Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

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.

Stewart,
In the sense that Anderson was protecting the dignity or prestige of himself and his department from what he rightly saw as unfair critical comparisons of the British police and foreign forces which didn't take into account the constraints under which the former had to work, I agree that what Anderson wrote could be defined as "face saving". In the sense that he thought himself responsible for the non-detection of Jack the Ripper, then I do not agree that his remarks are "face saving" at all. He clearly did not hold himself responsible for the non-detection of Jack the Ripper: he found the measure in operation on his return to be "wholly indefensible and scandalous". And he goes on to say, not only that the Commissioner's report for 1889 showed a marked improvement upon the statistics for 1888 and that the following year in 1890 London was safer than it had been in any previous year, he states that he had "no need to offer any defence of my reign at Scotland Yard" as the statistics spoke for themselves. Why interpret this as face saving rather than a man being genuinely proud of his department's achievement?

[PaulB]

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.

And Anderson is a sloppy writer anyway.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Stewart,
That is something I have often wondered about myself I must admit.Whoever JtR was there seems to be something intentional about him leaving his poor victims almost like a cat's 'offerings' outside first the largely Jewish ' International Working Men's Educational Society' and then heading up to Mitre Square adjacent to the big Jewish Synagogue where he was promptly 'witnessed' by three Jewish men.Hence the outcry over 'Leather Apron".Then we have Warren ordering the graffiti to be erased from a largely Jewish tenemant building. On the other hand it could simply have been a canny ploy to throw blame on Jewish Immigrants.

re Robert Anderson and his comments about the scandal of police protection of women 'plying their trade'.This is not consistent with his religious forgiveness surely? I mean Christ himself was full of forgiveness and one of his most devoted followers was Mary Magdalene ,the woman he was closest to and who had been 'plying her trade' before she met Christ.
Abberline in contrast was known to give these homeless women money from his own pocket to make sure they had shelter from the Ripper---

[Stewart P Evans]

...
Agreed up to a point, Tom. But then if, as I postulated in a previous post, the investigation focused upon the wrong type of suspect, it was all for nothing. To draw a simple parallel, the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper was rendered all but impotent when senior investigators fell hook, line and sinker for a hoax tape recording. Thereafter, suspects were considered viable only when they spoke with a Geordie accent. Peter Sutcliffe was questioned on several occasion during this period, but was dismissed on account of his Yorkshire dialect. Thus he was allowed to continue killing because the investigation had been misdirected.
Do you take my point?
...
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.

I always think that it is quite misleading to compare modern cases with the series of 1888, given the totally different historical context, contemporary influences and, not least of all, facts of the case. Apropos of the above it may be relevant to take a quick look at the Yorkshire Ripper timeline.

5 July 1975 - Anna Rogulsky attacked in Keighley.
15 August 1975 - Olive Smelt attacked in Halifax.
30 October 1975 - Wilma McCann murdered in Leeds.
23 November 1975 - Joan Harrison found dead in Preston.
20 January 1976 - Emily Jackson murdered in Leeds.
9 May 1976 - Marcella Claxton attacked in Leeds.
6 February 1977 - Irene Richardson found dead in Leeds, tyre track at scene.
23 April 1977 - Patricia Atkinson murdered in Bradford (indoors).
26 June 1977 - Jayne McDonald murdered in Leeds (non prostitute).
26 June 1977 - ACC (West Yorkshire) George Oldfield put in charge of case.
10 July 1977 - Maureen Long attacked in Bradford.
1 October 1977 - Jean Jordan killed in Manchester (killer leaves £5 note on body).
2 November 1977 - Peter Sutcliffe first interviewed by police re- £5 note.
8 November 1977 - Sutcliffe again interviewed by police about the £5 note.
14 December 1977 - Marilyn Moore attacked in Leeds.
21 January 1978 - Yvonne Pearson murdered in Bradford.
31 January 1978 - Helen Rytka murdered in Huddersfield.
8 March 1978 - First Ripper letter sent to Oldfield.
13 March 1978 - Second Ripper letter to Daily Mirror in Manchester.
26 March 1978 - Yvonne Pearson's body discovered in Bradford.
16 May 1978 - Vera Millward murdered in Manchester.
13 August 1978 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police because his car seen in red light areas of Bradford and Leeds. He claims, truthfully, that he travels through these areas to work.
23 November 1978 - Tyres of Sutcliffe's car examined by police to see if they matched those found at the Irene Richardson crime scene. No match as Sutcliffe had replaced them. He was not detained.
8 March 1979 - Third Ripper letter received by police.
4 April 1979 - Josephine Whitaker murdered in Halifax.
16 April 1979 - Police announce receipt of letters and link them with murderer.
18 June 1979 - Police receive Ripper tape.
26 June 1979 - Police play Ripper tape to press.
29 July 1979 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police for fifth time.
2 September 1979 - Barbara Leach murdered in Bradford.
23 October 1979 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police about his car as it had been often seen by police in red light areas.
January 1980 - Oldfield taken off Ripper investigation.
13 January 1980 - Sutcliffe again interviewed by police about the £5 note.
30 January 1980 - Sutcliffe questioned again, about earlier statements.
2 February 1980 - Sutcliffe again questioned about £5 note.
18 August 1980 - Marguerite Walls murdered in Leeds.
24 September 1980 - Upadhya Bandara attacked in Leeds.
5 November 1980 - Teresa Sykes attacked in Huddersfield.
17 November 1980 - Jacqueline Hill found dead in Leeds.
28 November 1980 - Sutcliffe's friend Trevor Birdsall sends anonymous letter to West Yorkshire Police incident room at Leeds naming Sutcliffe as the Ripper.
29 November 1980 - Birdsall interviewed by police at Bradford. Claim that Sutcliffe is the Ripper set aside.
2 January 1981 - Sutcliffe arrested in Sheffield.

