Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sleekviper,

I honestly don't know. It's the reason I asked.

The article appeared in the Sunday Chronicle, 15th October 1905.

Anderson retired in 1901, but if it is him [and with its reference to hesitant witnesses it certainly sounds like him] then perhaps we should be looking for a married, generally-respected businessman, a suspect profile which fits neither Kosminski nor Druitt.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

The article appeared in the Sunday Chronicle, 15th October 1905.

Anderson retired in 1901, but if it is him [and with its reference to hesitant witnesses it certainly sounds like him] then perhaps we should be looking for a married, generally-respected businessman, a suspect profile which fits neither Kosminski nor Druitt.

I agree it sounds like him, though as you imply the fact that he was retired would be a difficulty, and I think "engaged in a large way of business in the city of London, was married, had a family, and was generally respected" is difficult to reconcile with what he wrote in 1910, even without taking into account Swanson's remarks. On the other hand there is another similarity in the reference to the Elizabeth Camp case, which Anderson also brought up in the Daily Chronicle in 1908:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3405

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4839

One man who would have been a senior detective in 1905, and who reportedly worked on the Camp case and had a propensity for "yarns" about Jack the Ripper, was Frank Froest.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Froest is an interesting suggestion. But if it was him, does it imply he was ruling out Tumblety, a case in which he was personally involved?

Anderson made many post-retirement comments during the first decade of the 1900s, so perhaps we cannot rule him out completely.

Swanson had been retired for two years when this newspaper report appeared, so might it have been him?

Boiling down the story to its essentials, we have witnesses who hesitate "very much before giving evidence which may cause a fellow-being—murderer though he may be—to lose his life" [redolent of Anderson's TLSOMOL story and the Swanson marginalia].

There is also "His family knew of the circumstances, knew that he was not only a madman, but a man possessed of considerable surgical knowledge, and with their full consent and the knowledge of the police he was put away in an asylum" [which prima facie appears to confuse Druitt and Kosminski, although I cannot recall any evidence as to Kosminski possessing considerable surgical skills].

Perhaps it was the recently-retired Robert Sagar, who was reported in the City Press, 1905, as saying 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." In another press report Sagar also endorsed the sighting of Macnaghten's City PC, who "met a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court [Mitre Square]". And, the last time I checked, Druitt wasn't Jewish.

The Ripperological possibilities become endless given this hopelessly-tangled bugger's muddle of police opinion.

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry my friend, this is an assumption I feel the need to pull you up on.

At no time, nowhere, does Swanson call the suspect a murderer, in his opinion.

What Swanson does do, is speculate that if the witness had given the evidence that was expected of him, the suspect would then become the accused (ie; the murderer).
Swanson does not say that in his opinion Kosminski was the murderer, but that is what your sentence is intended to imply.

Jon,

That is disingenious.

In effect, you're saying that Swanson thought that a possibly innocent man was about to be convicted of murder. And, considering Swanson was running the investigation, I think he would have had something to say about that in his notes. But he doesn't, he says: murderer would have hanged.

Why are people jumping through hoops to discount the ID and Swanson believing he would have hanged. Ultimately, Swanson tells us that they had enough on him in the event the witness gave evidence; ergo he was the man as far as Swanson was concerned.

According to your view, Jon, Swanson was saying something like: "the man was identified; the man we thought was the man, which is why we brought him here, but even though our views were confirmed by a positive ID he could be innocent even though a positive ID would have led to him being hanged".

Gotta say, Jon, would a load of old bollocks that really is.

Edited to add: out of sheer curioisty, what do you propose the evidence was? Evidence that would have been good enough for a court of law, in the absence of an argument that Swanson meant hanged by a lynch mob, but not good enough for Swanson?

[sleekviper]

Hello Simon,
Oh, ok. In that case I vote Wensley. The statement "Day after day", in regards to the murders seems a fresh contrast to saying "during the last decade"; someone fresh was left with a deep mark from the murders, and he is looking upward in society and not down. Someone walking the streets new, day after day, seeing the horror and fear of what was going on. He was well known for sure, and not revealing his identity could mean he was not involved in the upper levels at the time. It could be seen as disrespectful, and speaking beyond his knowledge when the crimes were taking place. Just me though, but seems like Wensley would fit.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sleekviper,

Without wishing to diminish Frederick Porter Wensley's long and successful police career, I would point out that in 1888 he was a fairly inexperienced 23-year old constable.

If it was Wensley in the quoted 1905 newspaper report, were his experiences of the Whitechapel murders first-hand or did he learn them second-hand?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Perhaps it was the recently-retired Robert Sagar, who was reported in the City Press, 1905, as saying 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." In another press report Sagar also endorsed the sighting of Macnaghten's City PC, who "met a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court [Mitre Square]". And, the last time I checked, Druitt wasn't Jewish.

I had been assuming on the basis of "Scotland Yard" that it was a serving Met (rather than City) detective, if that's not taking things too literally.

But given the mention of the suspect being in business in the City, I think Sagar's suspect is the best fit we know of (assuming Sagar's suspect isn't Aaron Kozminski). It's also tempting to link it to these two reports of a rather similar-sounding suspect from September 1889:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=132545&postcount=18

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=151648&postcount=26

[Chris]

Oh, ok. In that case I vote Wensley.

