Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by me:"...if he didn't destroy his papers - where are they? "

Tom's reply: "We call them the memoranda."

Too glib for me, and in any case, I don't think your response stands up to evaluation, Tom.

The memorandum on the file could not be destroyed. It formed part of the official record. It would not even have been in Macnagten's possession most of the time I think, but in a registry. Registry clerks (who no longer exist in my department) were ferociously protective of the material they controlled.

The Aberconway paper (which I interpret as an early draft of the file copy) and the possible "outline" last seen in India - which I interpret, if it was not the "untyped" original of Aberconway, as Macnagten's rough notes - would not constitute his "papers".

In English, "papers" would logically relate to the documentation on which the drafts and memorandum were based - thus any correspondence with the Druitt family, any medical, personal or semi-official records (copies of death certificates etc) or handwritten notes/copies of relevant papers given macnaghten by the Druitt family or others. (This is the definition of "papers" used when prime Ministerial material is lodged with a university library or in the National Archives - i.e. the Churchill papers. I think I have also seen the same useage in relation to presidential libraries in the States.)

Thus I would see Macnagten as effectively retaining a draft of what was on the official file, so he could retrace his thinking if asked later/maybe as a souvenir of an absorbing and high-profile case. But he would have destroyed anything that would allow others access to personal information and thus to impinge on the Druitt family's privacy.

I deduce the existence of such a collection becayse I recall Macnaghten as stating that some of the JtR photos resided in his safe at one time; also that he seems to have been a man who took a deep interest in the case and would not have (in my interpretation of his character) have drawn conclusions without reasonable grounds/evidence.

Others will no doubt disagree, but I strongly rebut the link between "papers" destroyed and the memoranda (in its various forms).

Phil

Unfortunately we don't know what papers he may have possessed and been inherited by Julia Donner - it will be recalled that Lady Aberconway borrowed the original memo from her sister and copied it. We possess that copy. The fate of the original is unknown. It appears to have passed to Gerald Melville Donner, along with some "Ripper" correspondence. I don't know that there wouldn't have been other material with it. The fate of it is unknown, but wasn't as far as we can tell inherited by his wife, and we lose trace of it in India.

[Jonathan H]

In My Opinion ...

To Phil H

You're quite right, and that's why you're quite wrong.

Yes, Macnaghten is making it sound like the 'papers' he based his opinion were destroyed.

This suits the state.

But he is also broadcasting to the surviving Druitts that, never fear, nothing will be left behind for any successor to leak to the media.

This suits the family.

Mac is 'cutting the knot' his own way, to try and 'keep everyone satisfied'. It was a characteristic of his personality and managerial style.

In 'Laying the Ghost ...' he writes words to the effect: if my memory serves me correctly, and so on, all quite deceitful as he had 'Aberconway' right at his elbow, but if the family were reading his memoir they would be reassured that there was nothing left behind.

Plus, the first time the official version of his 'Report' enters the historical record, as a document somebody else was aware existed -- apart from Macnaghten, its author -- is in Robin Odell's 'Jack the Ripper: in Fact and Fiction' (1966) which used the salient sections to debunk Cullen and 'Aberconway'.

Douglas Browne who completed 'The Rise of Scotland Yard' (1956) seems never to stumbled upon it based on his mistaken assessment of Macnaghten's choice for the fiend?

[Phil H]

Plus, the first time the official version of his 'Report' enters the historical record, as a document somebody else was aware existed -- apart from Macnaghten, its author -- is in Robin Odell's 'Jack the Ripper: in Fact and Fiction' (1966) which used the salient sections to debunk Cullen and 'Aberconway'.

I disagree - perhaps slightly technically. The first time the Memroandum entered the historical record was when it became an official enclosure on a departmental file. It may have had restricted access but it had entered the "record" and was abvailable to all those with a "need to know" (as we used to say).

What you are inferring, I think correctly, is that the Memorandum became widely and publicly known when authors began to quote from it.

Paul

Unfortunately we don't know what papers he may have possessed and been inherited by Julia Donner - it will be recalled that Lady Aberconway borrowed the original memo from her sister and copied it. We possess that copy. The fate of the original is unknown. It appears to have passed to Gerald Melville Donner, along with some "Ripper" correspondence. I don't know that there wouldn't have been other material with it. The fate of it is unknown, but wasn't as far as we can tell inherited by his wife, and we lose trace of it in India.

Al agreed. There is confusion, but I don't think and this is simply my reading and inference) that a man like Sir Melville would have meant the drafts in his possession when he spoke of "papers".

I have the impression, among the likes of Munro, Swanson, and MM that their families had some awareness of their role in the past and in what they might have left, but were very casual with any material they left behind. It was not collected, preserved or archived (perhaps in a library/university) in any organised way.

That said, were not the victim post-mortem photos returned "from an album" owned by a previous senior officer at the Yard? That suggests some effort at preservation - but the individual may have purloined the pictures knowing their interest/historical value.

