Plausibility of Kosminski

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Swanson's role as desk-officer [Warren's "eyes and ears" on the Ripper investigation] was short-lived.

In 1889 Chief Inspector Swanson appeared before a "Departmental Committee Upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation" appointed by the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews.

The Chairman was Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office.

The Committee were Sir Arthur Lawrence Haliburton, KCB; Francis Mowatt Esq., CB; Alfred Richard Pennefather, and James Monro, Esq., CB.

Mr. D. Swanson, 29th November 1889.

[Question 2157] The Chairman: “You are a Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police?”
Swanson: “I am.”

[2158] The Chairman: “In the Criminal Investigation Department?”
Swanson: “Yes.”

[2251] Mr. Monro: “You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?”
Swanson: “Yes.”

[2252] Mr. Monro: “What were your hours then?”
Swanson: “I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in, which took me till 11 pm, and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel and see the officers - generally getting home between 2 and 3 am.

[2253] Mr. Monro: “How long did that go on?”
Swanson: “That went on from September till December.”

On assuming the Commissionership, James Monro appears to have relieved Swanson of the task of desk-officer on the Ripper investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

From Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, by Robert House, Hoboken NJ, 2011, page 200 -

'As a result of these statements, Robert Anderson has since become perhaps the most controversial figure in all of Ripperology, and a number of Ripperologists have dismissed his statements completely, characterizing him as incompetent, boastful, and untrustworthy. But one wonders whether such criticism is based on objective judgment of Anderson's character or simply on a reluctance to accept that that the most fascinating and baffling of unsolved mysteries was indeed solved more than a hundred years ago, with little applause or fanfare.'

I think that just about sets out your totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson Rob.

Stewart,

Well, so this is quoting me out of context.

I note you did not highlight the previous part of the sentence where I said "one wonders whether..." Nor do you quote any of the numerous places in the book where I make it quite clear that I am in no way definite that Kozminski was the Ripper. I was very careful to express myself in such a way that I do not ever state that Kozminski was the Ripper. Much more so than many authors who have written suspect books, yourself included. My main object was to present a case that shows that Kozminski was and still is a strong suspect given what we now know, and to present a counter argument to several of the reasons for which he has been dismissed as a suspect by past authors and Ripperologists. Perhaps I did not entirely succeed in doing so, as you seem to be implying in a rather snide way.

Clearly you are making a joke out of what you refer to as my "totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson." If I am perceived as defending Anderson, it is possibly just because he is so consistently attacked by people on the message boards as being a totally inept, boastful, forgetful liar. If you think this sort of perspective is "totally impartial and unbiased"... so be it.

But I do not really see what your comment has to do with anything that I have posted on here recently. I only posted two things: first that I do not agree with your statement that a positive ID would be legally worthless, and second, Maria's contention that the Batty Street affair was a "fictitious story." You respond by making fun of me and my book in general. Fine.

But I suppose I should not have high expectations for decent and gentlemanly discourse, given the current state of things on the message boards.

Rob H

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting Piece

Hi All,
Swanson's role as desk-officer [Warren's "eyes and ears" on the Ripper investigation] was short-lived.
In 1889 Chief Inspector Swanson appeared before a "Departmental Committee Upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation" appointed by the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews.
The Chairman was Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office.
The Committee were Sir Arthur Lawrence Haliburton, KCB; Francis Mowatt Esq., CB; Alfred Richard Pennefather, and James Monro, Esq., CB.
Mr. D. Swanson, 29th November 1889.
[Question 2157] The Chairman: “You are a Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police?”
Swanson: “I am.”
[2158] The Chairman: “In the Criminal Investigation Department?”
Swanson: “Yes.”
[2251] Mr. Monro: “You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?”
Swanson: “Yes.”
[2252] Mr. Monro: “What were your hours then?”
Swanson: “I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in, which took me till 11 pm, and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel and see the officers - generally getting home between 2 and 3 am.
[2253] Mr. Monro: “How long did that go on?”
Swanson: “That went on from September till December.”
On assuming the Commissionership, James Monro appears to have relieved Swanson of the task of desk-officer on the Ripper investigation.
Regards,
Simon

I think that you posted this interesting piece earlier this year Simon.

