Plausibility of Kosminski

[Natalie Severn]

Very interesting Jonathan--and then ofcourse there is the police detective /undercover agent Det Chief Inspector Littlechild and his famous Letter -where he talks of a Dr "T" the same Dr 'T" who had been all over the North American newspapers like a rash in 1888 but mystery of mysteries-was never referred to or to appear in our press once as a JtR suspect.
Macnaghten had been a great pal of the great Victorian journalist Sims who Littlechild was writing to on this occasion.It seems to me that Macnaghten might have deliberately made this dogs dinner out of his doctors 'D's and 'T's--------ie if Macnaghten's close friend Mr Sims was still wondering whether it was the drowned Dr 'D' or the bail jumper Dr 'T' who was supposed to be 'the works.'Littlechild seems to be in no doubt that the doctor in question was Tumblety!

[Stewart P Evans]

Reports

...
...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?

Apropos of the Commissioner's reports for 1888 and 1889, the relevant sections are below (out of interest).

[Natalie Severn]

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

By saying he was 'rightly proud of his men's achievements' Paul, one can only infer that it was somehow of no consequence to him that the most notorious killer of his tenure had been not been captured .You can't have it both ways.Either he cared or he didn't.If he didn't care,he didn't rate the capture of the ripper as important.It is like what the Roman Catholics call a 'sin of omission.'
If he did care,then he covered himself for not having caught him by having him locked up out of the reach of trial by jury and in Swanson's case 'dead shortly after admission.Hence---''They had always known who he was'!!!
He cared surely?

[Phil H]

Jonathan - I have to disagree with you. The issue may be that you have an agenda you promote - I do not.

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.

There is no need to read the memoranda in conjunction with a memoir written years later (though I recognise the inevitable linkage).

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.

The fact that it was misremembered does NOT infer that it never existed - indeed, quite the contrary.

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

I have already posted on my views on what was meant by "his papers" and IMHO it was NOT the memoranda.

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.

Entirely YOUR view. I disagree. If you reassert this, please produce your evidence that Aberconway was NOT written until later.

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?

Somewhat subjective I think.

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??

EXACTLY how I would expect the wording of the official file copy.

They are both entirely Mac's personal opinion, without the knowledge or authorization of anybody.

What else do you think they would be? he drafted a rationale for the file setting out a line to take on Cutbush - nothing more. He may have perceived it as an opportunity to do other things (get some names on the file; even to trail red-herrings for some political reason). But how do you think official documents emerge? Someone writes them using their knowledge, judgement and analysis.

The Liberal government never saw the official version,

So...? Officials are employed to get on with things like this - they do not need to be commissioned, or to have everything they put on file approved. (Oh, it MAY be, in the course of business and depending on the process involved. But as a civil servants I routinely originate briefings, submissions, notes for the file etc, because I am using my judgement, seeking to foresee what may be needed etc. Some get signed off by others, others remain for reference, or for re-use as part of a future draft.

and the cronies mostly certainly did see the unofficial one -- which they were misled to believe was definitive and authoritative.

"Old soldiers" like to re-fight their campaigns and often claim greater deeds than they achieved in reality. It was ever thus.

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.

You read too much into this.

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

Pardon me if I continue to take a contrary view.

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

It would be equally available if he said, "Hey, I still have my originals notes, look..."

Also, Macnaghten was way too experienced a bureaucrat to have written such a document with so many 'errors'.

Nonsense. His errors are VEY specific. MJD is identified as a professional man (specific social class), and his age is given precisely 41, but exactly a decade out. I surmise MM was either forgetful in detail but not in general, or deliberately misleading.

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?

It is to me, but then, I only do a job not dissimilar in parts to MMs.

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

To Natalie

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

I think this is quite true.Macnaghten was much more urbane, as was Sims.Sims wrote one of the most moving of all descriptions of a 'Christmas Day in the Workhouse'---It was one my darling Dad recited every single Christmas[ in his cups ,Bless him]!

[curious]

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

No, actually, I meant 1908 (and I believe Sugden did too), because that was the date of Anderson's quote, which you completely dismissed.

The point that was intended was that by 20 years after the events, Anderson's memory was running items together -- at least some of the time.

It is not required that 21st century people believe that Anderson was making up tales to salve his ego, or to deflect blame for not solving the JtR murders. It may be possible that his memory was slipping on certain facts. (It could, of course, have simply been that he misspoke.)

But apparently Harcourt was NOT the Home Secretary in 1908 --- nor, of course, in 1988.

