Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jonathan H]

Everything you have written is wrong, Jeff.

Macnaghten backdated Kosminski's incarceration because without it he failed the 'awful glut' litmus test, which was phony anyhow.

Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was still alive not just in what he wrote in 1898, but also due to what Sims wrote in 1907 (you never of course deal with this). Whereas Anderson and/or Swanson believed, wrongly, that 'Kosminski' had expired in early 1889 (you never deal with that either).

Every attempt you make to twist this into its opposite meaning will fail.

Mac knew that the Polish masturbator was alive and his superior and his junior mistakenly believed he was long deceased.

By the way, Sagar and Cox were not watching Aaron Kosminski.

It is a bureaucratic impossibility for Macnaghten not to know of the alleged identification. In his memoirs he denied any such thing had taken place. It is impossible for that tale not to be widely known, yet it does not enter the extant record until 1910 in the memoirs of a conceited chief whose memory can be shown to be a self-serving shambles.

In fact, most authors who advocate Anderson as the best police source argue that Macnaghten did have some kind of knowledge of this event because he writes about an identification -- albeit by a Bobbie-- and Sims in 1907 writes about how that cop later could not positively i.d. the suspect.

In my olpinion, the Bobbie supposedly seeing maybe the Polish suspect is the origin of the Anderson/Swanson error, once combined with the Sadler non-identification by Lawende (which gives us the Sailor's Home) and the apparently positive i.d. by the same witness of William Grant.

All the evidence we have, meager though it is, points to Macnaghten knowing more accurate data about Aaron Kosminaki than either Anderson or Swanson, and rejecting that person in favour of a suspect who was actually deceased.

As I wrote once before -- and of course you ignored it -- if you rehabilitate Macnaghten as an accurate source you deal the death blow to Kosminski as the Ripper, far worse than the DNA debacle.

[Jeff Leahy]

The real question is why did Macnaghten backdate the incarceration of 'Kosminski' to March 1889--and then why did he mislead his superior and his junior about this man being deceased?

The simple answer to that is he needn't…

MacNaughten was simply replying to the question of Cutbush. So the most probable solution is that he looked at the files and at that time a file on a suspect followed by Sagar and Cox still existed…And MacNaughten named that suspect as Kosminski.

He never knew anything about Swansons ID or that Kosminski ever went into Colney Hatch…not a clue not a hunch, zilch. As he later said in the Aboconway version (and i believe still is) another words he didn't know whether Kosminski was still in the asylum or alive or dead.

And as he correctly seems to have pointed out he entered the Asylum in March 1889 as Sagar and Cox seem to support this date, its only the fact that when records were searched Kosminski mysteriously appeared in records in Feb 1891. Given that info he preferred Druit, naturally, because he knew nothing about the ID or the reason why Anderson, (who we know wouldn't lie for person Kudos') believed the suspect (JtR) 'a definitively ascertained FACT.

I recently contacted Martin Fido on this issue and he confirmed that only Public Asylum records were ever searched during his original study. I'm now seriously considering that Martin Fido was far closer to reasoning the problem than anyone has previously supposed.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Pontius2000

You are still missing the overall.

Macnaghten did investigate the Jack the Ripper murders after mid-1889. He had direct experience of that.

Who was the top cop who outranked Swanson and was on the streets, and who dealt directly with Aaron Kosminski (e.g. who went to Colney Hatch and discovered that the patient's diagnosis for mania had been changed from "unknown" to "self-abuse")?

The likeliest answer is Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten (with his polite reference to "solitary vices").

This is because Aaron Kosminski did not come to police attention until he was sectioned in Feb 1891--over two years after the Druitt murders--when Macnaghten had been on the Force since mid-1889.

Aaron Kosminski becoming a Ripper suspect, obviously not the 1888 murders, happened whilst Macnaghten was there.

Information about this suspect traveled from the CID No. 2 to his superior, Anderson, and to his junior, Swanson.

Why is likely to have traveled in that direction and not the other way?

Because they know what the Chief Constable committed for file in 1894; that 'Kosminski' (only the surname ever) was sectioned in early 1889. For some reason they also thought the Polish madman died soon after that. By contrast the Chief Constable, both himself and via a proxy, denied he was dead or sectioned early--correctly.

The real question is why did Macnaghten backdate the incarceration of 'Kosminski' to March 1889--and then why did he mislead his superior and his junior about this man being deceased?