Phil

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

Fair enough, but what I am getting at is that this is a very obscure document that was unknown -- in the extant record -- until 'Aberconway' was passed to Dan Farson by Mac's daughter, with the instruction not to use the Druitts' name.

Cullen published this version in 1965. Odell's first edition was undermined and so he somehow got somebody to get him a copy of the official version and this turned out to exist and to be gold at undermining Mac's so-called certainty since it is so different.

Which it is.

Mac makes no reference to it in his memoir chapter (though it is the defacto third version) whatsoever, despite it being the one thing about this case that we know he did, in fact he did it twice -- with significant variations.

Had Doug Browne come across it he would have realized that Macnaghten did not disagree with his successor that the Ripper was probably the suicided suspect.

Anderson never refers to it, nor refers to the Drowned Doctor suspect.

I think he did lose some face, but not that he would have concocted anything. I think his evolving comments on the case are sincere.

Griffiths used the 'Home Office Report' (Sims, 1903) in 1898, and it matches 'Aberconway' virtually word for word.

[Phil H]

I don't think there is much "water" between us (as rowers might say).

Fair enough, but what I am getting at is that this is a very obscure document that was unknown -- in the extant record -- until 'Aberconway' was passed to Dan Farson by Mac's daughter, with the instruction not to use the Druitts' name.

Obscure only to the general public of course. It was available to anyone who had access to the official files (whether they wanted to consult them after around 1894 is another matter). It is no more obscure in archive terms than are recent Cabinet Minutes or key papers supporting Ministerial decisions.

Mac makes no reference to it in his memoir chapter (though it is the defacto third version) whatsoever, despite it being the one thing about this case that we know he did, in fact he did it twice -- with significant variations.

In my view - and seen against the working practices of civil servants in the pre-IT era - these are inter-related drafts and are best seen as essential phases of a single drafting process. It would have started with something along the lines of the rough working notes seen in the possession of Gerald Donner (unless those were the handwritten version of the Aberconway typescript, which is possible). But in the days of manuscript drafting, where correction was problematical without re-writing, I would have expected the author to scribble a simple outline or plan of some sort - how to arrange the material etc.

Then would follow a first draft seeking to put on paper in a logical form the appropriate material. This would then be gone over to remove the personal, some unecessary detail and to seek to create the impartial civil service style (difficult to achieve at once).

I see the differences between the Aberconway draft and the file copy as being essentially those required to transform a personal document into an official record. In large measure I do the same thing today though on a PC and the intermediate drafts may not be retained.

The Aberconway version, as I said earlier, was IMHO probably retained so that MM had some indication of his thinking when he wrote for the file, if asked later when he did not have access. He used it, or showed it to friends - in retirement as a curiousity.

My view is that he genuinely wished to protect the Druitt family from embarrassment.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm sorry...

Thank you, Stewart. A lot of work there. I assume the “quotes” are intended to demonstrate that Anderson had a preoccupation with the case, which can in turn suggest that he felt a need to “save face”. However, the Whitechapel murders assumed an importance which made them something about which Anderson was questioned (several of the “quotes” are responses to journalist's questions), to which, as a prolific writer, he would have alluded, and which was probably the best example to cite when Anderson wanted to illustrate that the British police often knew the identity of a perpetrator but were unable to procure evidence because of constraints not placed on foreign police, which, as the last “quote” shows, was something he felt very keenly. None of this necessarily constitutes evidence that he felt so personally responsible for the failure that he concocted a story to “save face”.

Not much work really, it's a list sitting in my Anderson folder on my computer.

I'm sorry, but these references clearly show that Anderson did not like the criticism levelled at both him and his department over the undetected murders. It was very much a 'face saving' exercise on his part, that is, surely, indicated very clearly. And he did 'concoct' a face saving story in saying that the police knew the identity of the murderer, a Polish Jew, and that he'd been locked away anyway. I think that even you now concede that the police knew no such thing.

[Phil H]

I think that even you now concede that the police knew no such thing.

In the absence of any additional evidence I am sure that is right.

As an aside (nothing more) I can almost hear the senior officials talking about this. Anderson is like many old-style mandarins in his intellectual certainty (I'm not saying he was right, he just thought he was - ring any bells!!)

"Oh, the Whitechapel case. We never got a conviction in that one, but rest assured we "knew" who had done it. No doubt about that in my mind. He was safelyput away though...."

The "we knew" is a sort of cynical, condescending, protective remark that suggests that everyone should remain blandly assured that the police were in control, without actually/technically, saying that. How others interpreted those remarks - Anderson would no doubt shrug his shoulders and deny responsibility. "I said what I said..."

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Dr. Bond

...
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’,...
...

