Plausibility of Kosminski

[Garry Wroe]

Yet Druitt and Kosminski - as types - could not be more different. In class, speech, attire, background, a local and an interloper (if MJD EVER visited the East End, of course) etc etc.

Surely this shows that the "men at the top" were considering (at various stages) a variety of types of suspect, and thinking outside the box?

Macnaghten had no direct involvement in the investigation, Phil, so his ideas regarding Druitt are not necessarily reflective of the general consensus. Yet Macnaghten as well as others clearly conducted the kind of cold-case review to which I alluded in a previous post, an analysis that sought to link established persons of interest to the cessation of the murders. Thus we are presented with a mentally unstable suicide and incarcerated lunatics who harboured a masochistic tendencies.

Hence a clear theme.

[PaulB]

But this, I believe, Paul, is where Trevor has a point. By and large, investigators received suspect-based intelligence from members of the public. Once someone had been named, he would be assessed, and if appropriate, thoroughly investigated.

But what of this assessment?

It is clear that senior officers (probably assisted by medical men) had profiled the killer and concluded that he was a low-class local. This accounts for the raids on casual wards and common lodging houses as well as the parochial distribution of leaflets. Anderson went even further with the assertion that ‘the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews …’ He also assumed the wanted man to have been ‘a sexual maniac of the virulent type …’

So police had developed a clear picture of the man for whom they were searching, a template that was used to assess those persons of interest who came under their scrutiny. To my mind, however, it is fairly obvious that they had misjudged their quarry and were searching for the wrong type of suspect. Whereas they were looking for a ‘maniac’ possessed of ‘utterly unmentionable vices’, the cases of Bundy, Samples Sutcliffe and Kemper, as well as those of many other modern sadosexual serialists, inform us that such men are all too often unremarkable and provide few obvious clues as to the psychopathology that fuels their criminal behaviour.

This is not to disparage those who hunted the Whitechapel Murderer. I’m merely suggesting that their lack of experience of such offenders led them to formulate preconceptions which ultimately led the investigation astray.

Later, once the Ripper scare had receded, a number of senior investigators appear to have conducted a form of cold-case review, examining the files in order to identify any ‘suspect’ whose personal circumstances might explain the cessation of the murders. Macnaghten proposed the names of three such individuals, two of whom were mad and bad and locked away, the third a suicide who was thought to have been going mad. On top of this we have the alleged Abberline remarks concerning Chapman, and of course the inculpation of Kosminski by Anderson and Swanson.

Tellingly, not a shred of evidence was adduced against any of these men. But then it wouldn’t have been, because the real killer is unlikely to have been either insane or obviously homicidal. He was more likely to have been an Arthur Shawcross type of character who could have walked into any police station without attracting the least suspicion.

Thus I’m in agreement with Trevor’s contention that too much has been made of the contemporaneous suspects. To my mind, the reliance on the opinions of those who were there at the time has created a form of investigative alchemy that can never hope to produce gold. And since those who were there at the time failed to reach anything even approaching agreement regarding the killer’s identity, there is every reason to treat their conclusions with caution.

Garry,
There seem to two points being made here, one is Trevor's assertion that Macnaghten took the names from something such as a C.I.D. register or similar record, the other is that those named by Macnaghten have been elevated in importance.

That the names were taken from a C.I.D. register is definitely wrong in the case of Druitt because Macnaghten tells us that he obtained Druitt's name from information received privately. As far as we know it never got as far as being be noted anywhere officially. “Kosminski”, we now know, was Anderson's prime suspect, and as far as we know he assumed that position as early as the eye-witness identification. There is no reason to suppose that either Druitt or Kosminski emerged from a post-murders review of the available data. That's a theory, certainly, but we need evidence for it.

I don't have any problem at all with the idea “that too much has been made of the contemporaneous suspects”, but it's Anderson and Macnaghten who elevated them to prime suspects in their respective memoirs. All people have been doing for the past 25-years is trying to figure out why.

[PaulB]

...the men in question - Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten - were not true 'investigators', but were gentlemen appointed to a post. It seems a good part of their duties was firing off letters, engaging in ego-rangling, and seemingly remaining ignorant of the investigation.

With respect, I think you mistake the men and the period.

Whatever view we may now take, in the late-Victorian period and even up to 1945 in Britain, birth, background (education, military service, etc) and connections were important elemts in a man rising to the top. many politicians were related to others - Churchill, Chamberlain for instance.

Wellington (much earlier Marlborough) and other senior military commander, were men of family or aristocrats, yet were successful soldiers.

