Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

The one thing you cannot accuse Cris of is rose tinted specs.

Its clear why he wrote it.

Monty

Yes he has obviously been reading beggs book of 1000 explanations as to why the marginalia in part or whole was written by Swanson

[Jonathan H]

To S. Brett

Yes. that's possible.

But let me offer you this for consideration.

Joseph Lawende, a Jewish witness, was used to assess Tom Sadler as the Ripper, and this is the 'confrontation' being misremembered by Anderson and Swanson (or the latter is quietly repeating the former's muddled opinion -- never to be shown to anybody, not even his family).

Lawende had seen a Gentile sailor and Sadler was a Gentile sailor.

Disappointingly this Jewish witness witness said 'no', just a few days after Aaron Kosminski went into permanent incarceration in an asylum -- which is when Anderson first said the 'confrontation' took place (in the 1910 magazine version).

That's too big a coincidence for Stewart P. Evans and Don Rumbelow, and for me too.

But if a fading, yet egocentric memory substitutes and eliminates Tom Sadler for 'Kosminski' then there is nagging loose end for the deteriorating nuerons: sailor: dressed like a sailor. A gentile sailor at that.

So, the mind shuffles the deck and out comes 'Seaside Home' as the [unlikely] location of the 'confrontation' arguably taking care of that loose end.

Feb-March 1891

- Aaron Kosminski permanently incarcerated.
- Jewish witness says no
- Jack the Seaman suspect not charged.

Becomes:

Late 1888-early 1889?

- Seaside Home location.
- Jewish witness says yes and then no.
- Suspect 'Kosminski' not charged and permanently incarcerated.

[S.Brett]

Hi Jonathan!

But if Swanson asked (Cox and Sagar) what has become of "Kosminski" then, he could have found out that "Kosminski" was sent to an infirmary and (later but not immediately) to an asylum. And (necessarily) not that "Kosminski" has died.

But Swanson himself could have found a crazy Jew. A man, who had passed away (meanwhile). A man similiar to "Kosminski". And this man (David Cohen) had been never again released and died. However, Henry Cox´s (and Robert Sagar´s) suspect could have been managed at home between infirmary and asylum and not have died.

Cox and Sagar: Identification at the Seaside Home- Observation-Infirmary- Observation- Asylum...

Swanson: Identification by a Jewish witness- Identification at the Seaside Home- Observation City CID- Infirmary- Asylum- Death of the Suspect.

But who (or what) could have been similar to the man called "Kosminski"?

[Phil Carter]

To Phil C

For what its worth I think the Swasnon Marginalis is 100% kosher, but I agree with you that it may provide repetition rather than confirmation.

As in, it is a severe limitation of this [late] primary source that it could so easily be Swanson recording Anderson's more detailed opinion-explanation-amplification which the former may have asked about because he was not sure whom the suspect or witness actually were? Anderson recalled the name, 'Kosminski' but not the witness.

This theory would explain why no other police figure know about the positive identification -- an impossibility -- but we do not have two senior police figures with fading, faulty and self-serving memories, just one.

One who, furthermore, can be shown in other examples to confuse bits and pieces, eg. the murder scene pipes, Tory and Liberal Home Secretaries, other cases.

Hello Jonathan,

Or it could just be that Swanson is showing us all that Anderson's fairytale, is exactly that... an undetailed and unprovable bit of Anderson's fertile anti-jewish imagination. Another one of Anderson's "moral guilt" jobs with a story to help sell his book.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Marginal Muddle?

To Phil C

For what its worth I think the Swasnon Marginalis is 100% kosher, but I agree with you that it may provide repetition rather than confirmation.

As in, it is a severe limitation of this [late] primary source that it could so easily be Swanson recording Anderson's more detailed opinion-explanation-amplification which the former may have asked about because he was not sure whom the suspect or witness actually were? Anderson recalled the name, 'Kosminski' but not the witness.