Well, we know that Dr. Bond, at the request Warren, via Anderson, supplied his opinion ('profile') of the sort of killer the police were looking for, on 10 November 1888. Bond's description for the sort of suspect to look for stated,

'The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times...'

Not really the description of an overt 'sexual maniac'.

[curious]

None of this necessarily constitutes evidence that he felt so personally responsible for the failure that he concocted a story to “save face”.

Gentlemen,
If you will forgive me for inserting myself into this discussion -- might there be another possibility?

In reading Philip Sugden's Complete History of JtR, I found that he used this quote:

‘“I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.”’ – September 1908

to demonstrate that Anderson was (somewhat) forgetful by 1908 because according to Sugden, Harcourt was not home secretary at that time. Sugden believed that it appeared that cases were blending into each other in Anderson's mind.

I have no idea who the Home Secretary was in 1908, but suspect both you do.

Perhaps it was an honest memory glitch?

curious

[Phil H]

I seem to recall (no sources to hand) that when Anderson returned early from sick leave in October 1888, Warren charged him with finding the killer.

Anderson (a good official) responded that he would not take on that responsibility but only to use his best efforts to do so (or words to that effect).

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson

I seem to recall (no sources to hand) that when Anderson returned early from sick leave in October 1888, Warren charged him with finding the killer.
Anderson (a good official) responded that he would not take on that responsibility but only to use his best efforts to do so (or words to that effect).
Phil

From The Lighter Side of My Official Life by Sir Robert Anderson, 1910 -

'I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case, and next day I had a long conference on the subject with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police. "We hold you responsible to find the murderer," was Mr. Matthews' greeting to me. My answer was to decline the responsibility, "I hold myself responsible," I said, "to take all legitimate means to find him." But I went on to say that the measures I found in operation were, in my opinion, wholly indefensible and scandalous; for these wretched women were plying their trade under definite Police protection...'

Incidentally, despite being abroad from the day before the Chapman murder until the first week of October Anderson here admits that it was his responsibility to find the murderer, and that in a day and part of a night he 'reinvestigated the whole case.'

[Stewart P Evans]

I think...

...
In reading Philip Sugden's Complete History of JtR, I found that he used this quote:
‘“I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you.”’ – September 1908
to demonstrate that Anderson was (somewhat) forgetful by 1908 because according to Sugden, Harcourt was not home secretary at that time. Sugden believed that it appeared that cases were blending into each other in Anderson's mind.
I have no idea who the Home Secretary was in 1908, but suspect both you do.
Perhaps it was an honest memory glitch?
curious

I think that you meant 1888, not 1908. The Home Secretary at the time of the murders was Henry Matthews.

[jason_c]

Not much work really, it's a list sitting in my Anderson folder on my computer.

I'm sorry, but these references clearly show that Anderson did not like the criticism levelled at both him and his department over the undetected murders. It was very much a 'face saving' exercise on his part, that is, surely, indicated very clearly. And he did 'concoct' a face saving story in saying that the police knew the identity of the murderer, a Polish Jew, and that he'd been locked away anyway. I think that even you now concede that the police knew no such thing.

What if Anderson "strongly suspected" such a thing?

I do think we can get too hung up on semantics. I doubt any police officer at the time spent quite as long as we do studying specific words to the Nth degree as we do on these boards.

Accurate wording is certainly more important in official documents than they are in books or newspaper accounts. This would be why MM was careful to hedge his bets in the memorandum. Anderson could afford to be more "controversial" in a book written after his retirement.

[Phil H]

Stewart, thank you for providing chapter and verse.

...and that in a day and part of a night he 'reinvestigated the whole case.'

I see the "mandarin" vibe here again - the belief that you can solve almost anything by intellect and by studying the files/case papers. It's an almost academic approach to the job.

I see a theme here too, in that did not Warren, in his letter appointing Swanson as overall case co-ordinator, say he was sure he could solve the case in a couple of days given the leisure?

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Warren

Stewart, thank you for providing chapter and verse.
...and that in a day and part of a night he 'reinvestigated the whole case.'
I see the "mandarin" vibe here again - the belief that you can solve almost anything by intellect and by studying the files/case papers. It's an almost academic approach to the job.
I see a theme here too, in that did not Warren, in his letter appointing Swanson as overall case co-ordinator, say he was sure he could solve the case in a couple of days given the leisure?
Phil

In a memorandum of 15 September 1888 Warren put the case into the hands of Swanson who was to be acquainted with 'every detail'. He stated, 'I am convinced that the Whitechapel Murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is systematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time & give individual attention to it.'

Interestingly, far from thinking the murderer was a raving lunatic, Warren wrote on 13 October 1888, 'As Mr. Matthews is aware I have for some time past inclined to the idea that the murders may possibly be done by a secret society, as the only logical solution of the question, but I would not understand this being done by a Socialist because the last murders were obviously done by some one desiring to bring discredit on the Jews and Socialists or Jewish Socialists.'