Warren was a soldier appointed to be Chief Commissioner, as was much later Lord Trenchard (founder of the RAF).

Yet Anderson had a life-times service as an administrator (he was no Johnny come lately or amateur). Macnagten, as I recall, was widely praised for his attributes and hands-on approach. Swanson was given the work as case-co-ordinator by Warren specifically because of his skills as a synthesist.

It may serve some (I'm not saying you Tom) to disparage such public servants, but an historian needs to look at them from the perspective of their times (not by anachronistic standards).

Men like them one and administered (on the whole well and begninly) a vast empire. They were neither diletantes nor fools. If the pressures and the pace of affairs was less frenetic than today, then sobeit, but Parliament sat for only a few weeks each year.

If there was a problem in 1888, it may have been that the Met was facing a situation (an apparent serial killer) such as it had never faced before. There was huge public and political interest. There was also a sense of conflict within the organisation - it seems between the Yard and the Home Office, but also in the loss of two Commissioners in quick succession - Warren and Munro. That may have been distracting. there may also have been distinct "cliques" - that around Warren, another around Munro - and this may account for some of the adverse remarks and attitudes that seem to have emerged.

I would also reflect on the differences between policemen and administrators at the Yard - my perception is that Macnaghten and Anderson were very much administrators (as was Warren) whatever their seeming rank, while Swanson was a career cop.

Sorry to go off theme, but I couldn't let that remark go past without at least putting in a defence for the "gentlemen" (in every sense) concerned.

Phil

I agree.

[PaulB]

QUOTE: But I'd be lying if I said I don't still maintain a strong interest in the development of new information regarding Druitt and Koz, though it seems very slow in coming.

From an historical perspective, Tom, I find it fascinating. But neither of them was the Whitechapel Murderer. They were simply men who spoke with a Geordie accent.

Yet Druitt and Kosminski - as types - could not be more different. In class, speech, attire, background, a local and an interloper (if MJD EVER visited the East End, of course) etc etc.

Surely this shows that the "men at the top" were considering (at various stages) a variety of types of suspect, and thinking outside the box?

Phil

I don't know that they were considering a variety of suspects; Druitt seems to have been suggested by an outside source, and Macnaghten found the information provided to be compelling, but wasn't necessarily thinking outside the box. The other two suspects, Kosminski and Ostrog, were both Polish Jews (or described as such), from which a conclusion may also be drawn.

[PaulB]

This is a pertinent thought. Might I ask if Macnaghten would have had any idea at all about Druitt's homosexuality – particularly if the police were approached by Druitt's family at some point? The homosexuality factor would have placed him, in Victorian eyes, close to criminal minorities such as Kozminsky and Ostrog – not to mention Kozminsky's “solitary vices“.

Maria,
I'm not sure that Druitt's homosexuality - and let's remember that there is absolutely no evidence that he was homosexual - would have placed him close to the criminal minorities in the eyes of the Victorians. Public schoolboys like Macnaghten would have encountered it often enough to know differently. And we should also recall that Macnaghten said "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer", from which we could infer that his source wasn't Druitt's family, for had it been he would have known what they believed.

[The Good Michael]

And we should also recall that Macnaghten said "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer", from which we could infer that his source wasn't Druitt's family, for had it been he would have known what they believed.

You know, Paul, this is a very important bit of information. This means the source couldn't have been the family and had to have been second-hand information. Most assuredly this plays havoc with Druitt's candidacy and lessens the value of Macnaghten's opinion.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Maria,
I'm not sure that Druitt's homosexuality - and let's remember that there is absolutely no evidence that he was homosexual - would have placed him close to the criminal minorities in the eyes of the Victorians. Public schoolboys like Macnaghten would have encountered it often enough to know differently. And we should also recall that Macnaghten said "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer", from which we could infer that his source wasn't Druitt's family, for had it been he would have known what they believed.

On the other hand we have evidence that the Victorians persecuted ,criminalised and actually imprisoned Oscar Wilde for being homosexual, Paul.
Also why do we believe what Macnaghten or Anderson had to say? They may both have been attempting to save face having failed to catch this notorious murderer.They both brought out their autobiographies [1913 [M] and 1910[A] around the time they wheeled this old chestnut out for a new airing.
From private information? Well thats an easy one---'confidentially' as the song goes----only why on earth were they all singing so out of tune?
Best
Norma

[mariab]

On the other hand we have evidence that the Victorians persecuted ,criminalised and actually imprisoned Oscar Wilde for being homosexual

Precisely.