But if it was Wensley, wouldn't he have given some hint of it in the section of his memoirs dealing with the Whitechapel Murders?

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.wensley.html

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Rob,

Me, too.

Our anonymous Scotland Yard detective continued—

"Perhaps the most terrible crime during the last decade which was not followed by a conviction was the killing and mutilating of a number of unfortunate women in Whitechapel. Day after day these murders occurred. Failure again? Yes. But listen to this.

"We found our man. He was engaged in a large way of business in the city of London, was married, had a family, and was generally respected. For some time he had been known as eccentric, and various escapades had caused his friends a good deal of anxiety.

"Frequently, as we learned later, he stayed out all night about the time when these outrages were committed. His description agreed with that of a man seen in Dorset-street, Whitechapel, on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was cut to pieces, and at that time he was very near to actual arrest by a policeman.

"His family knew of the circumstances, knew that he was not only a madman, but a man possessed of considerable surgical knowledge, and with their full consent and the knowledge of the police he was put away in an asylum.

"Since that man's removal there has not been another such crime in London . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Who is this Scotland Yard detective? Me?

Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

Jon,

You're not making a great deal of sense here.

I doubt there's ever been a murder investigation where 3 police officers have independently discovered clues and arrived at a conclusion, ....

Independently?
F.M., by what rationale do you claim that Anderson or Macnaghten investigated anything?

The very fact that Macnaghten was senior to Swanson, and also Anderson's deputy means precisely that the information they received came by way of Swanson, and by no other route. As we already know, it was Warren's declaration that all information must come through Swanson.

Both Macnaghten and Anderson relied on the reports handed in by Swanson, neither man was in a position to investigate anything by themselves. Any suggestion that they might reflects directly on their trust in Swanson's ability. Therefore all three men are voicing conclusions which emanated from the same source.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Please don't feel confused. "Literally" or "not literally" is all the same to Ripperology.

If the 1905 married, well-respected businessman was Sagar's suspect, from where on earth did the 1910 insane unmarried low-class Polish Jew arrive?

Also, please clarify to what your encased in quotes "Scotland Yard" refer?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

If the 1905 married, well-respected businessman was Sagar's suspect, from where on earth did the 1910 insane unmarried low-class Polish Jew arrive?

Also, please clarify to what your encased in quotes "Scotland Yard" refer?

To the "well-known Scotland Yard detective" in the article. I suppose it might just be a retired detective rather than a serving one, but I don't think a City of London man should have been described in that way.

Based on the reports we now have of Sagar's retirement reminiscences, I think it's unlikely that his suspect was the same as Anderson's.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That is disingenious.

In effect, you're saying that Swanson thought that a possibly innocent man was about to be convicted of murder.

Not at all, Swanson does not know who is guilty or innocent.

Donald Swanson did not think an innocent man was nearly hanged, he is saying that if all had gone as was expected this suspect would have been officially identified, innocent or guilty, I do not know.
Swanson did not know who the killer was, he was not committing himself, Swanson is being purely impartial in these notes. That is what I am saying.

This, was Anderson's memoirs, and these were Anderson's opinions and conclusions. Therefore Swanson is filling in 'between the lines' so to speak, and in the end he provides the name to Anderson's suspect.
That is all he is doing.
Reading anything more into those footnotes is pure conjecture.

Nowhere, have we ever read of Swanson naming his own suspect, he does not appear to be that kind of person. So why argue that he did in this case?

Edited to add: out of sheer curioisty, what do you propose the evidence was? Evidence that would have been good enough for a court of law, in the absence of an argument that Swanson meant hanged by a lynch mob, but not good enough for Swanson?

I can't think of anything short of the witness catching the suspect in the act, and we know that never occurred, so the whole claim appears to be hyperbole.
I suggest the lack of logic which you draw attention to is precisely why we should not take these footnotes at face value. There never was any evidence that could have hung a suspect because that would need to be what I said above - suspect caught in the act.

As professional as I believe he was, these notes written so long after the fact are still not making sense. To what extent they contain hyperbole is debatable, but contain it they must.

No witness ever saw the murderer caught in the act, and that would be necessary for any suspect to be condemned to hang on the results of an I.D. parade alone.
Accept this claim at your peril!

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

I can't think of anything short of the witness catching the suspect in the act, and we know that never occurred, so the whole claim appears to be hyperbole.

The implication seems to be that no murderer could have been convicted unless there was an eyewitness to the act of murder.

On the contrary, it's always been the case that suspects could be convicted on circumstantial evidence, and an identification of a suspect at the scene of the crime, close to the time of the murder, could certainly make the different between acquittal and conviction.

[sleekviper]

I highly doubt that Wensley would have put yet another chapter into the crimes; his superior officers had laid out what they had thought, so as with not revealing his identity in 1905, he kept the Ripper case low when he wrote if it were him. That would seem to fit to me. Here was a newbie, seeing fear in the wretched eyes day after day. Eyes looking to him for help, and without being hardened to the plight of those around, it makes an impact that he never forgets. Confusing nearly twenty years with ten would seem to be someone in the hardship day after day. He comes up with some really ingenious plans to solve crimes, and it may have started with having to deal in this mess his first year.