[Stewart P Evans]

The point...

...
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.

The point I was making was that the Yorkshire Ripper attacks occurred over a period of five years (as opposed to just over two months) and Sutcliffe was questioned four times before the tape was received (the first time nineteen months before it was received).

Also, as witness Warrren's idea, for instance, they were not simply seeking a raving madman. But I understand where you (and Garry) are coming from as you both look upon Hutchinson as a likely Ripper. Additionally, of course, Aaron Kosminski was no raving lunatic as he continued to roam freely for two years after the murders, even taking a dog for walkies in Cheapside in December 1889. This fact, of course, did still not stop Anderson (and possibly Swanson) thinking he was the Ripper.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

No, actually, I meant 1908 (and I believe Sugden did too), because that was the date of Anderson's quote, which you completely dismissed.
The point that was intended was that by 20 years after the events, Anderson's memory was running items together -- at least some of the time.
It is not required that 21st century people believe that Anderson was making up tales to salve his ego, or to deflect blame for not solving the JtR murders. It may be possible that his memory was slipping on certain facts. (It could, of course, have simply been that he misspoke.)
But apparently Harcourt was NOT the Home Secretary in 1908 --- nor, of course, in 1988.

I see, then you are wrong.

Anderson's quote appeared in The Daily Chronicle of September 1, 1908, but referred to 1888, ergo Anderson states, "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, I have given you." His mistake was that he should have said Henry Matthews and not Sir William Harcourt.

Further to this, Sir William Harcourt, a Liberal, actually died in 1904. He was Home Secretary in the early 1880s.

[Stewart P Evans]

Memory

No, actually, I meant 1908 (and I believe Sugden did too), because that was the date of Anderson's quote, which you completely dismissed.
The point that was intended was that by 20 years after the events, Anderson's memory was running items together -- at least some of the time.
It is not required that 21st century people believe that Anderson was making up tales to salve his ego, or to deflect blame for not solving the JtR murders. It may be possible that his memory was slipping on certain facts. (It could, of course, have simply been that he misspoke.)
But apparently Harcourt was NOT the Home Secretary in 1908 --- nor, of course, in 1988.

We know that Anderson's memory was beginning to fail him around that time (1908, he was 67) as his friend, the author H.L. Adam, wrote the extract below. But, of course that was the point that Sugden was making. But there is evidence (which is disputed) that he also actually 'made up tales', exampled in his 1906 book Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

You have missed, or misunderstood just about every point I made?!

Oh well, it doesn't matter.

Thanks for debating with me.

And no, mate, I don't have an 'agenda', which suggests something sinister beneath the innocent surface (sounds of maniacal cackling!), I just have an up-front theory based essentially though not wholly on two primary sources: the West of England' MP source (1891) and 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914). The first I was put onto by Stewart Evans, on these boards, and the second by Paul Begg in his excellent 2006 tome.

[Phil H]

I just have an up-front theory

Sorry, but to me that constitutes an "agenda" - you relate things to your theory.

I don't think I "missed, or misunderstood" your points. I sought to comment on as many as i could in reasonable detail. Sorry if that wasn't what you wanted.

I simply take what is to me the logical, simple approach.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Anywhere

...
I simply take what is to me the logical, simple approach.
Phil

Is there any such thing to be found anywhere on these boards?

[curious]

I see, then you are wrong.

Anderson's quote appeared in The Daily Chronicle of September 1, 1908, but referred to 1888, ergo Anderson states, "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, I have given you." His mistake was that he should have said Henry Matthews and not Sir William Harcourt.

Further to this, Sir William Harcourt, a Liberal, actually died in 1904. He was Home Secretary in the early 1880s.

Thank you for explaining that. In light of this information (which I am printing out), I must go back and reread that section and perhaps re-form my impression of Anderson or realize that it was my memory that blended things.

But that's how I learn. I understand now why you dismissed this so easily.

Again, thanks.

curious

[curious]

Is there any such thing to be found anywhere on these boards?

Not that I've ever seen.

[mklhawley]

I simply take what is to me the logical, simple approach.

Phil

Physical impossibility. No, really. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has demonstrated with the fMRI what he calls the ‘somatic marker’, which means all information that humans become aware of are automatically attached to an emotion. Emotion is biologically indispensible to decisions.

What does this mean? We are all bias and we must constantly fight this in our minds in order to seek objectivity. It’s when we stop fighting this is when we get ourselves into trouble.

With bias,
Mike