Maria,
I'm not sure that Druitt's homosexuality - and let's remember that there is absolutely no evidence that he was homosexual - would have placed him close to the criminal minorities in the eyes of the Victorians. Public schoolboys like Macnaghten would have encountered it often enough to know differently.

I understand, plus there was the Cleveland Street scandal. Perhaps Kozminsky's so-called “solitary vices“ would be viewed differently than homosexuality in Victorian England, since he was, for lack of a better word, considered “retarded“?

By the by, I'm really interested in reading Jonathan Hainsworth Druitt trilogy in Examiner, but it'll have to wait for a little while.

[PaulB]

On the other hand we have evidence that the Victorians persecuted ,criminalised and actually imprisoned Oscar Wilde for being homosexual, Paul.

Well, it's arguable that the Victorians persecuted and criminalised Oscar Wilde for his homosexuality; homosexuality was illegal, the Marquess of Queensbury to all intent and purposes accused Wilde of being a Sodomite, and Wilde, egged on by others, charged MoQ with libel, to which MoQ responded by proving that Wilde was one. It wasn't quite as if society said "hey, ho, let's get Wilde for being a poof".

Also why do we believe what Macnaghten or Anderson had to say? They may both have been attempting to save face having failed to catch this notorious murderer.They both brought out their autobiographies [1913 [M] and 1910[A] around the time they wheeled this old chestnut out for a new airing.
From private information? Well thats an easy one---'confidentially' as the song goes----only why on earth were they all singing so out of tune?
Best
Norma

Well, let's not get into this again, Norma. It comes down to supporting a hypothesis and the idea that Anderson and Macnaghten felt any need to "save face" lacks support. Macnaghten wasn't even working for Scotland Yard when the murders were committed and Anderson was newly appointed and not even in the country when all but the last murder was committed, so neither man really had to concoct stories to "save face", and anyway they both enjoyed successful careers.

[PaulB]

You know, Paul, this is a very important bit of information. This means the source couldn't have been the family and had to have been second-hand information. Most assuredly this plays havoc with Druitt's candidacy and lessens the value of Macnaghten's opinion.

Mike

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, Mike. That's why I was careful to emphasise that we could infer it. The source could still have been Druitt's family (or a member of), but they never out-and-out said they thought Druitt was the murderer, leaving Macnaghten to infer that they did. And even if the source was second-hand, the information provided could have been - and evidently was - persuasive, at least to Macnaghten.

[Stephen Thomas]

it's arguable that the Victorians persecuted and criminalised Oscar Wilde for his homosexuality; homosexuality was illegal, the Marquess of Queensbury to all intent and purposes accused Wilde of being a Sodomite, and Wilde, egged on by others, charged MoQ with libel, to which MoQ responded by proving that Wilde was one. It wasn't quite as if society said "hey, ho, let's get Wilde for being a poof".

Hi Paul

Nice post but as you know Wilde brought it all on himself as the original accusation was that he was a heterosexual 'posing' as a sodomite.

He could have ignored this but didn't and paid a heavy price.

Some people aren't as clever as they or other people think they are.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
You said:
Well, it's arguable that the Victorians persecuted and criminalised Oscar Wilde for his homosexuality; homosexuality was illegal, the Marquess of Queensbury to all intent and purposes accused Wilde of being a Sodomite, and Wilde, egged on by others, charged MoQ with libel, to which MoQ responded by proving that Wilde was one. It wasn't quite as if society said "hey, ho, let's get Wilde for being a poof".

Now you know I have a great regard for your work but this is so splitting hairs, Paul!
Queensbury was livid because his son and Oscar Wilde were lovers.He set out to spread word everywhere he could that Oscar was homosexual -which ,as you correctly state, meant that Oscar could end up in jail for [and incidently did for two years .
Oscar hounded as he was by Queensbury , had little choice but to shout 'libel'---He knew Queensbury was after him for being gay and would have him imprisoned.
If that Victorian era had been in any way 'enlightened' they would not have criminalised homosexuality or jailed homosexuals for being gay which ofcourse they did-Victorian Society did!


and you too Paul are also 'at it again':

Well, let's not get into this again, Norma. It comes down to supporting a hypothesis and the idea that Anderson and Macnaghten felt any need to "save face" lacks support. Macnaghten wasn't even working for Scotland Yard when the murders were committed and Anderson was newly appointed and not even in the country when all but the last murder was committed, so neither man really had to concoct stories to "save face", and anyway they both enjoyed successful careers