However, I don't think that you have to interpret it as simply as saying that Swanson was 'relieved of the task of desk-officer', implying that he was no longer overseeing the Whitechapel murders enquiry. All I think it means is that after December 1888 he probably went back to working normal hours as the enquiry became less intense and the workload lessened.

Swanson's signature on reports subsequent to that date show that he was still at the head of the investigation.

[Simon Wood]

I think that you posted this interesting piece earlier this year Simon.

Whoops! Old-Timers disease must be creeping up on me.

Regards,

Simon

[The Good Michael]

Clearly you are making a joke out of what you refer to as my "totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson." If I am perceived as defending Anderson, it is possibly just because he is so consistently attacked by people on the message boards as being a totally inept, boastful, forgetful liar. If you think this sort of perspective is "totally impartial and unbiased"... so be it.

But I do not really see what your comment has to do with anything that I have posted on here recently. I only posted two things: first that I do not agree with your statement that a positive ID would be legally worthless, and second, Maria's contention that the Batty Street affair was a "fictitious story." You respond by making fun of me and my book in general. Fine.

I agree with what Rob has said here. I posted a few hours ago an idea that somewhat excuses Anderson for a little embellishment, which I think is a very possible thing. I have never seen Rob give any glowing reports of Anderson in the past, nor in his book. I have seen him try to stay somewhere in the middle. In a suspect book, of course there is of necessity a leaning in the direction of the suspects, as all authors on this site have also leaned. It has been explained that publishers want such a lean; they want the idea of a possble solution presented. In Rob's book, he was very careful not to present Kosminski as the Ripper, and just as a suspect.

I feel Stewart was uncharacteristically negative in his post re: Rob's perceived bias. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't know why exactlly, but it doesn't.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

Stewart,
Well, so this is quoting me out of context.
I note you did not highlight the previous part of the sentence where I said "one wonders whether..." Nor do you quote any of the numerous places in the book where I make it quite clear that I am in no way definite that Kozminski was the Ripper. I was very careful to express myself in such a way that I do not ever state that Kozminski was the Ripper. Much more so than many authors who have written suspect books, yourself included. My main object was to present a case that shows that Kozminski was and still is a strong suspect given what we now know, and to present a counter argument to several of the reasons for which he has been dismissed as a suspect by past authors and Ripperologists. Perhaps I did not entirely succeed in doing so, as you seem to be implying in a rather snide way.
Clearly you are making a joke out of what you refer to as my "totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson." If I am perceived as defending Anderson, it is possibly just because he is so consistently attacked by people on the message boards as being a totally inept, boastful, forgetful liar. If you think this sort of perspective is "totally impartial and unbiased"... so be it.
But I do not really see what your comment has to do with anything that I have posted on here recently. I only posted two things: first that I do not agree with your statement that a positive ID would be legally worthless, and second, Maria's contention that the Batty Street affair was a "fictitious story." You respond by making fun of me and my book in general. Fine.
But I suppose I should not have high expectations for decent and gentlemanly discourse, given the current state of things on the message boards.
Rob H

Well I take your comment that you wonder 'whether such criticism is based on an objective judgment of Anderson's character or simply a reluctance to accept that' the case was solved, as claimed by Anderson, as aimed at the likes of me.

You obviously do not like any attacks (you perceive them as attacks) on Anderson and you exhibited your pique by writing '...but frankly I am getting sick of the way people jump to fairly unfounded [whatever 'fairly unfounded' may mean] conclusions about things, and then present these conclusions (really just assumptions) as if they were fact.' It was this apparent fit of pique that I responded to. And now you are accusing me of being 'snide', thank you. And please tell me where I have not been decent and where I have been ungentlemanly. Obviously the kitchen is too hot for you.

