Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[PaulB]

From the little we have, we can see that Macnaghten knows more accurate data about 'Kosminski' than Anderson and/or Swanson.

Anderson writes and speaks of a Polish suspect who was about our and about for brief time in 1888, and was incarcerated in 1889--and identified. Soon after he was deceased, or so Anderson's son claimed his father believed.

None of that matches Aaron Kosminski, except being a Polish Jew at large in Whitechapel.

There is no evidence in the extant record that anybody at Scotland Yard ever saw either version of Macnaghten's report.

The notion of a positive witness identification does not appear until 1910-- to years after Anderson gives an interview which shows that his memory is in free fall

Hi Jonothan
arguably Macnaghten did not know more about "Kosminski" than Anderson and Swanson. In your interpretation of events he did, but it's only your interpretation.

Anderson does not write about somebody who was out and about in 1888 and incarcerated in 1889. Macnaghten does, Anderson does not. And if Swanson is correct and the identifation took place at the Seaside Home, then the date is a lot later than 1889.

The limited information provided does fit Aaron Kosminski.

I agree that the memoranda was filed but never used.

To describe Anderson's memory as in free-fall is grossly unfair. He confused some information about a crime when writing late at night and very tired. And whilst his memory may have been failing him, leading to the confusion of details, Jack the Ripper was among the most serious cases he had to deal with and consequently not one he is likely to have been confused over.

[Phil Carter]

1. Yes, Phil. It seems to have happened before the shawl was purchased. Kosminski was in the frame before the money was spent, and the DNA done. Hence the need for a 'blind' DNA test where the tester doesn't know who the possible subject is so as to avoid possible unwitting prejudice. Standard practice normally.

...
The fact that the conversation is paraphrased from memory, possibly long after the event, means we can't take it as literally true. If it really was as RE says, then I think it's a bit iffy. But of course we don't know what the other party to the chat would say. He might recall it very differently.

Hello Mick,

Ahh, and now we get to the crux of the matter. Aaron Kosminski was in the frame BEFORE the shawl was purchased. Before the DNA was done, before any money was spent. Unwitting predjudice? Indeed.

People can draw their own conclusions from this.

As regards the paraphrasing, I call that a "get out of jail free" card. If quoted or questioned, all Mr Edwards has to say is that he mis-remembered or has mis quoted.

There are very very few facts actually appearing in this book of substance it appears when broken down.


many thanks


Phil

[Jonathan H]

From the little we have, we can see that Macnaghten knows more accurate data about 'Kosminski' than Anderson and/or Swanson.

Anderson writes and speaks of a Polish suspect who was about our and about for brief time in 1888, and was incarcerated in 1889--and identified. Soon after he was deceased, or so Anderson's son claimed his father believed.

None of that matches Aaron Kosminski, except being a Polish Jew at large in Whitechapel.

There is no evidence in the extant record that anybody at Scotland Yard ever saw either version of Macnaghten's report.

The notion of a positive witness identification does not appear until 1910-- to years after Anderson gives an interview which shows that his memory is in free fall

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Yes, we all know of the stance of Alan McCormick of the Crime Museum. I was trying to get at EXACTLY the wording of Russel Edwards in his book. And in doing so am troubled by these comments quoted by Mr. Edwards in his book (paraphrased rather).

As I wrote previously though. I would naturally think that 'documentation to prove it' would be referring to The Swanson Marginalia and End page annotations.... except that it cannot be that.......

"Aaron" Kosminski was not mentioned in it. Only a 'Kosminski' was.
and
The SM and EPA doesnt "prove" anything of the sort in any case.

So if Mr. Edwards has been told this by Mr. McCormick then the Crime Museum's former curator is actually only spinning his own belief which, in itself, is unprovable. Isn't that contributary to perpetuating a myth?

If so, upon what evidence does Mr McCormack perpetuate the unproven and unwritten myth that Aaron Kosminski was involved at all?