[Hunter]

The idea of a 'lunatic' perpetrator did exist. One only has to look at Warren's papers after the Chapman murder. It existed amongst other theories, of course.

The 'sexually insane', 'homicidal lunatic' idea seems to have solidified after the Kelly murder and the impression that murder left on certain officials is apparent... most notably, Anderson and Macnaghten. Bond's profile did not go that far, but these two officials appear to have developed their 'conclusions' from it and added their own theories to it that influenced the cadre of suspects developed after the murders had ceased. Even Monro seems to endorse it to some degree, in a report on the Pinchin St. Torso case by Sept. '89, where he uses the term 'furious mania'.

[PaulB]

I always think that it is quite misleading to compare modern cases with the series of 1888, given the totally different historical context, contemporary influences and, not least of all, facts of the case. Apropos of the above it may be relevant to take a quick look at the Yorkshire Ripper timeline.

5 July 1975 - Anna Rogulsky attacked in Keighley.
15 August 1975 - Olive Smelt attacked in Halifax.
30 October 1975 - Wilma McCann murdered in Leeds.
23 November 1975 - Joan Harrison found dead in Preston.
20 January 1976 - Emily Jackson murdered in Leeds.
9 May 1976 - Marcella Claxton attacked in Leeds.
6 February 1977 - Irene Richardson found dead in Leeds, tyre track at scene.
23 April 1977 - Patricia Atkinson murdered in Bradford (indoors).
26 June 1977 - Jayne McDonald murdered in Leeds (non prostitute).
26 June 1977 - ACC (West Yorkshire) George Oldfield put in charge of case.
10 July 1977 - Maureen Long attacked in Bradford.
1 October 1977 - Jean Jordan killed in Manchester (killer leaves £5 note on body).
2 November 1977 - Peter Sutcliffe first interviewed by police re- £5 note.
8 November 1977 - Sutcliffe again interviewed by police about the £5 note.
14 December 1977 - Marilyn Moore attacked in Leeds.
21 January 1978 - Yvonne Pearson murdered in Bradford.
31 January 1978 - Helen Rytka murdered in Huddersfield.
8 March 1978 - First Ripper letter sent to Oldfield.
13 March 1978 - Second Ripper letter to Daily Mirror in Manchester.
26 March 1978 - Yvonne Pearson's body discovered in Bradford.
16 May 1978 - Vera Millward murdered in Manchester.
13 August 1978 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police because his car seen in red light areas of Bradford and Leeds. He claims, truthfully, that he travels through these areas to work.
23 November 1978 - Tyres of Sutcliffe's car examined by police to see if they matched those found at the Irene Richardson crime scene. No match as Sutcliffe had replaced them. He was not detained.
8 March 1979 - Third Ripper letter received by police.
4 April 1979 - Josephine Whitaker murdered in Halifax.
16 April 1979 - Police announce receipt of letters and link them with murderer.
18 June 1979 - Police receive Ripper tape.
26 June 1979 - Police play Ripper tape to press.
29 July 1979 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police for fifth time.
2 September 1979 - Barbara Leach murdered in Bradford.
23 October 1979 - Sutcliffe interviewed by police about his car as it had been often seen by police in red light areas.
January 1980 - Oldfield taken off Ripper investigation.
13 January 1980 - Sutcliffe again interviewed by police anout the £5 note.
30 January 1980 - Sutcliffe questioned again, about earlier statements.
2 February 1980 - Sutcliffe again questioned about £5 note.
18 August 1980 - Marguerite Walls murdered in Leeds.
24 September 1980 - Upadhya Bandara attacked in Leeds.
5 November 1980 - Teresa Sykes attacked in Huddersfield.
17 November 1980 - Jacqueline Hill found dead in Leeds.
28 November 1980 - Sutcliffe's friend Trevor Birdsall sends anonymous letter to West Yorkshire Police incident room at Leeds naming Sutcliffe as the Ripper.
29 November 1980 - Birdsall interviewed by police at Bradford. Claim that Sutcliffe is the Ripper set aside.
2 January 1981 - Sutcliffe arrested in Sheffield.

