Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jonathan H]

To Chris

We will have to agree to disagree.

To me everything by or about Anderson, and he is not alone, perpetuates the single season of terror. He clearly he has no recall of Coles, or rather he is merging it with Kelly, as, again, so did others.

I also disagree that David Cohen does not fit. He's sectioned at the right time and he's dead at least by 1889.

He is a much better suspect than Aaron Kosminski to actually be the Ripper, as that FBI guru judged--for what serial killer profiling is worth.

To Monty

We know that Swanson's words (perhaps repeating Anderson) are likely to have been inaccurate because of their content.

Aaron Kosminski was not put before a witness, there was no Hebrew who refused to testify out of sectarian loyalty, the murders did not end with his being sectioned, and he was not deceased soon afterwards--or even when the annotation was written.

I am re-reading Fido right now--one of the great books on this subject--and he tries to rescue Anderson as a reliable source by sticking with Cohen, and I can see why. Otherwise, the so-called Marginalia is the last nail in the coffin re: Anderson if you go with Aaron who was alive and sectioned too late.

To make Anderson work I think you have to do a jujitsu move about the identification: that whilst he is sincerely mis-recalling Lawende with Sadler and Grant, he is, nevertheless, correct about the Kosminski family, or brother, "suspecting the worst" (Aberconway) but refusing to give up his own to "Gentile Justice".

[Jeff Leahy]

I strongly advise against that assumption Jeff.

Monty

I'm not assuming the investigation ended all together. It clearly didn't. And as Don Rumblow observes the case is never really closed the papers simply put away. But if Abberline were moved, lets say to more important duties at this time, couldn't that be conceived as a step down in general alert?

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

The space across from his name in the Whitechapel Workhouse register under the column for known relatives is blank. It doesn't say "none" or "unknown."

Aaron wasn't taken to "Stepney" Workhouse either.

Currently, it is not known if "Cohen" was David's anglicized last name.

Well, perhaps we can agree that on the information that was recorded at the time Cohen doesn't fit these criteria.

[Trevor Marriott]

How do you know that Swansons words are inaccurate?

Monty

By reason of the inferences that can be drawn from my previous post

And I could ask you how do you know they are ? having regards to my previous post.

Another question for you is How did Swanson come by the information about Kosminski ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

March, 1889

Yours truly,
Expert like Monty

You are a far better expert Hunter.

And this is sort of what I thought. That by and large the investigation finished in March 1889…Exactly where MacNaughten says it does…

I strongly advise against that assumption Jeff.

Monty

[Chris]

Jonathan

Thanks. (I was only asking about Anderson.)

I think the problem with "after that there were no more murders" is that it doesn't give us a limit on the date. How soon after the last murder would it have to be for such a statement to make sense? March 1889 would already be four months after the Kelly murder, when there had been five murders in the space of ten weeks.

The footnote makes it sound as though he might have been narrowing it down to the time before McKenzie was killed. But then he mentions Mylett too. Was he narrowing it down to Nov-Dec 1889? Or was he just clarifying which murders he was including? I would guess the latter.

[Jeff Leahy]

March, 1889

Yours truly,
Expert like Monty

Hay no ones quite like Monty But many thanks for this..

And this is sort of what I thought. That by and large the investigation finished in March 1889…Exactly where MacNaughten says it does…

My premise is that by late 1890 a new team were called in to handle the ID and this was done in secret. Swanson indicates that others were involved... sent by us with difficulty… Which does imply other officers were involved and sworn to secrecy. ANd he clearly says watched by City CID…which is more problematic..

Yours Jeff

[Monty]

I am not passing comments on the events of 1888-1891, they are fully documented. But you know where I stand with regards to the marginalia and I do not intend to become embroiled in all of that again.

When you talk about Swanson and what he is supposed to have written, does it stand up to close scrutiny as being accurate? Because others who were equally in the know in 1888 all say different things, with others saying we knew nothing.

Yes, he was put in overall charge and during his time in charge, all material had to go to him. But before it went to him it had to be obtained from other police sources i.e the men on the ground doing the leg work.

Even if the police had received anonymous info via a letter naming a potential suspect. It would have been Swanson who would have had to action other officers to go and carry out investigations into that letter. So others would have been in the know and been in a position to be in the know.

If there had ever been a strong viable suspect, you would have expected them all to be singing from the same song sheet after all they were all batting on the same side were they not?

So as to how reliable Swanson and the marginalia and all its contents are concerned is a matter for each individual to decide.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How do you know that Swansons words are inaccurate?

Monty

[Hunter]

But you'd have to ask an expert like Monty when Abberline went back to Normal duties, After the McKensie attack? He wasn't involved in that to my knowledge and thats July 1889.

So to my knowledge Abberline is on other duties by the time the second event happens at the end of 1990 early 1891?

March, 1889

Yours truly,
Expert like Monty

[Jonathan H]

To Scott

Yes.

To Chris

It's not too much to ask, it's just an odd request when all you have to do is scroll backwards. But I owe you big time, Chris, so, ok, here it is again:


Major Arthur Griffiths (Alfred Aylmer), "Windsor Magazine", 1894:

“Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.”

Sir Robert Anderson, "The Lighter Side of My Official Life", 1910:

'However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.* The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November.'

Anderson's asterix is a footnote to say he is aware that of the MCkenzie murder but it was not by the same hand, and nobody selse thought so in authority--not so. the point is we can see that his memory has fogotten, or rather fused the Kelly and Coles murders into a single 'final' murder. He is not alone in doing this.