I only ask.

regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

4. He misinterpreted what he was told..I do feel his work suffers from his conscious decision to go it alone and not run things past others on sites t
like this........

Hello Steve,

That last line is one I certainly agree to.

regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

Hello Chris, Monty,

Sadly I am afraid to inform the pair of you that any "conspiracy" as you both mention and refer to is NOT, I repeat NOT in my mind.

I am trying to disentangle fact from made up fiction. Something you Monty have noted as well. So just keep the attempts to label others out of this eh?... it isnt needed, not called for and I don't particularly appreciate it. So that we are still square... if you want an argument.. look elsewhere gentlemen. OK? Thank you both.

regards

Phil

[Steve S]

That's right Steve. Edwards does give the impression that he's been told that there is something there by way of proof that he will see if he provides a signed copy of the book, and that this info is not generally available.

Now, I am quite sure Paul et al are right that there wasn't any secret info.

So:

1. Either RE really was told differently (very unlikely I'd suggest) or

2. He's recalling what was said incorrectly (very likely) or

3. He's making it up deliberately (probably unlikely).

Whichever of the last two it is, then his work is not to be relied upon. A few of the contributions to the discussion seem reluctant to say this openly. There may be other explanations, but I can't think of one.

4. He misinterpreted what he was told..I do feel his work suffers from his conscious decision to go it alone and not run things past others on sites t
like this........

[PaulB]

But if that's the case why accepting it over Macnaghten who appears to abandon Kosminski?

Macnaghten doesn't abandon "Kosminski". He simply prefers the information which he may have received personally and which he found sufficiently persuasive to convince him the Druitt was the murderer.

And Druitt may have been the murderer

But we don't know how much he knew about "Kosminski". Given his rank and known interests we assume that he knew everything there was to know, but on the other hand it is a odd that he should have been so dismissive of his boss's suspect, especially as his memorandum, had it ever been used, would have been circulated to Anderson, so maybe there were things he didn't know.

As far as the curator of the museum accepting Anderson over Macnaghten, Anderson was in a position to know the evidence against any suspect. If he preferred "Kosminski" rather than Druitt then he presumably had a good reason for doing so.

But the bottom line is that we don't know. We simply don't have sufficient information. at least the museum had the marginalia.

He evidently had what he considered to be persuasive information that Druitt was the murderer.
This information may have been given t him

[mickreed]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

That's right Steve. Edwards does give the impression that he's been told that there is something there by way of proof that he will see if he provides a signed copy of the book, and that this info is not generally available.

Now, I am quite sure Paul et al are right that there wasn't any secret info.

So:

1. Either RE really was told differently (very unlikely I'd suggest) or

2. He's recalling what was said incorrectly (very likely) or

3. He's making it up deliberately (probably unlikely).

Whichever of the last two it is, then his work is not to be relied upon. A few of the contributions to the discussion seem reluctant to say this openly. There may be other explanations, but I can't think of one.

[Steve S]

Remember..This wasn't an unbiased(??) Ripperologist..It's a museum curator who would like to think his museum has the answer.....On face value, it IS the answer....But Mr. Edwards makes it sound (possibly accidentally) as if the museum holds MORE info than we're aware of........

[GUT]

Not "pushing" it, just accepting that it is genuine and in turn acceptiing the "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. Fair enough.

But if that's the case why accepting it over Macnaghten who appears to abandon Kosminski?

[PaulB]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

Not "pushing" it, just accepting that it is genuine and in turn acceptiing the "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. Fair enough.

[Steve S]

The Impression given in the Edwards book is that there is secret information and that it's a recent thing.......As others have pointed out, what it actually involved was the curator at the time pushing the Marginalia.........

[PaulB]

Alan is the former curator of the museum, of course.

[Chris]

McCormicks opinions are common knowledge Chris, they were discussed on these very boards some years back.

This is not a new revelation.

In that case I'm going to ask McCormick to give me the £10 back.