I never cease to be amazed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not going to agree

Stewart,
In the sense that Anderson was protecting the dignity or prestige of himself and his department from what he rightly saw as unfair critical comparisons of the British police and foreign forces which didn't take into account the constraints under which the former had to work, I agree that what Anderson wrote could be defined as "face saving". In the sense that he thought himself responsible for the non-detection of Jack the Ripper, then I do not agree that his remarks are "face saving" at all. He clearly did not hold himself responsible for the non-detection of Jack the Ripper: he found the measure in operation on his return to be "wholly indefensible and scandalous". And he goes on to say, not only that the Commissioner's report for 1889 showed a marked improvement upon the statistics for 1888 and that the following year in 1890 London was safer than it had been in any previous year, he states that he had "no need to offer any defence of my reign at Scotland Yard" as the statistics spoke for themselves. Why interpret this as face saving rather than a man being genuinely proud of his department's achievement?

As I said Paul, we are simply not going to agree on this one. Others will have to read what was said and decide for themselves.

[Natalie Severn]

Why interpret this as face saving rather than a man being genuinely proud of his department's achievement?

Well Paul,it seems he was the only person in Christendom who was proud of not catching Jack the Ripper.The Queen and her subjects were scandalised by the lack of progress if what the newspaper's said was true.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

The idea of a 'lunatic' perpetrator did exist. One only has to look at Warren's papers after the Chapman murder. It existed amongst other theories, of course.
The 'sexually insane', 'homicidal lunatic' idea seems to have solidified after the Kelly murder and the impression that murder left on certain officials is apparent... most notably, Anderson and Macnaghten. Bond's profile did not go that far, but these two officials appear to have developed their 'conclusions' from it and added their own theories to it that influenced the cadre of suspects developed after the murders had ceased. Even Swanson seems to endorse, at least Bond's opinion, in a report on the Pinchin St. Torso case by Sept. '89.

Yes, in October 1889 Swanson actually described the Ripper as a 'sexual maniac'.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

You are repeating the conventional wisdom about the two versions of the alleged 'Home Office Report' which I once believed too, until I read them more closely and especially assessed them against the de-facto third version -- his 1914 memoir.

The so-called 'Donner version' almost certainly never existed. How do we know that? Because he includes Cutbush as one of the trio, when the point of the document is to discredit the tabloid claim about this madman. It's a logical inconsistency.

Evans and Rumbelow argue cogently in their brilliant 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) that the man's memory had become contaminated by reading Cullen and Farson.

Macnaghten did not hand around this document in retirement, as a party-piece curiosity. He claimed in public he had destroyed his 'papers'.

What Mac actually did was produce it in 1898 -- at least that is when 'Aberconway' enters history -- and hustled his cronies, Griffiths and Sims, into believing that they were seeing a definitive document of state (Sims used this claim to swat away the 'impertinent' Abberline in 1903) when it was nothing of the kind.

I had accepted as fact, the theory that 'Aberconway' was a 'draft' which he then rewrote, and removed his personal opinion.

Until I realized that Druitt is altered between the two versions, and yet in the official version -- in which he is nearly nothing -- his family 'believed'. That's stronger than 'suspected'; Mac and the family have swapped places?

We would expect the more restrained version to have the family only suspecting. Instead they 'believe'. And Druitt was a 'sexual maniac, no ifs or buts. Yet in the hyped-up draft they only suspect, and he's only allegedly a sexual fiend??

And then it hit me.

They are both entirely Mac's personal opinion, without the knowledge or authorization of anybody. The Liberal government never saw the official version, and the cronies mostly certainly did see the unofficial one -- which they were misled to believe was definitive and authoritative.

For they could never be shown 'said to be a doctor ...' That's no scoop! They had to be shown 'doctor, aged about 41 ...' to be convinced. They had to have Mac's personal opinion blathering on about the truth being at the bottom of the river, and so on.

