Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Monty

I'll put the same question I've put about the Druitt relations.

If you are the Kosminskis, or a few of them, or one of them, and you read in Griffiths, or a report about Griffiths' scoop, that a Polish Jew was suspected then you'd think -- if you've never suspected your own Aaron -- hey, we're Polish Jews who lived in Whitechaple who had to section our member too. What a coincidence! Of course, that was along time after 1888 so it's not us -- right?

Whereas if you read Sims in 1907 you might see a closer match?

On the other hand, perhaps you wouldn't? If Aaron had never worked in a hospital in Poland and never lived alone in Whitechapel, and was never 'confronted' with a polcie witness, you would know it was not your member being written about.

Once Sir Robert published in 1910 to great controversy among English Jews, either the Kosminski family thought -- hey, that's us! We're being slandered for supposedly protecting Aaron!?

Or maybe they thought no it can't be us because no fellow Hebrew identified him with the cops. Mind you, he was guilty of 'unmentionable vices' ...?

If they knew their Aaron was a Ripper suspect then the Kosminski relations must have been relieved, surely, that the public account in Griffiths, Sims and Anderson rendered their periodically homicidal relation unrecognisable to their peers, and unrecoverable to the press.

If they didn't know, then they themselves would not recognise Aaron Kosminski from the same sources either (in 1910 Anderson alludes to the libel laws; that that is why he claims he will not name the likely murderer).

Does nobody else really not agree with me that some kind of discreet dodge is being played here -- though not I think by Anderson?

[Monty]

Crying out loud,

You go to bed only to wake up and find that The League of Extraordinary Gob$hites have had a convention.

Phil,

Do you just go around bemoaning the 'state of Ripperology' or do you actually contribute something of substance?

Simon,

Now I know you contribute, however you provide no actual evidence of your own pet theory. When are you going to reveal it? You must have it else you surely would harp on without such evidence.

Tom,

The bollocks you spout speaks for itself, I really don't have to add anything. So won't.

Trevor,

Dear sweet Trevor. The ability to make yourself look like a tit never ceases to amaze me. You spout off about when the photo will be released only to find out its in a matter of weeks.

You bumble through this field like Mr Beans older brother. Keep it going, it amuses.

Jonathon, S.Brett and Roy,

Apologies to you all. Your posts, and some others, are the only ones of real value here and deserve more that to be hijacked by silly slobber.

I hope you wade through the crap undaunted.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Roy

I believe Macnaghten took a calculated bureaucratic risk with bits of deceit re: M. J. Druitt, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog.

For if the whole story came out of Dorset about Druitt, again, well it would hardly matter about 'Kosminski'.

Even the Kosminski family would not recognise their mad member in anything Asquith might have said, no names, and I don't think they could have in Anderson's writings, and in those of Griffiths and those of Sims.

This was not some happy accident for all concerned due to poor memory, but deliberate subterfuge to 'keep everyone satisfied'.

But if it did all come out in 1894, then Mac could claim to have made an error of memory -- as he does in his memoirs.

Secondary sources today buy this excuse.

Ironically Mac's machinations kept Mentor and the English Jewish community from finding this Polish Jew, if they were looking, and modern Ripperologists from finding him either -- until Fido stumbled upon the name much, much later than expected -- than arguably plausible in 1891 -- but where Sims strongly suggests you might find it, in his 1907 piece.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan and welcome back,

Before going on to what Cadet Brett brought up, which I do want to discuss, and on to your post just now, can we back up please. I raised a question about why Macnaghten stated 'Kosminski' was detained to aslym around March 1889. And I wondered why. You were kind enough to answer with a long post, #173, which really can be summarized with your last sentence:

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.

And so this would apply to March 1889. Macnaghten knew Kosminski was detained in 1891 because he was on the force then, but he purposely, changed the date. And wrote that on both versions of his memorandum. In 1894. Including the one that might go further up the chain, the one on Scotland Yard stationery. But it didn't.

Did I understand you correctly? He didn't make a mistake, he knew the correct date but wrote a fib.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

Temporarily at Large?

To S. Brett

Oh, is that what you're getting at; a split in knowledge about this suspsect between the different police jurisdictions?

Well, fair enough.

To Roy

No offence taken.

In defence of my theory I am not arguing that Swanson was fooled or misled about anything.

I think he read Sir Robert's book, and honestly did not know who this suspect was who was supposedly positively identified by a Jewish witness (though he may well have heard about 'Kosminski', the fictional variant of Aaron Kosminski).

A puzzled Swanson asked his former boss and friend about his new Ripper account, and received an answer which was clearly a bit of a muddle. He arrived home, recorded Sir Robert's words for otherwise he would never remember such a confused mixture of bits and pieces, closed the book and shared it with nobody but himself because he knew that it wasn't accurate.

'Kosminski was the suspect'

That's the limitation of a private notation for your own eyes only. You don't have to write: hey this is Sir Robert's self-serving mishmash, not mine -- got that posterity!