This theory would explain why no other police figure know about the positive identification -- an impossibility -- but we do not have two senior police figures with fading, faulty and self-serving memories, just one.

One who, furthermore, can be shown in other examples to confuse bits and pieces, eg. the murder scene pipes, Tory and Liberal Home Secretaries, other cases.

[Phil Carter]

Donald Swanson's only assured intended audience was himself. He had been in the habit of writing annotations in margins of documents throughout his professional life and continued to do so after retirement. Jack Littlechild did the same thing. Perhaps a rudimentary study of the biographical information of the participants would be beneficial in any quest for the 'truth.'

Hello Hunter,

Any mention of intended audience ion this case is purely speculatory. Whether it is for himself, or even another living person at the time of the writing.. i.e. he could have lent the book to a.n.other and said.. Ive made certain notes throughout the book...take a look"..and been handed it back after use. It could have happened.. we don't know. There is no point in this speculation at all. We cannot make the reason for the writing being there solid gospel, and the use of a logical reason opens up all the reasons for the whole of the writings to be considered illogical as well.

It could be that as I have suggested, that he was actually writing as filling in the details of Anderson's recollections. Not Swanson's own..i.e. that "What Anderson means here is... the person Anderson is referring to... Anderson's story refers to a person whom...." and Swanson could well have been told of an Anderson story by Anderson himself or a.n.other. We don't know. Its all speculation. So whilst those who need this set of writings say again and again "Ahh, but you can't prove it DIDN'T happen that way".. there is nothing to even hint that it did. Therefore, it's factual value is demised considerably.

The point of all this is that the writing in the marginalia and annotations leave far too much room for speculation. There is nothing provable about the whole scenario..nothing at all, and as I have previously written, had Frank Spiering presented this type of explanation for his theory, it would have been dismissed out of hand as unprovable and worthless without any possible way of confirming any of the facts. Ditto Stephen Knight. Ditto Cornwell. I refer to the infamous Abberline diary attempt and handwriting con with Abberline's signature. G.F.Abberline.... I ESPECIALLY refer to McCormick's Dr Dutton diaries... now deemed to be a part of McCormick's fertile imagination. And how long was McCormick's book considered one of the "greats" of Ripper literature? But when there is nothing to prove the existence of any such writings........hmm..just like we can't prove the existence of any ID parade ever having taken place at a Seaside Home for policemen. Just like we can'r prove any person being transposted from anywhere, nor delievered back after any unprovable ID...by an unknown witness.

Just because it is presented by a relative of D.S.Swanson doesn't make it any more reliable in it's content. The intention to make money from it as well as the stated intention of upping Swanson's role and name in the Ripper Case and upping the police role of total control leaves a lot to be desired.

If Jim Swanson had just said.. "Look. Ive just found this.. I don't have any need for promotion nor do I have belief in it's truthfulness or not"..then I would have been far more inclined to believe in it. Once going to a newspaper and raking in some cah is one thing... twice.. is tantamount to intention beyond that of just telling the world the truth. Just my opinion.

Some wont like it. But there is way too much wrong with this "evidence" for me personally to consider it as anything more than a curiosity. No insult to any member of the Swanson family intended. It's a wrong-un.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Why would he write the name in the annotations if he knew it anyway and it wasnt intened for anyone else, doesnt make sense

However I supose to those wearing rose tinted specatcles and blinkers it probabaly does make sense. Certainly it appears so to you .

The one thing you cannot accuse Cris of is rose tinted specs.

Its clear why he wrote it.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Donald Swanson's only assured intended audience was himself. He had been in the habit of writing annotations in margins of documents throughout his professional life and continued to do so after retirement. Jack Littlechild did the same thing. Perhaps a rudimentary study of the biographical information of the participants would be beneficial in any quest for the 'truth.'

Why would he write the name in the annotations if he knew it anyway and it wasnt intened for anyone else, doesnt make sense

However I supose to those wearing rose tinted specatcles and blinkers it probabaly does make sense. Certainly it appears so to you .

