Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

From now on you will always be Twinkle to me.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

It is quite clear that which ever way you look at all of this someone had to be lying !

Now who could it be one or more ?

you have pointed out various newspaper articles.

There are three main police protagonists Macnaghten,Anderson and Swanson were any of those lying. Many put great faith in Andersons book entry. But Anderson was a pen pusher never did any real practical policing. Any information he was privvy to had to have eminated at grass roots level from people directly involved in the investiagtion. Thats how the system still works today.

With that in mind see below two press quotes from DI Reid who was involved in the investigation at grass roots level

April 23rd 1910

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly

“ Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead”

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Draw your own conclusions as to who was lying if you think it was Anderson then it very much weakens the suggestions put forward by some that the marginalia corroborates what Anderson wrote in his book.

[PaulB]

Isnt it strange that the two leading police characters involved in these contentious issue namely Anderson and Swanson all according to thos who support all of this keep arguing that thet both may had had memory lapses or been suffering from neurological disorders which effected their memories.

Yet none of the officers with nothing to gain and no hidden agendas who say the police didnt not have a clue appear to have ben quite normal with all of this faculties in later years with no memory impairments.

Its simply another cop out excuse the same as is the one whereby the missing,lost or stolen files keeps being used, and I think more and more people are now starting to believe that be the case.

Really? How interesting. Who, precisely, has said that either man suffered from a neurological disorder which affected their memory?

That is what you were suggesting when we were discussing the handwriting,

I suggested nothing of the sort, Trevor. I didn't even come close to suggesting anything like that. Memory wasn't even mentioned. The neurological disorder was advanced by Dr Davies as a possible explanation for the slight shakiness in the handwriting of some of the marginalia.

It would be nice if you at least tried to get your facts right.

[PaulB]

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

He's one up on you then.

[Jonathan H]

Mac behind the Major

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in The Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Trevor, see how Reid -- quite rightly -- has challenged the claim that the 'police' were investigating, in 1888, the drowned doctor and the Polish Jew and the Russian medico madman.

That there is no way, Reid is arguing, that these could be suspects contemporaneous to 1888, or early 1889 (eg. Druitt before he killed himself, Aaron Kosminski prior to incarceration, the hapless Michael Ostrog at all).

We know from other sources (the MP; Mac's memoirs) that, in reality, Druitt was a way-too-late suspect, and therefore Reid is not clashing with Macnaghten -- though he would probably never know it.

See how Macnaghten's opinion, prior to 1913 and 1914, is hidden from the others in the source above, anonymous behind a credible writer.

Jack Littlechild was also misled, in 1913, thinking that 'Dr D' must come from Anderson via Griffiths. He does not realise that Sims' source is Macnaghten, let alone that Sims has some kind of access to an allegedly definitive document of state -- by Macnagten!

That is why I think I am justified in calling 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' Macnaghten finally breaking cover, though it's hardly a full disclosure by any means.

[PaulB]

I will Paul Begg

That is not true.

If you read my posts, you'd have noticed that I have said several times that I'd welcome new information. And I would. With open arms. You see, I don't think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, and whilst on the basis of the evidence available to me I believe the marginalia is genuine, if evidence came along to prove the opposite then I'd accept it. So, you, see, I have no entrenched position to defend.

What concerns me is that people behave in a responsible way, which you don't, apply correct and proper methodology, which you don't (and don't even understand), and are concerned to establish the facts and the truth, which you are self-evidently not.

But all your chips are on the table, Trevor. Your reputation in this field, such as it is, is resting on your new information. If you don't deliver the goods big time, and soon, it will be flushed down the toilet for good.

[PaulB]

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

Actually, Tom, Le Grand is fascinating and you done some great research, so your book will be very worthwhile. I wish you'd get on and write it.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is not true.

If you read my posts, you'd have noticed that I have said several times that I'd welcome new information. And I would. With open arms. You see, I don't think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, and whilst on the basis of the evidence available to me I believe the marginalia is genuine, if evidence came along to prove the opposite then I'd accept it. So, you, see, I have no entrenched position to defend.

What concerns me is that people behave in a responsible way, which you don't, apply correct and proper methodology, which you don't (and don't even understand), and are concerned to establish the facts and the truth, which you are self-evidently not.

