Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Bridewell]

The Truth

Hi Paul,
Sir Robert Anderson's evangelical Christianity and high regard for the truth has little to do with anything. He was in the wrong profession to adhere to such principles.

Regards,Simon

I never found a high regard for the truth, and the adherence to it as a principle, to be in any way incompatible with police service.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

That is fairly obvious Phil,

There is no arrest nor conviction. It continues.

Nor is there any statement by Swanson, I believe, saying that he believed in the positive ID.

I have many issues re the ID parade, and on a few points I agree with Trevor. However, to state the marginalia is a forgery with nothing more than opinion is wrong.

If Trevor wants to discredit it then he should do it with a little more decorum and a little less lip. He should take a leaf out of Simon Woods book. His decimantion of the Knight theory is a prime example of how it should be done. Simon states and provides evidence, Trevor merely states and has a tantrum, often in bold text.

As I've stated many times, question the evidence. That's not an issue, just support that with counter evidence instead of presenting a showmans stance of all glam and little substance.

Trevor isn't the Messiah he thinks he is, he is just a very....

Monty

[Phil Carter]

And as a follow up to my previous post.. if the Kosminski emphasis is on the word "suspect" and not the "Ripper" in the endpaper annotations, then the argument doesn't hold water because apparently Jim Swanson wanted to show that the police were on top of the situation, and that Swanson's notes were expanding on Anderson's "fact" that the RIPPER was this Pole. So the emphasis of the Swanson writings is not on a suspect, but that Anderson's suspect, the killer according to Anderson, was Kosminski.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Thanks for that Simon,

However he was still on the circulation list in 96 and reviewing documentation. As the case was never closed it seems a prudent move to keep him in the loop on major developments.

In other words, whilst Swansons employment ended directly on the case, he was still invoved in some capacity as the case file indicates.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Ok.. if we do as you suggest, would you please kindly explain to me the logic behind the man who is still in the loop knowing about Kosminski and yet still being part of the team that is out hunting Jack the Ripper? If Swanson knew of this supposed ID thing at the "Seaside Home".. and saw the man securely taken off to an asylum at some date or another.. why would the police, with Swanson involved, still be looking for and suspecting others of being Jack the Ripper? It wasn't supposed to be kept a blooming secret that they'd caught him, surely?

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hi All,

House of Commons Parliamentary Papers.

Departmental Committee upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation, 29th November 1889.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner James Monro was the questioner in this exchange—

2251: "You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?"

[Swanson] "Yes."

2252: "What were your hours then?"

[Swanson] "I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in, which took me till 11 pm., and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel and see the officers—generally getting home between 2 and 3 am."

2253: "How long did that go on?"

[Swanson] "That went on from September till December."

Regards,

Simon

Thanks for that Simon,

However he was still on the circulation list in 96 and reviewing documentation. As the case was never closed it seems a prudent move to keep him in the loop on major developments.

In other words, whilst Swansons employment ended directly on the case, he was still invoved in some capacity as the case file indicates.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Getting back for a moment to the initial question of the thread if I may...I am left with a very odd feeling about this.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot possibly imagine that Swanson, in the position he was, as involved as he was in the 'Ripper' scene, would not have such a heavily suspected "suspect", (and the indication in the marginalia IS that he was heavily suspected)...would not refer to this man's full name. I cannot think of any reason why any policeman who wouldn't refer to a full name.

Secondly. who in heaven's name was this 'Kosminski' anyway? We never see his name in the book in any other place, and now we have a name thrown at us as if we should know all about him. Only those savvy with the memoranda would actually know of the name. If he'd said 'the suspect's name was PAV' for example... ok. But Kosminski? We don't even have a first name here. But this is apparently an important suspect..suspected of being Jack the blooming Ripper!

The argument could be made that Swanson could have forgotten it, but I think that's unlikely. We are talking JACK THE RIPPER here. No one, I suggest, would forget the whole name and every blooming detail attached to it. Especially not the top man at the centre of all the paperwork.
If that was the Ripper, Swanson would remember every detail. Anyone would in that position.

Deliberately NOT writing the first name perhaps? Unlikely. There would be no reason if only he was reading the notes made and it wasn't intended for others eyes.
We do not know when the writing was made. Although in some editions of the A-Z the authors write that it occurred in or around 1910..which would be when the book was published (1910). So we can say 1910-1924, if Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia AND the end paper annotations, that is. To this untrained eye, there are differences between the two sets of handwriting.. but that's neither here nor there.

These,and many many other things that have been noted by many others that make me doubt..just too much, that all here is as is seen. There is too much that is simply wrong. And the last line in the endpaper.. 'Kosminski was the suspect', is the complete opposite oif the previous references to the suspect. "The suspect was"..etc.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Would you care to explain?

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

If Aaron was the Kosminski referred to, probably his family.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Sir Robert Anderson's evangelical Christianity and high regard for the truth has little to do with anything. He was in the wrong profession to adhere to such principles.

I'm more interested in your "balance of probability" which makes him mistaken but at the same time telling the truth.

Who, or what, steered him wrong?

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I can't get the hang of this quote business, so please bear with me.

In answer to Jonathan H observing that "Martin Fido thought Anderson was unlikely to mean Aaron Kosminski as his suspect because he was sectioned too late" you replied, "Indeed he did. And does."

You just wrote—

" . . . the probability advanced by Martin was that Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew was the 'strong suspect 'Kosminski'. The Swanson marginalia, emerging after the publication of Martin's book, identified Anderson's suspect as 'Kosminski'. A search of asylum records and BDMs long ago established that there was only one 'Kosminski' in the asylum records - Aaron Kosminski. He fits the scant criteria supplied by Anderson, right down to his masturbation corresponding with the 'utterly unmentionable vices' referred to by Anderson and 'solitary vices' mentioned by Macnaghten."

