by the connundrums involved.

But, as the Duke of Wellington observed about books on battles - as at a ball, no one could see or know everything that passed during the ciourse of the event, so any individual account would be partial and personal.

So with "Jack" - Macnaghten would have had no experience (at first hand) of the autumn of terror itself, the pressures, the alarms etc (though Abberline and Swanson did). Anderson was missing from London for the first period. City Police only had a direct involvement with one murder...

Thus Macnaghten may have been more inclined than other colleagues to give credence and weight to information received later. Those involved throughout may have been impressed by ideas, theories or evidence accruing during the peak period. Anderson was probably more a theorist, an intellectual than a hands on detective. Abberline was on the street and perhaps tended to see the murderer as coming from that milieu. Others may have been less minded to take such a view.

We know, from Warren's minute appointing Swanson as the case co-ordinator (long thought to have been from the pen of Anderson) that the top cops were arrogant - Warren specifically believes thhat he could have solved the case alone given a couple of days. Equally, Anderson - who as i recall, reviewed the notebooks and case papers on his return from sick leave, may have reached theoretical conclusions rather than wholly evidence based ones. This may be one reason why he refers always to the generic - a Polish jew - rather than to a name. Swanson - who may have helped develop his chief's ideas, uses a name? Did Anderson ever know that name? (I cannot determine whether Anderson led Swanson or vice versa, or whether they two were partners in developing their theory. I see indicators of both or all three.)

Finally, as I think have said before, I see a real difference between official views and those ideas expressed by senior officers in returement. The latter did not require the same circumspection or need to be backed up, as a pronouncement "ex cathedra" or on the file would have done.

Macnaghten, albeit with carefully stated reservations, clearly had the confidence to put three names on the file. I believe his later statements about knowing and never revealing relate to Druitt. The information supporting that appears to have been late, confidential and personal to him. Anderson or Swanson may never have known of it.

Anderson, not it seems a man to undervalue his own intellectual powers, probably genuinely believed that he had the answer (however mistaken that view may have been). Swanson, it seems (I see no other logical reading of the marginalia) endorsed that view.

Were they right - who knows.

But I see nothing surprising or controversial in this - it reflects human nature, and is apparent even today. Note the ex-Chancellor's criticisms of his old boss and colleagues in his memoirs, now that he is not bound by "collective responsibility".

Phil

[harry]

Phil,Paul,Jonothan,
I once saw a series depicting how researchers could read history by studying the pictorials engraved in church and cathedral windows.Now maybe they could,and maybe today persons can solve old crimes by other historical means.I cannot argue the merits,having neither studied,nor understood the methods.However I have a fair understanding of the English language,and if I read correctly,neither Anderson nor Swanson was in attendence at an identity where alledgedly Kosminski was identified.Now using other than accepted police procedures,can it be shown who was there,how they reported,and why they never,as far as is known,divulged their findings to public knowledge?

[Phil H]

Historical method is only as useful as its acceptability.

The standard "historical method" taught to academics in the UK and I assume the US, is that which generations of "peer" assessment (i.e the views of fellow academics in the field). So if an academic historian seeks to argue that ecclesiastical sculptures or stained glass can provide useful information - that argument is only as good as its acceptability to the wider community. Sometimes a brilliant insight can shed understanding - sometimes others remain sceptical.

It is, of course, this that drives "alternative historians" wild - such as Graham Hancock or those who argue for Atlantis or some apologists for Richard III or those who say the Sphinx is far older than accepted. They hate the idea of conventional wisdoms and the difficulty of challenging these. But the caution and approach of the academics is surely right - you advance step by step, taking others with you. You don't make leaps in the dark, rely on insight or inspiration alone.

On working out who might have attended an identification - they Stewart Evans might help on standard procedures. In normal circumstances, as Stewart has noted re Le Grand taking Packer to "Warren", it is highly unlikley that the Chief Commissioner would personally have seen such an individual - or even the Assistant Commissioner (who wrote a report).

So, I would argue that logically it would be an equivalent to Abberline (ie someone on the ground) who would oversee an identification. (Did not Insp Reid go to the barracks with Connolly?)

But at the stage we are talking about - who can say? I guess Swanson might have gone along given the sensitivities and high profile of the case by that stage. (Although I too don't read his marginalia that way - no mention of "I" or sense of him seeing things first hand). That said, did not very senior officers sometimes take a hand - Warren re the GSG, others when Mckenzie and Coles were killed?

