Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[PaulB]

How so?

'How so?' What do you mean, Scott?

[PaulB]

I assume that Paul means that Martin's theory is flimsy. I agree... it is.

RH

Yes, that's what I meant.

[Harry D]

So on the basis of you illogical reasoning everyone who finds a body is to be regarded as a suspect ?

Of course, Trevor. Someone had to find the body, and this time it was Crossmere's turn. There really was nothing more to it than that. Of course, we've run the gamut of Ripper suspects at this point, what's one more, however implausible?

[Jonathan H]

Thanks PaulB

But I must ask again.

Is there a published source that mentions that Macnaghten knew Kosminski was alive and not deceased as Swanson believed--and Anderson arguably believed?

I don't know of one, but I am happy to stand corrected.

I do not mean the word 'construct' pejoratively.

All historical works based on painfully limited and contradictory data must construct a through-line to make any sense of them at all. They are therefore openly provisional.

Your books are brilliant. More than that, they are judicious and fair towards all of the police figures and sources.

So fair that in my opinion you came very close to unlocking the enigma of affable Mac by wondering, just for a moment, if he was not meant to be taken "literally" in what he wrote?

This one line was very influential on my revisionist thinking, for what that is worth (and is so acknowledged).

The construct was flimsy, or perhaps a better word would be fragile because in Fido finding Aaron Kosminski, he actually exposed the fictional variant "Kosminski" created by Macnaghten.

Martin Fido was perplexed by this lack of a match (hence his not previously having searched for a Kosminski sectioned as late as 1891); e.g. that this real, harmless figure must stand in for another more violent person who had been incarcerated very soon after the Kelly murder--and died at some point, if not "shortly afterwards".

That the real figure had become confused or mis-recalled, or mis-reported, or something.

I can understand this as the Marginalia implied that it was wrapped up early and that the suspect was definitely deceased.

Though I disagree with its interpretation, Martin Fido's book is superb and entertaining (perhaps he did find 'Jack the Ripper'?)

But this is what I mean by fragile because you can then turn the whole thing on its head, as you did, and make just as good --or just as weak-- a case for "Kosminski" standing in for ... Aaron Kosminski.

Who was not sectioned at the right time and not deceased at all.

On the other hand, the name fits and he was recorded as a chronic self-abuser (ironically the very detail/match between Macnaghten and Anderson that Fido started with) and had gone into Colney Hatch.

You see what I mean. It fits about the same, in that it doesn't.

The working hypothesis that Macnaghten passively and bureaucratically received information about this suspect from Anderson is the initial conceptual error from which all else flows--including two excellent writers in 1987 ending up with completely different Polish Jewish suspects, both asserted as Anderson's suspect.

The giveaway is the line in 'Aberconway' about Macnaghten knowing that "Kosminski" was still alive, confirmed by Sims in 1907 (where the Polish suspect is reconceived all over again).

Consider that Macnaghten had backdated (which is a fact, the question is was it accidental or deliberate) Aaron Kosminski's incarceration thus forcing this suspect to qualify for the "awful glut" litmus test, which he does not, not anymore than Cutbush who was also sectioned at about the same time, and his homicidal tendencies turn out to be simply threatening a female relation with a knife (Druitt does not pass the test either).

As R. J. Palmer had wondered on a post here several years ago, how could Macnaghten get wrong the dates of events that had happened while he was on the Force, like Kosminski's incarceration?

Well, he has was misinformed, or had a poor memory-- or so the received wisdom says unto the end of the age.

Actually this explanation is worse than tweaking, for it mangles the record to fit a preconceived portrait of Mac as Magoo--an inaccurate caricature your 2006 book does much to debunk. All the primary sources show that Macnaghten was renowned for his extraordinary powers of recall.

The other factor here, always ignored, is that Macnaghten and Anderson could not stand each other. OK, so personal animosity to one side, would the second-in-command, a professional, really outright lie to his boss?? Not only can it be shown from the available records that this is exactly what he did, I now know why he did it--in fact had to deceive, if he was to show any common sense at all.

The Marginalia is actually confirmation that, behind-the-scenes, with nobody to impress accept each other, Anderson and Swanson did not know the true details about Aaron Kosminski (did not even know his full name, ala the Mac Report again) as Fido correctly surmised. Because, he thought, they are mixing up data, or had received mixed-up data, about another better suspect, e.g. Cohen.

And I subscribe to the 2006 theory of Evans and Rumbelow, regarding the strange location of the police seaside hospital for the witness identification. If they are correct, that this is another self-serving mix-up, then the Marginalia is chock full of errors.

But I do not subscribe to Sudgen's theory of dual geriatric fantasists.