I think Swanson also asked about the 'Dear Boss' letter and Sir Robert defended the claim that the hoaxer had also been identified by assuring him that all the heads knew, and he identified the policeman who had turned to jelly over a threatening bit of correspondence (Macnaghten??!! the 'action man'?! Who had actually identified the hoaxer.)

The reason I write fictional variant is because of the following:

'Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.'

Alfred Aylmer (Major Arthur Griffiths)
'The Detective in Real Life'
The Windsor Magazine, vol. 1, no. 5, May 1895

'... the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum.'

Sir Robert Anderson
'Punishing Crime'
'The Nineteenth Century', Feb 1901

'Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.'

Arthur Ponsonby Moore Anderson
'The Life of Sir Robert Anderson (Sir Robert and Lady Anderson)', 1947

The real Aaron Kosminski was not not only not deceased 'soon after' he was 'safely caged', as Swanson has it in the Marginalia, but he was not 'temporarily at large' or on the 'prowl' for mere 'weeks'.

Hence Martin Fido understandably rejecting Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's Polish Jewish Ripper suspect because the timing is so off (and because Aaron was seemingly harmless).

What Sir Robert has confidently asserted from 185 is just not true about Aaron Kosminski.

He was out and about for years before being sectioned and if Kelly is the last of his murders then he became quite harmless. But Anderson gives the clear impression that the Ripper's reign was 'cut short' by being sectioned at the time of the canonical murders.

Where does that notion come from?

Well, Macnaghten has 'Kosminski' sectioned in March 1889. He also knows that he's not dead.

Why is it so outlandish to propose that Macnaghten has misled Anderson when we can glimpse moments where the latter is wrong and the former is right, yet they worked closely together?

Here is Sir Robert, a staunch Tory, muddling up a Liberal Home Sec. and later Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Tory Henry Matthews (he mixed up a minister, who had never put him under pressure in 1888 because he wasn't the minister then, with the real one who had spoken to him face to face):

'I told Sir William Harcourt, who was the Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for the none-detection of the author of the Rippr crimes, for the reasons, among others, I have given you.'

Sir Robert Anderson -- interview
'The Daily Chronicle', Sept 1st, 1908

Two years later, Sir Robert I think sincerely muddled up Tom Sadler with 'Kosminski' who was sectioned a few days before the sailor was 'confronted' with Lawende a Jewish witness and said no -- a disappointing result which burned.

to answer a previous poster: I am not really a 'Druittist'. I'm a Jack the Ripperist.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

From now on you will always be Twinkle to me.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Crap, that means I have to publish my book in July if I want to beat Adam to press with these photos. I'd better get to writing now, as I'm no Trenouth!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[AdamNeilWood]

Well I will be looking forward to see Montys photos they have been talked about more than The Dead Sea Scrolls and we did finally get to see them albeit 2000 years late. Just hope we dont have to wait that long to see the photos.

You won't, Trevor. These photographs, along with Neil and Rob's research, will appear in Ripperologist 127, August 2012.

Adam

[mariab]

The World's foremost authority on the case, Wick.

Yes, but what about the otherworldy authorities on the case? These are hard to beat.

[Tom_Wescott]

LOL. That was funny. And cute.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Tom in all his amazingness couldn't scare a kitten.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

You sure? Behold...Tom "Twinkle" Wescott..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr6CyU-Ev_M

best wishes

Phil

PS A laugh might help here people!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. Apparently, if a kitten should open an account on Casebook, he will be violently attacked by me. If nothing else, I can't be accused of discrimination!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Tom in all his amazingness couldn't scare a kitten.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Cog. If I'm the worst bully the Casebook has to offer, then these are indeed banner times for the boards. And for the record, I don't mind being called a blowhard, but never a redneck. You would appreciate why I say that if you spent some time in Oklahoma and saw some REAL rednecks.

But just for the record, I can't recall having violently attacked anyone because I didn't like their view on something. In fact, it has been a very, very long time since I 'attacked' anyone on the boards..period. You have admittedly been reading back many years on the boards recently and me thinks that maybe five years worth of posts read in the course of a couple of months have given you a skewed view of what's going on in the here and now. In other words, you suddenly jump my arse for citing a rule, because you caught some posts I wrote on a bad day five years ago and it pissed you off. Are you picking up what I'm throwing down?

And thanks for the comments about the book I'm writing. I'm even amazing myself with it. And it will contain all of Monty's unseen photographs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well I will be looking forward to see Montys photos they have been talked about more than The Dead Sea Scrolls and we did finally get to see them albeit 2000 years late. Just hope we dont have to wait that long to see the photos.

[Wickerman]

The World's foremost authority on the case, Wick. And you're quite right.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

My apologies, Oh reverent one, I am not worthy,... I am not worthy...

$hit!, We are not worthy....




The Thread police are watching.... (off topic, off topic)