[Jonathan H]

To S. Brett

Thanks for going to all that trouble, though you have focussed on one element of a long post and missed the overall.

For a start I don't agree with your interpretation that all these other primary sources are referring to the same suspect, and don't think any of them refer to the real Aaron Kosminski at all.

That Macnaghten, consciously or not, had to backdate Kosminski's incarceration is the undeniable fact which placed this suspect in the earlier phase of the investigation.

It's why Martin Fido was looking for 'Anderson's suspect' in a sectioned Jewish madman of late 1888, or early 1889, and not as [too] late as 1891 where actually 'Kosminski' must be because of the way the police acted over the Coles murder in that year.

Plus, I would not use any sources referring to Lawende's sighting for 'Kosminski' as he was describing a man who sounds like a fair, Gentile sailor, eg. not a Slavic-Jewish figure (who was an unemployed hairdresser).

The portrait of 'Kosminski' in Macnaghten, Griffiths, Sims, Anderson, and Swanson has fictional features.

The debate is over why?

In 1891, the police agitation over Sadler as not only the murderer of Frances Coles but also the 'other' Whitechapel victims was profound,and acutely disappointing.

In 1892, Anderson gives an interview in which he seems to have no idea about a chief suspect, let alone specifically about 'Kosminski'.

In 1894, Macnaghten placed the name of 'Kosminski on file, a mixture of fact and fiction. It is not known that anybody saw his document apart from Mac, or even knew of its existence.

In 1895, the harlot stabber William Grant is anxiously examined as the fiend, and may even have had a 'confrontation' with Lawende -- which was successful?!

Nevetheless, it is from this time, in about June, that Sir Robert Anderson tells Alfred Aylmer (Major Griffiths) that he has a 'perfectly plausible theory' that the Ripper is a lunatic now locked up. Swanson, in the same year and the same 'Pall Mall' press source about Grant, claims that the murderer is deceased.

For once I am not alone here for what that is worth. Others on the ese boards also wonder if 'Kosminski' was introduced to Anderson and/or Swanson as late as 1895?

For how is that Anderson and Swanson think 'Kosminski' is deceased when Macnaghten knows that he isn't? Why didn't he tell them ...?

That's quite a suggestive coincidence: two police chiefs with two parallel Ripper suspects, the latter both mad and both deceased, yet only one is actually deceased -- and only one chief knows this.

[Hunter]

If as you say the intended audience would have known why did none of those members of the audience speak out at the time or in later years?
The deafening silence and the absence of written corroboration suggests there was no audience.

Donald Swanson's only assured intended audience was himself. He had been in the habit of writing annotations in margins of documents throughout his professional life and continued to do so after retirement. Jack Littlechild did the same thing. Perhaps a rudimentary study of the biographical information of the participants would be beneficial in any quest for the 'truth.'

[S.Brett]

I don't think Aaron Kosminski came into the frame in any significant way until after he was placed in an asylum in Feb 1891. For example, I interpret the 1892 interview with Anderson as him still knowing nothing whatsoever about 'Kosminski'.

Henry Cox (City of London CID):

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail"

“The man we suspected was about five feet six inches in height, with short, black, curly hair, and he had a habit of taking late walks abroad. He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.
It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls.”

Sims 1907:

'The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall.

Major Henry Smith (City of London Police):

“I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago”

"Young, about the middle height, with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy serge, and with a deerstalker's cap - that is, a cap with a peak both fore and aft."

Aaron Kosminski: On Sep.11 1888 he was 23 years of age, he was young.

Sagar (City of London CID):

“The police realised, as also did the public, that the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end.
"We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."

Swanson about "Kosminski":

“He was watched by police (City CID) by day & night”

Henry Cox and Robert Sagar (City of London CID) described the surveillance of a Ripper suspect (or Ripper suspects, however, both men were or became insane).