Do we know who attended some of the Saddler id parades with Lawende?

Finally, do procedures and normal processes apply to the id mentioned in the marginalia - I thought the wider opinion here was that this was somewhat outside the conventions/rules?

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

Yes, that is one way of looking at it, for sure.

It represents a hegemonic faction of the conventional wisdom and it maybe entirely correct.

Hey, a source may be found tomorrow which shows that [insert name of significant cop] was talking totally out of his hat!

Or ...

If you just put together just two sources; the 'West of England' M.P. titbit (1891) and Macnaghten's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914) you have a [provisional] historical solution.

It means the identity of the murderer was known posthumously to Macnaghten, initially through the Old Boy Net, and then by meeting the Druitt family -- or a family member.

Subsequently Macnaghten's problems began as to what to do with this knowledge, which could never lead to a conviction but could most certainly lead to embarrassment for the Yard (especially with the Liberals in and the Tories out) and potential ruin for the respectable 'good' family of the fiend.

In 1891, the truth about the Ripper suddenly leaked from Dorset, but by an extraordinary co-incidence the tale gained no tabloid traction as it was superseded, within days, by another Whitechapel harlot murder. After that agonizing anti-climax, there was no sign of the 'son of a surgeon' who had killed himself as if it had been smothered.

Then in 1895, Anderson, in a bombshell aside, claimed that the fiend's identity was, in a 'perfectly plausible'theory', a locked-up lunatic.

As if in response, in 1898, the Dorset tale made a comeback thanks to Mac briefing Major Griffiths, the very same source for Anderson's earlier comments.

Now Griffiths claimed that, yes there was a loonie suspect, but he was of less importance than the English gentleman -- who has now become a middle-aged physician rather than the more youthful sounding surgeon's son.

But just like Anderson, Griffiths was seeming to claim that the 'Drowned Doctor' was a suspect in 1888, and any doubt about that self-serving timing was ended by the famous George Sims.

From 1899 to 1917 Sims never wavered from this tale of a nearly successful police hunt for the mad medico. They were about to arrest him when he vanished after the Kelly murder. The pals of the doctor decided to tell the police of their worst fears. No need, as the police already knew about this prime suspect.

To understand the police sources is to see that Anderson and Macnaghten, who loathed each other, are in competition over who is the Ripper and who isn't though Macnaghten was careful to propagate his opinion through cronies whilst Anderson, his superior, was himself the confident source -- who never mentioned the Drowned Doctor.

In the Edwardian Era, Mac won this battle hands down. The pop image of the murderer as a top-hatted toff originates with Mac, via Sims. The mentally-ill Jew suspect was an embarrassment.

Whereas in the modern era, since about 1987, the ghost of Anderson has, to some extent, won this struggle, reversing the earlier perception, whilst Macnaghten has fallen into total disfavour as a source -- his memoirs ignored in some significant sources.

To Edwardians there was no mystery, if they accepted the opinions of a Tory Major, a Liberal playwright, and a retiring police chief. About a story which had originated from the murderer's circle in Dorset -- they just had no name.

Macnaghten as a source seems a bit puzzling giving away so many details about the 'Drowned Doctor' to Sims, because surely the people who knew the dead fiend would recognise him?

That's remarkably indiscreet for a smooth gent known for his reticence, his discretion, his incredible memory, and his compassion.

He was acting very out of character?

That is until Montague Druitt's true identity became known -- eg. returning to the 'son of a surgeon' -- and thus it all fits; Mac was acting in character by peddling a semi-fictional shield for the Druitt family (who become the 'friends' in Griffiths and Sims) though not in his memoirs, where he drops the fiction and replaces it with ... almost nothing.

That bit of discretion cost Macnaghten's place in posterity: as the man who laid to rest the ghost of the 'Protean' maniac.

[Phil H]

A very good post Jonathan, which I enjoyed reading.

It is one interpretation, and I reserve my opinion.

On a couple of points:

Where is the certainty that Macnagten and Anderson disliked each other as intensely as you say?

I think Macnaghten's references to Druitt - in particular the "mistakes" are capable of two interpretations: slips of memory; or deliberate obfuscation without lying - because you could always say it was mistake. I'm not sure how we tell them apart.