But all your chips are on the table, Trevor. Your reputation in this field, such as it is, is resting on your new information. If you don't deliver the goods big time, and soon, it will be flushed down the toilet for good.

I will deleiver the goods big time in fact they have been deleivered and the only thing that wil be flushed down the toilet for good is one prime suspect, with another to follow shortly afterwards.

[PaulB]

I will deleiver the goods big time in fact they have been deleivered and the only thing that wil be flushed down the toilet for good is one prime suspect, with another to follow shortly afterwards.

Let's hope you will, Trevor. You have a great deal resting on it.

Meantime, how about explaining why you misrepresented me by saying I had suggested that Anderson and Swanson were suffering neurological disorders that affected their memory, when nothing at all was said about memory? Or, for that matter, about Anderson having any neurological disorder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's hope you will, Trevor. You have a great deal resting on it.

Meantime, how about explaining why you misrepresented me by saying I had suggested that Anderson and Swanson were suffering neurological disorders that affected their memory, when nothing at all was said about memory? Or, for that matter, about Anderson having any neurological disorder.

I have not the time to go back searching the many posts which have been going back and forth on this thread. So I will summarise what I have been led to beleive.

It is accepted by all that there are differences in some of swansons handwriting in the marginalia to the control samples which were supplied for comparison purposes.

These differences have been explained away by the examiners and others including yourself suggesting that age and the fact that swanson could have been suffering from a neurological disorder in later years which could have effected his handwriting.

My post was not written to include Anderson however he was obvioulsy suffering from "being liberal with the truth" syndrome for most of his police service and into his retirement as is well known.

As I have said before negate Andersons rambling in the book and bingo biq question mark over the marginalia and its contents.

The thing is you and i look at this mystery in two totally different ways you look at it from a historical perspective. I from an investigative perspective.

From an historical perspective, the historical facts surrounding this case should not always be taken as gospel and written in stone. What is written is there to be proved or disproved. As is the case with new stuff.

Take the bible which is supposed to be a historial document can the contents of the be proved or disproved the answer is no

Now take the documents and comments written and spoken by all protagonaists in the ripper case can we prove or disprove these beyond a reasonable doubt as being totally reliable and accurate. The answer is yes we can disprove some of these in some cases in others no so in the cases where we can disprove these historical facts the orginals relative to those should be devalued or should now be totally disregarded but they are not some people will just not let go no matter what is put before them they still cling to the old views and i have to ask why?

With regards to new theories and evidence can we prove or disprove some or all of the new stuff that has been introduced and suggest as being fact beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is yes we can. So the new stuff then becomes a modern day edition to historical facts of the case and should be acceptd by the old guard but they wil not accept them or even consider them..

Lets take the graffiti is there any evidence to show the killer wrote it- NO

Is there any evidence to show who did write it -NO

Is there any evidence to show it relates to the murder _NO

can it proved that it had not been written day before it was found -NO

Does anyone know the meaning of the graffiti-NO

Now to me that should negate it totally from this mystery. Yet there are some researches who still suggest it has some connection. Yet offer nothing in support of their weak views.

Lets look at Aaron Kosminski as another example with what we know

Was Aaron ever arrested for an offence of violence- NO

Was he ever known to mix with prostitutes-NO

Was he ever arrested as a suspect for the murders NO

was he ever seen with any of the victims- NO

was he ever seen at or near to the crime scenes at the times of the murders _No

Did any of the witnesses decsribe anyone as young as 25 -NO

Going back the The MM why was Cutbush named ? because of the incident with the knife which led to his arrest- totally unconnected MO to the Ripper. Yet someone decided to categorise him as a likley suspect because of this

Why was Kosminski named ? could it have been with regards to the incident involving his sister and a knife, again that MO totally different MO to the ripper.
Again if this was the reason Aaron Kosminsko wrong catergorised as a ripper suspect, and MM soon realsied that fact and exonerated him. BUt know some want to keep him alive as a viable and prime suspect.

With what is known of him he does not fit into the catergory of likely or prime suspect. and as has been suggested should be taken off the list,

In my opinion there is a serious doubt about the contents of the marginalia and a serious doubt about Andersons motive behind the entry in his book. Until such time it can be conclusivley proved that Anderson was truthful and the marginalia is totally authentic, I will continue to challenge those that stand by Anderson and the marginalia.