The Swanson Annotation [excerpt]:

'And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.'

Jack Littlechild to George Sims, 1913 [excerpt]:

'It was believed [Tumblety] committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the ‘Ripper’ murders came to an end.”

“Scoundrels and Scallywags and Some Honest Men” (1929); Tom Divall an ex-Chief Inspector of C.I.D.:

“The much lamented and late Commissioner of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps may be correct, for after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crime being committed.”

Sir Melville Macnaghten is also guilty of this false notion of the season of terror, ending climactically and abruptly with Kelly but only in his report(s). In fact he started it, hence the need to backdate Kosminski's incarceration into March 1889. Hence why Fido was not looking for Anderson's suspect beyond 1890, and only came across Aaron Kosminski accidentally and, among several reasons, rejecting him because he was sectioned way too late. That made him stay with cohen who was committed at the right time and, broadly speaking, died at the right time.

In his memoirs, Sir Melville showed that he was nearly alone in accurately recalling the protracted nature of the Ripper hunt and does not confuse-conflate Coles and Kelly as, arguably, does everybody else (except Reid):

'Days of My Years'(1914), Chapter IV: 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper':

'At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888.'

And,

Here is Sir Robert Anderson from his book of 1910:

' In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.'

Here is Sims from "The Referee" in response, with Sims as a Macnaghten source at one remove:

“... The statement went beyond ascertained facts. ... it was certainly indiscreet of Sir Robert to plump for the Polish Jew, and to imply that many of the Jewish community in the East End were accessories after the fact. … ’

Here is Macnaghten four years later, in which the Polish suspect is not worth mentioning, the killer is a Gentile " Simon Pure" angry in chalk at three Jews for interrupting him with Stride, and there were no witnesses beyond this one:

'On this occasion it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming.'

Macnaghten here accurately recalls that the witness--actually Lawende--saw the likely murderer and victim before she was killed. Sims in 1907, freely adapting the Thomson tale, has the Bobbie seeing the alleged killer after he had done the deed and is exiting from the gloom. Supposedly this man somewhat resmebled the Polish suspect. Once again, Macnaghten accurately recalls the true sequence of events, while hiding an accurate description of his own suspect and debunking the Kosminski aspect. We know this because Lawende's description generically matches Druitt, or at least Mac thought it did.

[Scott Nelson]

Cohen

He didn't live with his brother and he wasn't taken to Stepney workhouse, and he wasn't called Kosminski.

The space across from his name in the Whitechapel Workhouse register under the column for known relatives is blank. It doesn't say "none" or "unknown."

Aaron wasn't taken to "Stepney" Workhouse either.

Currently, it is not known if "Cohen" was David's anglicized last name.

[Chris]

I have already done what you asked -- twice. If you do not agree with my interpretation that is your prerogative.

I'm just asking what specifically you're referring to. Is that too much to ask?

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

As you say, it is not permissible to have an alternate opinion about all this, according to you.

Which shows you to be brittle and defensive. I don't care what you claim Fido says now--he was right the first time.

Yes, we can both be provisionally correct, because it is all theory based on limited data.

But I understand you cannot live with a maybe.

To Trevor

An excellent post.

To Chris

I have already done what you asked -- twice. If you do not agree with my interpretation that is your prerogative.

And in a previous post I also supplied examples from Littlechild and Divall, and Griffiths interviewing Anderson, who all recall it, wrongly, as an 'autumn of terror', e.g. all over with the Kelly murder. Whereas Macnaghten (and Reid) correctly recalled it being a protracted affair, e.g ending with Coles.

To Batman

Lawende is the critical witness because he was probably later used twice to confront suspects. In 1888 he was a Jew describing a Gentile-featured suspect. Inadvertently Macnaghten set in motion the Jewish witness story re: Kosminski when he reversed the ethnicity of witness and suspect in 1898 via Griffiths and later Sims. That Schwartz is so important after 1888 is a modern theory, and arguably not a strong one.


I am sorry that the Anderson-is-best theory crashed and burned due to dubious DNA, and not due to its own internal contradictions based on available primary sources.

[Jeff Leahy]

How do you explain Abberline's omission from the group that decided to ID Kozminski, i.e - Anderson/Swanson? In previous posts you suggested Anderson kept Abberline out of the loop for discretion (keeping the Jew aspect quiet and keeping it a Kozminski family matter).

Yet here you suggest a conviction was what Anderson wanted. If so Abberline would have made aware of it. There would be no reason to keep it from him.

Well abberline was bought in on the ground at the time. And I'm suggesting they did indeed suspect a suspect who eventually went into an asylum as The Daily News report says…a Private Asylum (And its clear that is the source of the Four versions)

But you'd have to ask an expert like Monty when Abberline went back to Normal duties, After the McKensie attack? He wasn't involved in that to my knowledge and thats July 1889.

So to my knowledge Abberline is on other duties by the time the second event happens at the end of 1990 early 1891?

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

I think Anderson wanted a conviction. Once it was realised that the man was quite clearly insane a plan B was adopted.

Yours Jeff

How do you explain Abberline's omission from the group that decided to ID Kozminski, i.e - Anderson/Swanson? In previous posts you suggested Anderson kept Abberline out of the loop for discretion (keeping the Jew aspect quiet and keeping it a Kozminski family matter).

Yet here you suggest a conviction was what Anderson wanted. If so Abberline would have made aware of it. There would be no reason to keep it from him.