That is why I believe they were composed in reverse order.

The alleged 'draft' is too conveniently a scoop document for the literary pals, both of whom wrote about crime.

Also, Macnaghten was way too experienced a bureaucrat to have written such a document with so many 'errors'. To have given himself so much work to do.

eg. he gives the game away about Druitt and then thinks, my God, what have I done? I have to relegate him to minor status! Have I got time to write the whole thing again? I wrote 'doctor' -- what was I thinking? I'll change it to 'said to be a doctor ...' because that's so much safer.

Is this really credible?

The version he projected into the public domain, from 1898, was 'Aberconway' not the official version. He was yet to even reach the position of Commissioner when he started this publicity campaign to make the 'better classes' face an unpalatable truth; that the fiend was 'one of us'.

In terms of Druitt's true suspect status the version he backed in his memoir, with revisions, was 'Aberconway', not the official version. The one he backed in his eve-of-retirement comments of 1913, was 'Aberconway', not the official version.

[PaulB]

re Robert Anderson and his comments about the scandal of police protection of women 'plying their trade'.This is not consistent with his religious forgiveness surely? I mean Christ himself was full of forgiveness and one of his most devoted followers was Mary Magdalene ,the woman he was closest to and who had been 'plying her trade' before she met Christ.

Well, it's questioned whether Mary was in fact a prostitute and I don't think the Catholic Church now states that she was, but that's by-the-by; I don't think Anderson simply thought they could be protected either by being arrested or by being denied police protection, which would mean they'd stay at home. Except, of course, they wouldn't have done because they needed to earn money. Anderson's statement was so much in conflict with his religious beliefs as narrow minded.

[Jonathan H]

Toasted Bloaters anyone ...?

To Natalie

Macnaghten claimed to be compassionate towards harlots in his 1914 memoirs, in contrast to 'cold-hearted' Anderson.

'The victims, without exception, belonged to the lowest dregs of female humanity, who avoid the police and exercise every ingenuity in order to remain in the darkest corners of the most deserted alleys.

I remember being down in Whitechapel one night in September 1889, in connection with what was known as the Pinchin Street murder, and being in a doss house, entered the large common room where the inmates were allowed to do their cooking. The code of immorality in the East End is, or was, unwashed in its depths of degradation. A woman was content to live with a man so long as he was in work, it .being an understood thing that, if he lost his job, she would support him by the only means open to her. On this occasion the unemployed man was - toasting bloaters, and, when his lady returned, asked her "if she had had any luck." She replied with an adjective negative, and went on to say in effect that she had thought her lucky star was in the ascendant when she had inveigled a "bloke " down a dark alley, but that suddenly a detective, with indiarubber soles to his shoes, had' sprung up from behind a waggon, and the bloke had taken fright and flight. With additional adjectives the lady expressed her determination to go out again after supper, and when her man reminded her o; the dangers of the streets if " he " (meaning the murderer) was out and about, the poor woman replied (with no adjectives this time), " Well, let him come-the sooner the better for such as I." A sordid picture, my masters, but what infinite pathos is therein portrayed !'

The implication is that Mac could not tell the poor woman she had nothing to worry about from 'him', because it was 'some years after' he learned that the killer had been dead for almost a year.

[PaulB]

[/B]

Well Paul,it seems he was the only person in Christendom who was proud of not catching Jack the Ripper.The Queen and her subjects were scandalised by the lack of progress if what the newspaper's said was true.

Did I say he was proud of not catching the Ripper? Did anybody say it?

[PaulB]

As I said Paul, we are simply not going to agree on this one. Others will have to read what was said and decide for themselves.

Absolutely. Always the best way, state the case as one sees it and stand back... I must get back to the ironing.

[Ben]

I agree with Garry entirely.

It should go without saying that it is essential to take other serial cases into account. For instance, if a century's worth of knowledge of serial offenders informs us that the vast majority are not conspicuously "mad" and do not appear threatening on a superficial level, it would be foolhardy to insist that the 1888 killer must have been so. Similarly, if most serialists who engage in post-mortem mutilations have had a sexual motivation behind their crimes (Bundy, Chikatilo etc), the sensible assumption would be that the 1888 killer was similarly motivated.

Naturally, we cannot fault the Victorian police for having no experience of serial murder and its perpetrators, but there can be little doubt that this lack of knowledge impacted directly on the type of suspects they preferred. For instance, I don't know of a single serial killer whose brain "gave way" after the "awful glut" of one of his murders, and serials that terminate in the killer's suicide are extremely rare. Yet one can see why both theories might have appeared attractive to an investigator from the 19th century, with no knowledge of serial crime.