Your answer implies that Anderson was in fact referring to Aaron Kosminski.

I realise I'm asking the wrong person, but why would Martin suggest that Anderson's suspect was unlikely to have been Aaron Kosminski?

One last question.

Why are you so vested in Sir Robert Anderson having told the truth about the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

When he began writing his book, Martin assessed the information available to him and concluded that Anderson’s unnamed Polish Jew was to be identified with the suspect called ‘Kosminski’ by Macnaghten, a connection which hitherto nobody had made, Don Rumbelow actually making a strong case for Anderson’s suspect being Pizer, which was, until Martin’s book in 1987, the prevailing opinion. Having made the connection with Macnaghten’s ‘Kosminski’, Martin undertook a search of the asylum records in the hope of identifying him. When, eventually, he found Aaron Kosminski he concluded that he was a harmless imbecile who couldn’t have been the Ripper.

In responding to Jonathan I was agreeing that Martin discounted Aaron Kosminski, when writing the second piece I was referring to Martin's original groundbreaking connection of Anderson's unnamed suspect with Macnaghten's 'Kosminski'.

Martin, who believes that Anderson’s suspect was the Ripper returned to the conclusion he had earlier reached, that Anderson’s suspect was in the asylum under the name David Cohen, and he suggested a scenario whereby two suspects, David Cohen and Aaron Kosminski, became confused. We need not go into that, but I differ from Martin in that I do not and never have accepted that Anderson’s suspect was Jack the Ripper, therefore I don’t think Aaron Kosminski need be dismissed as Anderson’s suspect; as far as I am concerned, Aaron Kosminski could have been Anderson’s suspect and Anderson was simply wrong about him being the Ripper. The problem is that I don’t know the full extent of the evidence on which Anderson based his conclusion, therefore I can’t evaluate and assess it, and I can’t say whether he was likely to have been right or wrong. And, sadly, neither can anyone else.

Whether or not Anderson told the truth, the fact is that we don't have sufficient information on which to form any hard and fast judgement, but the balance of probability favours him doing so, both because born again evangelical Christians tend to have a high regard for the truth as it is a basic and fundamental tenet of their fundamentalism, and because I know of no reason to suppose that he lied. But I have no vested interest in him telling the truth or in him lying. In fact, if anything, I am inclined to think he was telling a truth but was wrong in his conclusion. As said, though, none of us know what evidence he based his conclusion on.

However, our source materials are important and need to be treated with professionalism and respect, neither being apparent in some of the arguments being advanced here. That is my concern.

[Simon Wood]

Eyes and Ears

Hi All,

House of Commons Parliamentary Papers.

Departmental Committee upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation, 29th November 1889.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner James Monro was the questioner in this exchange—

2251: "You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?"

[Swanson] "Yes."

2252: "What were your hours then?"

[Swanson] "I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in, which took me till 11 pm., and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel and see the officers—generally getting home between 2 and 3 am."

2253: "How long did that go on?"

[Swanson] "That went on from September till December."

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Hi Trevor,

Swanson was relieved of his "eyes and ears" brief in December 1888.

Regards,

Simon

In that case, guv'nor, I stand corrected. Apologies on that point, Trevor.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

Well I might just come back just to annoy you !

You really know how to hurt a guy.

Oh and I did notice that you avoided any comment on the definition of "exonerated" I will repeat it
"FREE OF BLAME"

Yes, I know what 'exonerated' means. However, the point you naturally keep avoiding is that Macnaghten only re-assessed the information available to him and exonerated Kosminski and Ostrog as far as his evaluation was concerned. He makes that very, very clear. You also avoid that he said he felt 'inclined' to exonerate; leaning towards an action is not taking that action. And you insist on misinterpreting him as meaning that he exonerated them in the real world. He didn't. But you know all this. You know your argument is a nonsense.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

I can't get the hang of this quote business, so please bear with me.

In answer to Jonathan H observing that "Martin Fido thought Anderson was unlikely to mean Aaron Kosminski as his suspect because he was sectioned too late" you replied, "Indeed he did. And does."

You just wrote—

" . . . the probability advanced by Martin was that Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew was the 'strong suspect 'Kosminski'. The Swanson marginalia, emerging after the publication of Martin's book, identified Anderson's suspect as 'Kosminski'. A search of asylum records and BDMs long ago established that there was only one 'Kosminski' in the asylum records - Aaron Kosminski. He fits the scant criteria supplied by Anderson, right down to his masturbation corresponding with the 'utterly unmentionable vices' referred to by Anderson and 'solitary vices' mentioned by Macnaghten."

Your answer implies that Anderson was in fact referring to Aaron Kosminski.

I realise I'm asking the wrong person, but why would Martin suggest that Anderson's suspect was unlikely to have been Aaron Kosminski?

One last question.

Why are you so vested in Sir Robert Anderson having told the truth about the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

I've told you loads of times, I have no colours nailed to any masts, and that accusing people of bias as you do is the cheapest of all shots, and usually the one taken by people whose armory has precious little in it. As for the rest of your nonsense, we can let that pass. People know where you're coming from and can see through your bluster. But if my long, rambling posts devoid of anything but personal opinions have put and end to your nonsence on this topic, I can but say....... Yipppeeee!

Well I might just come back just to annoy you !

Oh and I did notice that you avoided any comment on the definition of "exonerated" I will repeat it
"FREE OF BLAME"