The `Reverand Dott letter to Australia

[Columbo]

I think as far as this letter is concerned, we should take it as a non-starter. The Maybrick Diary fiasco shows that even in 1990, 2020, 2019,2018 etc., people can fake documents from almost any time period. This is most likely a hoax.

As far as Kosminski as a suspect, I think he's a very possible candidate. He was named by contemporaries of the time (although not by a first name), he had a delusional mind that was muddled with voices and other issues, sad to say. And most important, as one poster put it, Kosminski wasn't a non-functioning imbecile who couldn't care for himself in 1888. I believe he had the prerequisites to be Jack.

Read Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect for, what I consider, the best account of Kosminski as a suspect you'll find. I also found it a pretty neutral book as far as opinions are concerned.

[AndrewL]

Saying as much would be too good to be true, and would attract suspicion. Up till now, we have no contemporary (or near-contemporary) evidence that Kosminski was actually violent towards women, but this letter does just enough to provide such evidence, without setting off too many alarm-bells.

Yes, fair point. I always assume that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is - which is why I never took the diary seriously. In this case the letter is not all that exciting even if true, which means one of two things - either it's a relatively subtle forgery or completely genuine.

[Ven]

ok, maybe i should rephrase... if the paper dates from that period it could still be valid, just because it "wasn't usually used for those purposes" doesn't make it invalid...just like the diary/photo album... people re purposed even back then but for different reasons as to why we do now.

[jason_c]

Hi jason_c,

What paper was used is irrelevant. Back then paper, and many other such like items, were not as freely available as stuff is today and people used what they could... dare i say, including the album for a diary
Ven
"Hiawatha didn't bother too much"

It is not irrelevant. It's one of a number of things document examiners look at in trying to detect the authenticity of a document. Sure, using incorrect paper does not prove it a forgery, but it is enough to increase an examiners suspicions.

[Fisherman]

If we are dealing with a fake, and if we couple that potential fake with the shawl business, Iīd say that the Kosminski proponents could do without that kind of help. Wich such friends ...

[Abby Normal]

The reason that this letter wasn't written on proper letter paper is probably the same reason that barret wrote the diary in scrap book instead of a diary-the fakers couldn't find the correct medium of the period to write on so went with what they could find.

[Ven]

Hi Sam, I'm not a cotton merchant from 1888, however, even if i was, an unused album to serve my compulsive purposes would be enough, even if i had to "rip" out a few pages... remember they had a re-use psychological bent even then, for monetary purposes, not to save the plane!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi jason_c,

What paper was used is irrelevant. Back then paper, and many other such like items, were not as freely available as stuff is today and people used what they could... dare i say, including the album for a diary

I'm sure your average cotton merchant could have afforded a proper diary instead of a scrapbook.

[Ven]

Hi jason_c,

What paper was used is irrelevant. Back then paper, and many other such like items, were not as freely available as stuff is today and people used what they could... dare i say, including the album for a diary
Ven
"Hiawatha didn't bother too much"

[Darryl Kenyon]

But you are aware that for example Ostrog was ALSO singled out by a police official of the same standing as Anderson and Swanson - and that in HIS case, there seems to have been nothing at all to confirm that he was the sexually driven, crafty and dangerous madman that MacNaghten claimed him to be? Maybe we should not overinvest in the infallability of these menīs noses, when it comes to sniffing out Rippers? Plus, of course, MacNaghten took over office after the Kosminskiite Anderson, the prime reason for why Kosminski is spoken about at all, and he ranked Kosminski below Druitt in terms of viability.

So we need to explain just why the man who identified Kosminski as the Ripper did not divulge the information that would have had him hung to the man to whom the overall responsibility of the Met was handed over to a few years down the line.

At the end of the day, if I am to convict somebody of murder, I am not willing to convict on information that may draw on nothing but a sense of bruised pride within a failing police bigwig. I want as much factual and circumstantial evidence as can be had, and to be frank, there is only one suspect that fits that bill. And even in his case, I would not convict - I would let him walk, albeit feeling that I let a killer loose.

Yes, I am aware of a document written by Macnaghten who mentions three men [one being Ostrog], who were more likely to have been the ripper instead of Cutbush. I am not aware of any writings or documents written by Swanson or Anderson who mention him as a suspect though.
Do I believe that Kosminski was the ripper? Well, I feel he is a reasonable suspect, but that's it. The reason I joined this thread is because I simply fail to believe that Kosminski was a half-witted , harmless imbecile in the autumn of 88 who Anderson and more importantly Swanson used has a form of patsy as a lot of people believe. We can argue all day if Anderson was opinionated or not but in private jottings by Swanson I believe he was sincere in what he wrote. So using that as a starting point I ask myself why Kosminski was up in court for walking an unmuzzled dog in Dec 89 and fit to plead. If he is fit to plead in 89 then it casts doubt on him being a half-witted imbecile in 88. Then we come to the letter, is it genuine? Well I, and I assume most here have their doubts, but it is worth investigating because if it is genuine it also shows that Kosminski was not the harmless feeble individual who wouldn't hurt a fly type person who again, some people feel he was.
Regards Darryl

[jason_c]

I'm currently working my way through the thread on the other site. It seems as if the paper used to write the letter was from a ledger rather than paper normally associated with writing a letter on. If true, this rings alarm bells. As I understand it one of the major difficulties forgers have is finding suitable unused paper of the period. This is why the Maybrick diary is not written in an actual diary but in an album which once held photographs.