Your book, as regards Anderson, is largely derivative and, it cannot be denied, biased in favour of Anderson. Fine, it's a suspect book.

And while we are at it, Anderson was boastful and his writings were untrustworthy. I would direct you to the book Irish Conspiracies by Frederick Moir Bussy, London, Everett, 1910, for enlightenment on this. Have you read it?

[Stewart P Evans]

Suggest

I agree with what Rob has said here. I posted a few hours ago an idea that somewhat excuses Anderson for a little embellishment, which I think is a very possible thing. I have never seen Rob give any glowing reports of Anderson in the past, nor in his book. I have seen him try to stay somewhere in the middle. In a suspect book, of course there is of necessity a leaning in the direction of the suspects, as all authors on this site have also leaned. It has been explained that publishers want such a lean; they want the idea of a possble solution presented. In Rob's book, he was very careful not to present Kosminski as the Ripper, and just as a suspect.
I feel Stewart was uncharacteristically negative in his post re: Rob's perceived bias. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't know why exactlly, but it doesn't.
Mike

I suggest that you read my above response.

[jmenges]

Death of the Ripper

'Death of the Ripper':

The title of the final chapter of SPE's book on Tumblety.

JM

[The Good Michael]

'Death of the Ripper':

The title of the final chapter of SPE's book on Tumblety.

Now THAT was snide. It was similar to something I read a few posts back. Oh yeah, now I remember.

Nice to see you, JM

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Expected

'Death of the Ripper':
The title of the final chapter of SPE's book on Tumblety.
JM

I might have expected this from someone. I've pointed out the tendency of people to do this. In order to attack me they resort to my work of sixteen years ago, before I wrote any other book on the case. We are talking objectivity in the current debate, 2011 not 1995.

And it never pretended to be anything but a suspect book, with all the bias and selectivity that such a book carries with it. However, I did state, at the time, that we could not prove that Tumblety was the Ripper as there was no hard evidence. We presented a circumstantial case with personal opinion and interpretation clearly shown. And you obviously do not understand the requirements of publishers and what is involved in writing such a book. I did qualify Rob's book by saying fair enough it's a suspect book. What I didn't like was the way he was dismissing critics of Anderson out of hand by questioning their objectivity and reluctance to accept 'that the most fascinating and baffling of mysteries was indeed solved more than a hundred years ago...'

Where are you coming from Jon? I really should like to know. I really did think better of you.

[Stewart P Evans]

See

Now THAT was snide. It was similar to something I read a few posts back. Oh yeah, now I remember.
Nice to see you, JM
Mike

See my above response.

[robhouse]

I will concede that I should have written that some Ripperologists are reluctant to accept 'that the most fascinating and baffling of mysteries may have been solved more than a hundred years ago...'

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry...

I will concede that I should have written that some Ripperologists are reluctant to accept 'that the most fascinating and baffling of mysteries may have been solved more than a hundred years ago...'

Sorry Rob, you actually wrote, '...was indeed solved...' that doesn't sound anything like 'may' to me.

[jmenges]

Where are you coming from Jon? I really should like to know. I really did think better of you.

Hi Stewart,

Honestly I cannot stomach your characterizing an author as biased or drawing inventive conclusions given your own track record while writing these exact type of what you call "suspect" books. All the time we have posters coming on the boards having read your book on Tumblety and you have not once, that I have seen, admitted that 'Jack the Ripper: The First American Serial Killer (US title) is riddled with supposition and speculation, and, most importantly for the uterus collection story, fails to connect Dunham with Conover.

I like you, but where I am coming from is hoping that you will behave better of your fellow authors on this subject, given your 16 year old, but still read, pile of mistakes and confusion.

JM

Not to sidetrack the thread.

[Stewart P Evans]

Best

I think that it's best if I simply give up on some of you people.