Druiit, in the memo is exactly the right age - but a decade out - 41 not 31. Druitt is a professional (i.e. noted as off the right social class), but a doctor not a lawyer.. and so on.

I don't think we need to pit Macnagten and Anderson as rivals, both could legitimately have come to their own conclusions and neither NEED be right.

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

It goes without saying that none of the officials actually knew who the killer was, so suggesting that Smith also did not know is of no surprise.

Perhaps, Jon, but it still needed to be stated in order for the overall hypothesis to make sense.

However, specifically with reference to the 'Lawende as witness' argument, if Smith actually stated "I did not Know" it might argue against Lawende being the witness. However, because Smith doesn't appear to have voiced that opinion we cannot use it as circumstantial evidence against Lawende being involved in the ID.

You are of course free to draw your own conclusions, Jon, but I would imagine that most people would infer from Smith’s writings that he had no clue as to the murderer’s identity. The Major wasn’t exactly a shrinking violet. If he’d known, we would know. Of that you may be absolutely certain.

If Schwartz had been Anderson's witness and had recognised the suspect, but refused to swear to him, why then would they use a City witness (Mitre Sq.), which they did, for the Sadler ID?

Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, Jon, as a consequence of which investigators attempt wherever possible to avoid overreliance on a single witness. There has been a tendency to conclude that, because we know that Sadler was viewed by Lawende, Lawende was the only witness involved in the attempted identification. This in my view is a flawed assumption. It is far more likely that other witnesses were used, but that such details never reached the pages of the newspapers.

This is just one of the reasons why I have long been sceptical about the alleged Seaside Home identification. Had investigators been presented with a credible suspect, they would have used Schwartz and Lawende (and possibly even Elizabeth Long), not one or the other. So whilst Anderson may have been telling the truth when he stated that a witness identified Kosminski ‘unhesitatingly’, I tend to think that this was not the whole story. If other witnesses were not employed, the identification was procedurally flawed and any results therefrom must be considered unreliable. If they were, then they clearly did not identify Kosminski, otherwise Anderson would have stated as much. Either way, the ‘identification’ cannot be accepted as a reliable indicator of Kosminski’s guilt.

[Phil H]

Garry

On a couple of pouints re the "identification":

If other witnesses were not employed, the identification was procedurally flawed and any results therefrom must be considered unreliable.

It depends of course upon what the "results" are considered to be. Clearly, the authorities never pursued any implications as far as a prosecution; existing files are silent on the whole affair; and no one appears to have had any certainty, Anderson's comments aside (and I note that he does not confirm a name).

So far as I can conclude, the "identification" was sufficient to convince at least two senior policemen that they had their man, but the outcome was either insufficient to convince Macnaghten, or unknown to him (maybe it was never recorded on the files) and he drew his reference to a Polish jew (named in his case) from other sources. But Kosminski was clearly in the frame because his name was later known to Sir MM.

If they were, then they clearly did not identify Kosminski, otherwise Anderson would have stated as much.

I don't agree. The marginalia makes clear that the various references by Swanson relate to "Kosminski" - hence i cannot see how the identigfication can have involved anyone other than him. Secondly, Anderson's professional values may have meant that he saw no reason to, and preferred not to, reveal a name in public. MM only did so on the file (confidentially). Maybe Anderson didn't know the name and only Swanson did - he might simply have told his boss, "as we thought it was that Polish jew".

Either way, the ‘identification’ cannot be accepted as a reliable indicator of Kosminski’s guilt.

Swanson certainly doesn't say he was guilty, he simply names him as the suspect. Anyone who goes further than that (or even assumes that Kosminski equate automatically to Aaron, should tread carefully. As others have proposed, the name might have been misheard; become a sort of pseudonym for Polish jews in police circles; or have referred to a relative at present unidentified.

I say again we cannot rationalise away that "something" happened, though Swanson may have misremembered; implied things that were clear to him with his knowledge, but are obscure to us today with less complete files; or in simplifying left out some stages/details of what I assume may have been a confidential/perhaps unofficial/and maybe clandestine operation.

Phil

[Phil H]

Further to my last post:

It has been pointed out to me privately by a respected member (for which I am grateful) that I was incorrect in certain statements in my previous post. I wholly accept all these points. (My mistake is posting when I have none of my sources to hand to check against!)

Macnaghten would almost certainly have known about an identification that occured in 1890/91 as he was then in post.