[jason_c]

But you are aware that for example Ostrog was ALSO singled out by a police official of the same standing as Anderson and Swanson - and that in HIS case, there seems to have been nothing at all to confirm that he was the sexually driven, crafty and dangerous madman that MacNaghten claimed him to be? Maybe we should not overinvest in the infallability of these menīs noses, when it comes to sniffing out Rippers? Plus, of course, MacNaghten took over office after the Kosminskiite Anderson, the prime reason for why Kosminski is spoken about at all, and he ranked Kosminski below Druitt in terms of viability.

So we need to explain just why the man who identified Kosminski as the Ripper did not divulge the information that would have had him hung to the man to whom the overall responsibility of the Met was handed over to a few years down the line.

At the end of the day, if I am to convict somebody of murder, I am not willing to convict on information that may draw on nothing but a sense of bruised pride within a failing police bigwig. I want as much factual and circumstantial evidence as can be had, and to be frank, there is only one suspect that fits that bill. And even in his case, I would not convict - I would let him walk, albeit feeling that I let a killer loose.

No offence but I feel some strawmanning going on here. No-one is asking you to convict anyone. Convicting in this instance is an impossibility, both legally and physically. All that can be done in regards to identifying the ripper is to weigh possibilities and probabilities with the very limited evidence passed down to us.

IF this letter is genuine, and most of us have been around long enough to remain sceptical, then one thing this letter does partly answer is this; the letter points to the police being aware of suspicions surrounding Kosminski earlier than many had previously thought.

[Fisherman]

Yes I agree, at a later stage, nobodies memory is infallible. But Kosminski was suspected of being the ripper by someone who had overall charge of the investigation. This man pooled from other lunatics, madmen psychopaths etc I simply cannot believe that he was picked on because he was the local loony eating out of the gutters.
Regards Darryl

But you are aware that for example Ostrog was ALSO singled out by a police official of the same standing as Anderson and Swanson - and that in HIS case, there seems to have been nothing at all to confirm that he was the sexually driven, crafty and dangerous madman that MacNaghten claimed him to be? Maybe we should not overinvest in the infallability of these menīs noses, when it comes to sniffing out Rippers? Plus, of course, MacNaghten took over office after the Kosminskiite Anderson, the prime reason for why Kosminski is spoken about at all, and he ranked Kosminski below Druitt in terms of viability.

So we need to explain just why the man who identified Kosminski as the Ripper did not divulge the information that would have had him hung to the man to whom the overall responsibility of the Met was handed over to a few years down the line.

At the end of the day, if I am to convict somebody of murder, I am not willing to convict on information that may draw on nothing but a sense of bruised pride within a failing police bigwig. I want as much factual and circumstantial evidence as can be had, and to be frank, there is only one suspect that fits that bill. And even in his case, I would not convict - I would let him walk, albeit feeling that I let a killer loose.

[Darryl Kenyon]

What you post relates to the days of the investigation. But we know that he got dates concerning Kosminski wrong at a later stage. He got other things wrong too, as can be seen from the reports. Most people do.

Yes I agree, at a later stage, nobodies memory is infallible. But Kosminski was suspected of being the ripper by someone who had overall charge of the investigation. This man pooled from other lunatics, madmen psychopaths etc I simply cannot believe that he was picked on because he was the local loony eating out of the gutters.
Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

From the wikipedia entry on Swanson - On 15 September 1888 Commissioner Sir Charles Warren issued a memorandum to Dr. Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), placing Swanson in overall charge of the investigation into the murder of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. Swanson was freed from all other duties and given his own office at Scotland Yard from which to co-ordinate inquiries. He was given permission to see "every paper, every document, every report [and] every telegram" concerning the investigation.^[4] As subsequent murders were committed in the Whitechapel Murders series Swanson remained ‘in situ’ - gaining a mass of knowledge and information about the killings.

So what parts was he not in the know about Fish?
Regards Darryl

What you post relates to the days of the investigation. But we know that he got dates concerning Kosminski wrong at a later stage. He got other things wrong too, as can be seen from the reports. Most people do.