I think Swanson is simply recording Anderson''s words, a superior he revered. The desperate detail of Kosminski, as if in a panto, showing by his manner that the jig was up, suggests their conversation happened after Anderson had been taken to task by English Hebrews, e.g. to counter the devastating point about Adolph Beck you have the suspect admit, somehow, that he is the fiend.

Arguably much more important primary sources discovered since the Swanson Marginalia of 1987 include:

(1991) The 1891 "West of England" MP source that pointed towards Montague Druitt being believed to be the Ripper among "his own people" in the region in which he had grown up, three years before the "memo".

(1993) The 1913 Littlechild Letter, which among its many extraordinary revelations showed that the leading suspect of 1888 was not a poor, local madman. The complimentary discovery was that Tumblety was big-as-life in American newspapers as a Ripper suspect, and so every Ripper book up to then had a big, fat hole in them, e.g. the vital suspect of 1888 was missing-in-action.

It's not the fault of a legion of writer-researchers, all working to tight deadlines with next-to-zero resources, but it was a gaping hole nonetheless.

(1995) Sims' various "Mustard and Cress" pieces for "The Referee", and his 1907 article for "Lloyds Weekly"magazine--found by Evans--that showed that Macnaghten was engaged in a public relations campaign about Druitt, who was effectively veiled. The previous notion of the "memo" as

entirely

composed for internal reasons of state was discredited.

(1995) The various 1889 sources that show that Inspector Walter Andrews was on a background check to Canada about the Irish-American suspect. The subsequent revisionist attempts at showing that this was not so having, arguably, been debunked by R. J. Palmer.

Somewhere in there was found the 1892 interview with Anderson that, arguably, showed that he was not cognizant yet about any locked-up suspect as having solved the case. Also the records that showed that Ostrog was really in a French asylum during 1888. Though interpreted as the last nail in Mac's coffin (by Sudgen) it was arguably explained why Macnaghten's dropped him altogether from his memoirs (along with Kosminski), and also Sims' 1907 comment about the Russian suspect being in an asylum abroad.

(2007) Tumblety's interview which proved he was arrested as a Ripper suspect, and seemingly did not have an alibi for any of the crimes and conceded that he knew the East End very well. This middle-aged, dodgy medico figure shadows the tale long after his specific identify went dormant.

(2008) The 1892 source found by Andrew Spallek identifying the loose-lipped MP as a man who knew the Druitts and who was also the perfect 'Old Boy Net' clubby conduit for Macnaghten.

In my opinion this was no less than the 'Rosetta Stone' source to the whole subject; the missing bridge between the Mac Report(s) and the sympathetic obits of 1889, the missing link that had eluded Farson and Cullen (the former turning himself into Don Quixote in Australia, and the latter settling for a hoax source from McCormick).

In the same year, 2008, the late Chris Scott published the "North Country Vicar" from 1899 source that provided an explanation as to why you would simultaneously reveal and conceal a solution that threatened respectable people (as this cleric had done, e.g. by openly using a mixture of fact and fiction--just as Mac and Sims were doing and continue to do, but covertly).

(2013) The rediscovery of Guy Logan's serial novella about the Druitt solution (found by Jan Bondeson) who likely got his information from Sims and Macnaghten (whom else?). In this openly semi-fictional account the young barrister is untraceable a middle-aged medical student. But it also accurately reveals him to be an Oxonian, an athlete, seen by Lawende, taking days after the Kelly murder to kill himself, as falsely leaving word that he was going abroad and killing himself rather than ending up (like mother) in a madhouse. Even Farquharson makes a walk-on appearance.

(2015) Various forgotten works of Sims that arguably show he was fully aware of the Druitt solution and of the suspect's confession to a priest. And something else, arguably a clincher, that I can't reveal right now. A source that will, of course, be a matter of honest and academic dispute as to its meaning and significance.

I apologize for those sources I have missed as I am writing quickly.

[harry]

What Anderson and Swanson are claiming,unless both were present to s ee something or hear something bearing on the claim,and it appears not,w hat information they had would be hearsay.It w as given to them by other persons.To start,information would be given to police that appeared to implicate Kosminski in a ripper killing.This information w ould be assessed and an identification carried out.The information gained would be recorded.Kosminski could then be cautioned and arrested on suspicion if cicumstances warranted.There should have been a whole lot of documentation in recording these procedures,and quite a number of personnel involved.

[PaulB]

What Anderson and Swanson are claiming,unless both were present to s ee something or hear something bearing on the claim,and it appears not,w hat information they had would be hearsay.It w as given to them by other persons.To start,information would be given to police that appeared to implicate Kosminski in a ripper killing.This information w ould be assessed and an identification carried out.The information gained would be recorded.Kosminski could then be cautioned and arrested on suspicion if cicumstances warranted.There should have been a whole lot of documentation in recording these procedures,and quite a number of personnel involved.