Who says the idea 'lacks support' ? Who can evaluate the motivation of two Victorian police officers both selling their wares /autobiographies and wanting to put themselves and their work in the best light possible light in the roll call of history? If it was you who had been in charge both at the time and in the aftermath, would you want to go down in history as someone who never managed to catch the ripper?
Both Anderson and Macnaghten were well aware that in the months and years that followed the Autumn of terror nobody had ever been caught for the most notorious murders of their tenure .
Indeed Abberline was extraordinarily sceptical and blunt about the story of the conveniently 'drowned doctor' and the 'lunatic caged in an asylum'---Poppycock" was his response and you bet he heaved sigh about the "fairy stories'------- along with all those policemen involved on the ground in the case who never stepped forth to agree---mind they probably would not have wanted to or dared to disagree in public with these two ex bosses.
Titter ye not !

[Jonathan H]

Paul has dealt with most of these persistent misconceptions.

Macnaghten, who knew all about 'solitary vices' at Eton and who entertained Wilde as a guest in his home, was not accusing Druitt of being gay. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was a 'sexual maniac'; who enjoyed ultra-violence against prostitutes.

Macnaghten did not destroy anything, not even a private version of his so-called 'Home Office Report', but said so -- I argue -- to reassure the surviving Druitts that nothing would be left behind, when he retired, which named their member as the fiend.

'From private information ...' could mean that Macnaghten, yes, relied only on MP Farquharson about Druitt's culpability.

An incredibly stupid thing to do, if true.

On the other hand, it is a line from a remarkably slippery document in which Macnaghten never admits -- as he did in his memoirs -- that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect. He gives the impression that the 'police' were onto this man in 1888 (that is how Griffiths and Sims understood the alternate version of the same document) but that he was very minor.

How minor?

The 'police' had not even bothered to find out if he was a doctor, or if he was from a good family, or if his body was upwards of a month in the Thames. He is not even listed first in importance, just randomly as one of three unlikely suspects -- but better than Cutbush!

Yet the family 'believed' that their dead member was a sexual maniac -- in fact was Jack the Ripper?

In my opinion Macnaghten is trying to 'cut the knot in his own way' to keep 'everyone satisfied'.

Plus Farquharson knew that Druitt was a surgeons son?!

Perhaps Mac's memory was failing him between 1891 and 1894?

Failing a man whose memory was acclaimed by all as elephantine, except when it comes to basic biog. information about his chief Ripper suspect -- yet he remembers, correctly, that the water-logged body was found with a season rail pass.

Ahh, but that's in the alternate version which he showed the cronies when he launched this suspect upon the public. In that version Macnaghten believes, whilst the family only suspect. Druitt is elevated to chief suspect and is now definitely a middle-aged doctor.

Macnaghten was not checking out a 'cold case' in Feb/March 1891, for the Ripper was believed to be very much alive and active, if now an infrequent murderer, eg. Coles.

George Sims shows us a veiled version of what happened, whether the author knew it or not. That Macnaghten met with the Druitt family after the MP. What he heard was completely devastating and convincing (Macnaghten told Sims that the doctor was an asylum veteran who had not worked for years. All deliberately far removed from the real Druitt)

That the hands-on Macnaghten never consulted even a newspaper, or an obit., or anything about Druitt -- a police chief obsessed with the case and with being too late for the 1888 murders -- is an entrenched paradigm which rests, in my opinion, on such a slender reed.

[Natalie Severn]

A fascinating post Jonathan .Just one thing though.I have the impression that the Druitt family all suffered some form of mental illness either depression or paranoia so they could have suspected him wrongly.Druitt was suffering from depression topping himself like that.He may have begun to hallucinate too or have suffered from delusions,
Best,
Norma

[Jonathan H]

To Norma

I totally agree.

We may be deaing with a ghastly mistake.

That Druitt confessed to his family that he was the fiend and before he could be sectioned (eg. afarid of going like mother) he topped himself -- which seemed to confirm the confession.

But ... it was a delusion.

He was no more the Ripper than he was Napoleon. If only he hadn't died they would have discovered this reality.

The reason I disagree with you about Abberline as a source who, in 1903, trumps Macangten (and Anderson) is partly because he says that 'we' never believed in the suicided medical student or the locked-up loonie. He is thus out of the loop that Macanghten did believe rightly or wrongly, in Druitt -- and Anderson in the Polish Jew madman. Touchingly Abberline says he is going to tell Mac about Chapman, very out of the loop.

Could he have been right about Chapman? Of course.