Cox and the City PC:

“It was not easy to forget that already one of them had taken place at the very moment when one of our smartest colleagues was passing the top of the dimly lit street”

Sagar and the City PC:

“Just before the discovery of the body of Catherine Eddowes (called Kelly in the reports) in Mitre Square a police officer met a man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court”

Smith about his eyewitness (Lawende?):

“I think the German spoke the truth, because I could not "lead" him in any way. "You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him." The German was a strange mixture, honest apparently, and intelligent also. He "had heard of some murders," he said, but they didn't seem to concern him.”

City Police:

Name of the suspect(s)?
Name of the witness?
Name of the PC?

MET:

Name of the suspects?- Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog and again: Kosminski
Name of the witness?
Name of the PC?

MET-City police: 1-0

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Paul,

I imagine that an 'intersting' quote consists of the sort of four-letter expletives one utters when encountering a swarm of angry bees. 'Intersting' pictures would be produced by time-lapse photography of such an encounter.

As for the topic of the thread (hope we haven't scared you off, Carotid Capers?) I still think that the lack of a forename in the Marginalia is because there was only one Kosminski who was of interest, and DSS's intended audience (if there was one) would have known exactly who he was talking about.

Regards, Bridewell.

If as you say the intended audience would have known why did none of those members of the audience speak out at the time or in later years?

The deafening silence and the absence of written corroboration suggests there was no audience.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

I just adore the way you blithely smooth things out, pour oil over troubled waters and explain everything away as if there wasn't a Ripperolological care in the world.

You obviously missed your calling as Scotland Yard's PR guru.

Regards,

Simon

Sometimes Simon, just sometimes, it is what it is.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

Was Aaron Kosminski turned into 'Kosminski'?

Dear Roy

Yes, it certainly could be that the timing of 'March 1889', compared to within a few hours Druitt supposedly killed himself, is a long time to be out and about after the 'awful glut' of Miller's Ct.

On the other hand, here is what I theorise:

If you step back and look at all of these primary sources then it is obvious Sir Melville Macnaghten manipulates data depending on his audience.

We can actually see this happening with Major Griffiths changing the Druitt 'family' into anomic 'friends', from 'Aberconway', and that Mac never corrected this alteration, this disguise in Sims. If the family is being discreetly hidden then why not their member who was believed to be the notorious murderer?

In fact, Mac must have further told Sims, in 1902, that the 'friend's were frantically searching for their mad pal after he disappeared and yet another poor woman had been eviscerated. A detail which is true of William Druitt and his attempts to find his missing sibling. This detail is not in the 'Report(s)' but it is in an 1889 account of the inquiry into Montie's tragic and inexplicable suicide.

We can also see now, in Sims' Edwardian writings about 'the one and only Jack', that a young, successful, barrister, and part-time teacher, a surgeon's son, with a sectioned mother, his corpse found with a couple of substantial cheques and a season rail pass, has been exaggerated and fictionalised.

In Sims' writings between 1899 to 1917 'Jack' becomes a middle-aged doctor, who has himself been periodically sectioned, who is so rich he does not need to work at all yet lives as a semi-invalid recluse (eg, this is not a county cricketer) and who rides aimlessly around on public transport. The 'police' were about to arrest the fiend but he had vanished -- a very close run thing!

And, of course, the doctor had supposedly killed himself immediately after he killed Mary Kelly (a detail which comes from the Dorset MP).

The timing of 'Jack's' suicide plus his telling physicians that he had a maniacal compulsion to kill East End harlots is the 'evidence' of his guilt. The unemployed doctor's culpability supposedly comes from his own lips

No wonder many Edwardians thought it was a solved mystery, and apparently solved in 1888 (many were not fooled by this backdating).

Mac's thesis was that whomever dodgy got to kill themselves first, after Kelly, is probably the Ripper, or who was found unable to function -- their mind blasted by their own over-indulgence in horror -- could be the maniac too!

If you strip back all the fictional-deflective encrustations there you find Montague Druitt, but an entirely posthumous suspect.

