Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

We'll probably never know the truth, but there are several things we should recall:

1. Macnaghten wasn't in the job at the time of the murders. In early-1894 when he wrote the surviving memo, he was either:

a) relying on memory of what he'd been previously told by those who had first-hand knowledge, but who may also have been relying on memory.

b) drawing directly from the file

c) talking directly to staff who had been involved

d) a combination of some/all of the above

2. He also may have written a version held by Gerald Donner, and seen by Phillip Loftus, in the 1950s which has since disappeared. Loftus took no copy apparently and from his memory I understand, he thought that Macnaghten had named Leather Apron and therefore not Kosminski.

3. The Aberconway version is a typed transcript of a handwritten version subsequently lost, taken by Lady Aberconway. This is often considered to be a draft for the actual memorandum.

So what do I make of it?

1. The original memo, regardless of the process used to create it, is the closest we can get to Macnaghten's original intent. It seems to be what he wanted to convey, although whether it's what he actually thought in its entirety, we cannot know. Political considerations might have played a role.

2. Well the Donner version would have been terrific to have, and if it had really named 'Leather Apron' then a lot of later theorizing would be in trouble. But we don't, and I'm not at all sure that Loftus's recollections are of any use. If anyone can add anything concrete, I, for one, would be very pleased.

3. The notion that the Aberconway version is a draft is a reasonable assumption, but that's all it is. It may have been later, as Trevor has just postulated. I don't know. The key point is though, that it's a transcript. I've seen enough transcripts in my time to know how fraught they can be. They can range from the careful (with zero or minimal errors of no significance), through the careless but honest transcription, to the deliberately stuffed around with so as to change the meaning for any number of reasons. In short, transcripts cannot be taken as gospel. Anybody who puts undue credence in them needs to slow down.

However, overall, I think it's pretty clear that Macnaghten's favoured candidate was Druitt. Nothing in any version contradicts that and he, more or less, repeated it in his autobiography (p. 62).

I'm fairly familiar with the ins and outs Mike but thanks for the re-cap.

Of course what we shouldn't forget is the memoranda also contains a number of gleaming errors….Ostrog being the most obvious.

However I'm not choosing to ignore what Jonathon is saying just concerned that this has been covered at length and might be a little off topic..especially when there appears to be some interesting discoveries on Amos Simpson..

Whether you agree or disagree with new discoveries they often lead in interesting directions so many thanks to those who have provided this info

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

1. Macnaghten was there to investigate Aaron Kosminski, who was not sectioned until 1891, and was there to investigate Druitt who did not come to police attention--in a Ripper context--until 1891.

2. The Gerald Donner version, as claimed by Phillip Loftus, probably never existed and is a red herring. Christabel Aberconway did not get on with her siblings, and made a copy because she did not trust them with her father's legacy about the Ripper--with good reason since they lost the original. It makes no sense because he was writing his report to discredit Cutbush as a suspect.

3. The genuine third version is his memoir chapter LAYING THE GHOST OF JACK THE RIPPER, his last adaptation of his memo (in which Kosminski and Ostrog are dropped).

4. From the extant record we can see that he know more accurate data about Kosminski than Anderson and Swanson.

[mickreed]

No. Person of interest is a a term used when police suspect someone of wrong doing. It sounds better than "suspect" but it means the same thing. A person of interest will be taken to HQ and questioned just the same as any suspect.

Isn't 'person of interest' a US term, rather than a UK one?

In any event it's pretty meaningless.

"The 'person of interest' tells you nothing," says Cynthia Hujar Orr, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They are suspicious of that person, but the police don't have the evidence they need."

[mickreed]

1. Macnaghten was there to investigate Aaron Kosminski, who was not sectioned until 1891, and was there to investigate Druitt who did not come to police attention--in a Ripper context--until 1891

.

true enough

2. The Gerald Donner version, as claimed by Phillip Loftus, probably never existed and is a red herring. Christabel Aberconway did not get on with her siblings, and made a copy because she did not trust them with her father's legacy about the Ripper--with good reason since they lost the original. It makes no sense because he was writing his report to discredit Cutbush as a suspect.

Even so, the transcript could still be a poor one. NB I am not saying it is. Merely that all transcripts must be treated sceptically.

3. The genuine third version is his memoir chapter LAYING THE GHOST OF JACK THE RIPPER, his last adaptation of his memo (in which Kosminski and Ostrog are dropped).