Harry,
Anderson and Swanson's position means that they would have known all about the identification even if they were not present at it. This makes them an authoritative voice, not hearsay. If George Hutchinson was telling us something he'd heard about it, that would be hearsay.

[Monty]

Harry,
Anderson and Swanson's position means that they would have known all about the identification even if they were not present at it. This makes them an authoritative voice, not hearsay. If George Hutchinson was telling us something he'd heard about it, that would be hearsay.

Spot on, and it must be noted that hearsay is admissible in court.

Monty
: )

[Trevor Marriott]

Spot on, and it must be noted that hearsay is admissible in court.

Monty
: )

It is now but maybe not back then !

The rules on hearsay have only changed in recent years

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry,
Anderson and Swanson's position means that they would have known all about the identification even if they were not present at it. This makes them an authoritative voice, not hearsay. If George Hutchinson was telling us something he'd heard about it, that would be hearsay.

You are wrong, Harry is right what Anderson or Swanson later said about what happened outside of their presence is hearsay,

[PaulB]

You are wrong, Harry is right what Anderson or Swanson later said about what happened outside of their presence is hearsay,

I am right. Harry is wrong. And so are you. Trevor, it is customary and polite to explain clearly and concisely why you think someone is wrong. I have done that. You have not. You should. Just saying 'you're wrong' is unacceptable and dumb.

I'll reiterate for you, Anderson and Swanson are authoritative voices - in other words, they were in a position to know what they were talking about. That's not hearsay. That's a primary historical source.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am right. Harry is wrong. And so are you. Trevor, it is customary and polite to explain clearly and concisely why you think someone is wrong. I have done that. You have not. You should. Just saying 'you're wrong' is unacceptable and dumb.

I'll reiterate for you, Anderson and Swanson are authoritative voices - in other words, they were in a position to know what they were talking about. That's not hearsay. That's a primary historical source.

It may be a historical source to you but its still hearsay.

Lets hypothesize

Suspect is taken to seaside home Anderson nor Swanson are present. The witness confronts the suspects and when asked is it him the witness replies "I thinks so" or "it could be" Those officers involved then go back and tell Swanson yes the witness ID him.

Now for the record for a positive ID the witness has to make a positive ID the two I mentioned are not positive ID`s.

So what do we have thereafter Swanson says to Anderson, yes we had a positive ID, and then later Swanson and Anderson write the suspect was identified. What they write is based on hearsay and incorrcet

[Monty]

It is now but maybe not back then !

The rules on hearsay have only changed in recent years

True, but irrelevant.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

True, but irrelevant.

Monty

Twas you that brought it up, I was merely putting it in the right perspective. I would hate for anyone to be misled

[PaulB]

It may be a historical source to you but its still hearsay.

Lets hypothesize

Suspect is taken to seaside home Anderson nor Swanson are present. The witness confronts the suspects and when asked is it him the witness replies "I thinks so" or "it could be" Those officers involved then go back and tell Swanson yes the witness ID him.

Now for the record for a positive ID the witness has to make a positive ID the two I mentioned are not positive ID`s.

So what do we have thereafter Swanson says to Anderson, yes we had a positive ID, and then later Swanson and Anderson write the suspect was identified. What they write is based on hearsay and incorrcet

It is a historical source to everyone, including you As for your hypothesising, it is fiction, unsupportrd by a single fact. We can hypothesize anything.

It is also irrelevant. It doesn't answer the question put to you. Why does it always have to be like this? You make a statement, you are asked to back it up, you don't/can't.

[TomTomKent]

It is a historical source to everyone, including you As for your hypothesising, it is fiction, unsupportrd by a single fact. We can hypothesize anything.

It is also irrelevant. It doesn't answer the question put to you. Why does it always have to be like this? You make a statement, you are asked to back it up, you don't/can't.

(My bolding).

Sorry to interrupt, but I think we can clear up some of the apparent confusion fairly easily. I know there are folks on this board with a background in the Police, and I certainly mean no disrespect to their training, but for the sake of clarity perhaps we should assume that any reference to sources, evidence or fact is measured by the standards and requirements of history rather than a criminal case.

Not to belittle the talk of hearsay, etc, but to ensure everybody is using the same definitions. Even had I agreed that the sources you are discussing were records of mere hearsay for example, that would still be historically useful and offer an insight to us that the Police may not have used to draw their own conclusions.

I would agree that though we do not how their conclusions were reached, the versions of events given, even years after the fact are of great historical importance if only to show us what other information is missing.