Macnaghten in his memoirs does strip back much of this profile, including that he was not about to be arrested, was not necessarily a doctor, was definitely not sectioned in an asylum, and did not kill himself immediately after Miller's Court.

So far as I know what is written above is completely fresh and new, relatively speaking, as a way of understanding what Macnaghten did and did not know, what he would reveal, and what he would not reveal about Montague Druitt, and the suspect's family.

Which brings us to Aaron Kosminski.

The hunt for the 'mad doctor' was backdated so why not Kosminski's being sent into the asylum system?

If Druitt is consciously semi-fictionalised then why not 'Kosminski'?

R. J. Palmer made a very shrewd point on these Boards a few years ago. It was that the incarceration of Aaron Kosminski in Feb 1891, unlike Druitt's death, happened while Macnaghten was a serving officer. In fact he had been at the Yard for nearly two years. Yet he backdates an event to before he joined?!

The old paradigm, trapped in its interpretation of Macnaghten as a police chief who made errors of memory, argued that it was, well, yet another mistake.

Is that really likely?

For I counter-argue that without this 'mistake' then Aaron Kosminski, who becomes somewhat hidden with just the surname 'Kosminski', is exposed as a very unconvincing suspect.

By unconvincing I mean for the Home Office if the official version of the Report ever went there, and it didn't.

Or unconvincing for his literary pals, both true crime writers, unless it was backdated to soon after ('... having afterwards ...' is how Griffiths glides past five months in 1898) Kelly, but not too close that it might knock off the 'drowned doctor' from his perch.

Macnaghten could not have shown the cronies the official version, in which maybe Druitt is not a doctor and nor did he kill himself so soon after Kelly, in which also the only evidence against the Polish Jew is that he lived in the area, hated harlots, was sent to a madhouse, was not functioning because he was masturbating all the time, and had later developed undoubted homcidial tendencies -- and was sectioned five months or so after Miller's Court?!

All of the above is true of Aaron Kosminski except the dating of his incarceration (and maybe he didn't hate harlots?).

But it wouldn't do, and so Mac took the Lawende sighting of the young, Gentile-featured sailor and inverted it, a Gentile seing a Jew, by using the policeman who saw Stride and a man. Thus Mac moved all the Jews across to the Stride murder, and now had a beat cop -- the cliche of a 'reliable' witness -- seeing a man who resembled this 'Kosminski', and placing this suspect inside the 1888 investigation.

In effect it further backdates police suspicion of the Polish Jew.

I don't think Aaron Kosminski came into the frame in any significant way until after he was placed in an asylum in Feb 1891. For example, I interpret the 1892 interview with Anderson as him still knowing nothing whatsoever about 'Kosminski'.

To myself, and only me, it is very significant -- a give-away really -- that Macnaghten revealed to Griffiths and Sims that 'Kosminski' was still alive in the asylum. He did this to show that while the Polish Jew and Ostrog (himself laughably fictionalised) were still alive, the middle-aged 'Dr. Druitt' was definitely dead. Therefore he is the best of these suspects.

By the 1900's, with Anderson running with the Polish Jew, whom he wrongly thinks is dead and wrongly thinks was incarcerated soon after Kelly (eg. March, 1889?) Mac in retaliation seems to have begun to debunk this 'suspect'.

Hence Sims in 1907 asserting that the Polish Jew is not the main alternative -- not compared with an American suspect. And that the Polish Jew was out and about for enough time to show that he both functioned and clearly did not harm anybody else, and thus all these possibles are inferior to the Drowned Doctor who killed himself 'a shrieking, raving fiend' as fast he could bloodily stagger from Miller's Ct. to the river.

This is Sims from 1907 and look at what is added and what is missing:

'The first man was a Polish Jew of curious habits and strange disposition, who was the sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall. This man was in the district during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders, and soon after they ceased certain facts came to light which showed that it was quite possible that he might have been the Ripper. He had at one time been employed in a hospital in Poland. He was known to be a lunatic at the time of the murders, and some-time afterwards he betrayed such undoubted signs of homicidal mania that he was sent to a lunatic asylum.' 'The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.'