Agreed - in spades.

4. From the extant record we can see that he know more accurate data about Kosminski than Anderson and Swanson.

Yep!

[mickreed]

However I'm not choosing to ignore what Jonathon is saying just concerned that this has been covered at length and might be a little off topic..especially when there appears to be some interesting discoveries on Amos Simpson..


Yours Jeff

Your're right there.

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

Yes, but the problem is that Anderson and Swanson only know the error-riddled version of 'Kosminski', strongly suggesting that their information comes from Mac (e.g. as he knew that the man was alive, and they did not).

Tellingly Swanson writes just the surname in his annotation of Anderson's memoir--exactly as in the 1894 Mac report and the 1898 rewrite that was disseminated to the public.

[pinkmoon]

send for a constable

Any one know if the police have shown any interest in these exciting claims?

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

Yes, but the problem is that Anderson and Swanson only know the error-riddled version of 'Kosminski', strongly suggesting that their information comes from Mac (e.g. as he knew that the man was alive, and they did not).

Tellingly Swanson writes just the surname in his annotation of Anderson's memoir--exactly as in the 1894 Mac report and the 1898 rewrite that was disseminated to the public.

Well thats not really true. We know that Swanson makes an error about Kosminski having died.. Thats it really, especially if it could be discovered that Kosminski was placed in a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

Pretty much everything else is up for grabs in terms of 'We don't know if Swanson was right or wrong.

And lets face it Anderson doesn't give much away apart from the fact that he was satisfied the case was solved.

But that all runs in circles. The sources simply tell us what thy tell us , walts and all

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

distance between

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"a person of interest is a long way short of someone being classed as a suspect is it not?"

A few parsecs, perhaps? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

prefer

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Macnaughten in my view had formed his Druitt theory, private info, before being asked to write the report about Cutbush. He thus had access to the files but stuck to his original preferred story."

I tend to agree. Of course, the question arises, why did he prefer this story?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Isn't 'person of interest' a US term, rather than a UK one?

In any event it's pretty meaningless.

"The 'person of interest' tells you nothing," says Cynthia Hujar Orr, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They are suspicious of that person, but the police don't have the evidence they need."

Thats pretty much it in British terminology.
Not enough is known about the activities of Person 'A' to make him a suspect, but he can't be wholly dismissed either.
A Person of Interest is, subject to further investigation.

Which pretty much encapsulates all the modern suspected persons that we apply the rather grand label 'suspect' to, they are really only Persons of Interest.

[lynn cates]

Bekos, just bekos.

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Just as I abandon you to the car man fantasy.

Now, about that Kosminski kid.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Just as I abandon you to the car man fantasy.

Now, about that Kosminski kid.

Cheers.
LC

I guess that as long as a killer is not decisively revealed, all suspects can be called "fantasies".
As long as we realize that some require more fantazising than others, that´s as it should be.

So where´s the list of psychotic killers who left no clues, who were silent and who got away with multiple murder?

When I get that, I will give you a much longer list, a list of psychopathic killers with an occupation that gave them reason to be in the midst of a killing zone without being suspected, who killed multiple times and got away with it for the longest time.

Statistically, you are cannon fodder, and you should know it. And as long as we cannot conclusively name the killer, statistics is what we lean against.

That should put an end to the discussion.

Should, that is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

No, that's not true.

Swanson writes that there were no other such murders in London. Frances Coles was killed only a few days after Aaron Kosminski was permanently sectioned, at a time when he investigated that murder as one by 'Jack'.

He also has the suspect positively identified by a Jewish witness, when no such event happened involving Aaron Kosminski (though Swanson may have been entirely reliant on Anderson for the veracity of this tale).

The 'Seaside Home' is arguably a mis-recalling of the Seaman's Home involving Tom Sadler, who was 'çonfronted' by a Jewish witness, almost certainly Lawende.

Both Swanson and Anderson write about these events as if they happened in late 1888 and early 1889, when they did not.

[Errata]

When I get that, I will give you a much longer list, a list of psychopathic killers with an occupation that gave them reason to be in the midst of a killing zone without being suspected, who killed multiple times and got away with it for the longest time.

The best,
Fisherman

Strictly speaking it is not usually an occupation that puts a serial killer in a killing zone. Nor in contact with potential victims. Typically serial killers will arrange their leisure around hunting, and will hunt target rich environments. But they still tend to obey they "don't **** where you eat" rule.