All the textual indications in the marginalia make it clear that Aaron Kosminski was the suspect.

As Anderson wrote, of being 'almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer...'. he must have known as Swanson did.

I stand corrected and wanted to make that clear in case my earlier post misled anyone.

Phil

[PaulB]

Phil,Paul,Jonothan,
I once saw a series depicting how researchers could read history by studying the pictorials engraved in church and cathedral windows.Now maybe they could,and maybe today persons can solve old crimes by other historical means.I cannot argue the merits,having neither studied,nor understood the methods.However I have a fair understanding of the English language,and if I read correctly,neither Anderson nor Swanson was in attendence at an identity where alledgedly Kosminski was identified.Now using other than accepted police procedures,can it be shown who was there,how they reported,and why they never,as far as is known,divulged their findings to public knowledge?

A whole slew of posts to read! But yours, Harry, was short, so let me quickly address it whilst making a flying visit to the shores of Casebook.

Well, first of all we don't know whether one, both or neither of the two men were present, and it is conceivable that at least Swanson was, as his observations about the suspect knowing he'd been identified and why the witness refused to give evidence possibly suggest first-hand testimony.

And obviously we can't know who was there, how they reported, or why their findings didn't become public knowledge (although, of course, they did become public knowledge because we know about them) because there are no sources telling us.

The point is not who was there, but whether "there" ever happened. And we can't prove that it did, at least not in the legal sense you seem to mean and want, and similarly we can't prove that there were once four kings of Kent named Segovax, Carvilius, Cingetorix and Taximagulus. Caesar in his Gallic Wars says that there was, but we have no independent corroboration. However, we can study and assess the source, what we can determine about Caesar and a lot of other stuff, we can reach a peer accepted conclusion; a probability. We can do the same with Anderson too. It's what historians do, what history is all about.

One of the problems which besets this subject is that some people treat it as if it was a cold case crime investigation, whilst for others it is a historical problem. What criminal investigators do and what historians do have some very close parallels, but they are also utterly different disciplines.

Harry,

[Tom_Wescott]

The Quotable Paul Begg

One of the problems which besets this subject is that some people treat it as if it was a cold case crime investigation, whilst for others it is a historical problem. What criminal investigators do and what historians do have some very close parallels, but they are also utterly different disciplines.

I've never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely correct. You've been very quotable lately.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Sir Robert who?

To Phil H

Thanks.

For myself, I think it is a very reasonable working hypothesis that two police chiefs, who worked together for a dozen or so years -- with the pious recluse sitting above the boyish smoothie -- and who then exclude each other, totally, from their memoirs must have absolutely loathed each other.

Anderson did this Stalinist-style airbrushing out-of-existence first in his 1901 tome, mentioning Macnaghten only once in passing (though not by name) about an officer making a fuss over a threatening letter. Imagine what Mac, 'essentially a man of action' (Griffiths, 1898) thought about that?

Furthermore, in 'Days of My Years' (1914), Macnaghten provides jauntily chummy thumbnails of everybody else:

Abberline (p. 279):

'Fred Abberline must have left us in February 1892. He knew the East End of London as few men have since known it. He is still hale and hearty and as successful in his gardening operations in Bournemouth as he was in turning the crooks out of the rooms as Monte Carlo when he was give a free hand by the authorities at Monaco eighteen years ago.'

Littlechild (p. 278)

'Jack Littlechild who, in his younger days, had great success in running to earth long firm swindlers, was for many years the popular head of what, in those days, was called the Irish Branch at the Yard. He retired more than twenty-one years ago, and, after a most successful time as a private inquiry agent, his appearance is still refreshingly youthful, and his figure that of a young comedian'

Swanson (also p. 278)

'Donald Swanson, a very capable officer with a synthetical turn of mind, who subsequently held the post of Superintendent at the Department for seven years. To him was entrusted in 1888 the general supervision of the enquiries made into the Whitechapel murders'.

Monro (p. 25)

'I doubt whether any of the gentleman who filled this position before or after his time ever gained more completely the affection and confidence of their officers. In him and in his judgment they believed, and knew that he would be a strong rock of defence to them in times of storm and stress.'\

And so on.

It is quite something to think that the 'Protean' [though un-named] Druitt gets an entire chapter to himself in Mac's memoirs and Anderson -- and his 'definitely ascertained fact' -- do not exist.