Notice that Sims has withdrawn the chronic masturbation (unless that is what 'curious habits' means, and I don't think it does) for to take that away and we have an odd man, even a madman, but he functioned fine until he became dangerous and had to be instantly incarcerated.

Also, we have new details about the un-named 'Kosminski' which do not check out in other primary sources, but which do replace the allusive sexual malfunction with some elements that could point towards him being the killer, eg. anatomical knowledge from Poland, and lives alone and so no witnesses to his being covered in blood.

But the cop could not make a positive identification 'shortly afterwards', as in shortly after he had been sectioned some considerable time after the Kelly murder. He was given the once over in the asylum.

In 1910 Anderson pushed back against this sidelining of the Polish Jew by asserting that the suspect was positively identified by a Jewish witness, but initially he agreed that the witness seeing the suspect was after he had been sectioned (which was dropped in the book version).

In 1914, Macnaghten pushed back against Anderson's account by asserting that the killer was a Gentile and a bit of an anti-Semite, and that the only witness (the beat cop) who saw the killer saw nothing 'satisfying'.

The Swanson Marginalia can also be interpreted as the story you tell yourself in private because it will not fly in real life: 'Kosminski' was not deceased 'soon after' he was sectioned as Mac knew, and Swanson himself did not act as if the 'Jack' murders were over with Kelly, quite the opposite, re: Coles.

In his memoirs Mac pulled back, somewhat but signicantly, on Druitt's fictional cocoon, but with 'Kosminski' and Ostrog -- and the 'American' -- he just dumped them completely. Arguably the pulling back meant they had to go perhaps because they were not suspects, at least not for Macnaghten. We know now, for example, that Ostrog had an alibi.

I quite appreciate the logical conclusion to this line of argument for some people: how about Macnaghten took three non-suspects, or terminally weak suspects, and 'sexed them' all up.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan,

In Sims in 1907 the Polish Jewish suspect is so low down on the totem pole of suspects that Sims places him after a suicided English doctor and an American medical student! eg. there are 'two theories' at the Yard but the Polish Jew is merely a footnote to the first theory -- and a footnote easily brushed aside.

This is partly because the Polish Jew was not sectioned soon after the murders ended, yet the murders had ended (which is a Druitt-centric backdating, and not how the police acted over the McKenzie and Coles murders) and because he was out and about not hurting anybody. He was alive and functioning long after the Miller's Ct. carnage.

One of the reasons that Martin Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect was because this Polish Jew was sectioned so late: in Feb 1891. Had he access to the Sims' piece of 1907, and Fido did not, he would have seen that this Mac crony agrees.

Referring to Sim's 1907 piece in Lloyd's Weekly, which can be read in the Press Reports. (click) Where Sims wrote the man was at liberty a considerable time before going to asylum.

Martin Fido took literally what Macnaghten wrote - that Kosminski was detained to asylum about March 1889. This was the primary source material he relied on when he began searching pauper referrals from the East End. Where he found Cohen.

So there's another question. Why did Macnaghten write the date of March 1889 as Kosminski's committal in the first place?

Macnaghten wrote the two versions of his memorandum, one on Scotland Yard stationery, the other his private draft, in 1894. In years after that, did he discover some more information about Aaron Kosminski? Such as that very fact his commttal was not March 1889, but instead 1891. Something he, Macnaghten didn't know in 1894. If true, it means at least that he was doing his homework. Then he passed that information along to Sims.

Or maybe there is another explanation for the change in how "Kosminski' was portrayed in the intervening years 1894 to 1907.

Roy

Edit: Maybe March 1889 was considered a 'considerable time' to be at liberty after the last murder. If Sims contrasted that with the killer's mind imploding right away.

The basic question remains. Where did Macnaghten get that date in the first place?