[Pontius2000]

To Pontius2000

You are perpetuating a misconception, one that deforms and deflects what is today called Ripperology.

On the one hand, of course, Macnaghten was too late, he believed, to be there for the murders committed by the "Protean" sexual maniac Montague Druitt in 1888--the greatest regret of his life.

On the other hand, Macnaghten was there for the Ripper investigation which lasted until 1891, and he arrived in mid 1889. It was initially believed, by some, that McKenzie and Coles were also killed by the same hand.

It also means he had access to all the files, and he was there when Aaron Kosminski arguably came to police attention (when he was incarcerated in 1891) and when Druitt definitely and posthumously became linked to the crimes (though the barrister had drowned himself two years too early the evidence, according to this chief, was undeniable).

I never said he didn't have access to files. What I said, correctly, was that he had no part whatsoever while the crimes were being committed. He therefore had no ranking over Swanson while the crimes were being committed, was not getting daily reports as Swanson was, did not see and hear the things Swanson was seeing and hearing as they were happening.

[GUT]

I recommend starting with the Swanson subforum on here. There are several threads, even one started by Evans about this very topic. Or get any of the top selling books from Rumbelow, Begg, Fido, House etc. I don't think it would serve a purpose to rehash it out here.... in fact the Dissertations have plenty of reasons why modifications need to be made to Swanson's notes in his book.

I don't feel I have said anything inaccurate at all in my original post here. My interpretation of Swanson's note isn't far-fetched at all. I mean others did exactly what he did. Had their own pet suspects and named them as their Ripper of choice. Others rejected the Jewish insane asylum hypothesis.

Magic words "my interpretation" doesn't mean it's right.

By the way I've read all those.

And that has continued to this day people having pet suspects just a pity so many don't admit that what they are pet suspects.

[Paddy]

Mania

As Kosminski was said to be Manic on his entry papers to Colney Hatch and that his first attack was six months before, could we surmise that he would have also had periods of deep depression in between and that his mania was periodical?

Pat.......................

[Jonathan H]

To Pontius2000

You are perpetuating a misconception, one that deforms and deflects what is today called Ripperology.

On the one hand, of course, Macnaghten was too late, he believed, to be there for the murders committed by the "Protean" sexual maniac Montague Druitt in 1888--the greatest regret of his life.

On the other hand, Macnaghten was there for the Ripper investigation which lasted until 1891, and he arrived in mid 1889. It was initially believed, by some, that McKenzie and Coles were also killed by the same hand.

It also means he had access to all the files, and he was there when Aaron Kosminski arguably came to police attention (when he was incarcerated in 1891) and when Druitt definitely and posthumously became linked to the crimes (though the barrister had drowned himself two years too early the evidence, according to this chief, was undeniable).

[Pontius2000]

Some historians concluded that the man wasn't Kozminski but David Cohen who fits the description more than Kozminski both in behaviour,.

You have no evidence whatsoever on who better fits the JTR profile based on a small handful of very vague notes written over the course of almost 30 years.

There is als no evidence whatsoever that JTR a would've been anything but a model prisoner once he were incarcerated and the stimuli that set him off were removed.

[Pontius2000]

Macnaghten was not eve part of the investigation until after the killings were over.

[Jonathan H]

To Pontius2000

The policeman who outranked Swanson and who was also on the street (when he chose to be, which was frequently according to himself) was Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten.

It is virtually impossible for Macnaghten to be mistaken about the dating of Kosminski's incarceration, as it happened whilst he was on the Force. Therefore I subscribe to the alternate theory that he deliberately backdated it to March 1889 to beef up this minor figure as a suspect (that Aaron went into a private asylum in March 1889, for a while, is absurd).

Anderson and Swanson (though I think the Marginalia is Anderson's voice) claimed that 'Kosminski' was at large for just "a few weeks" before being "safely caged" and dying "shortly afterwards". And that this happened in early 1889. From 1910 the witness i.d. was added, sincerely, to beef up the previously accepted reason for his guilt (chronic masturbation--in his reply to to the Jewish newspaper this is what Anderson alludes to, not an identification) and it flopped, very badly, in the wake of the Adolf Beck debacle (a sensational miscarriage of justice due to multiple witness identification mistakes).

Finally Macnaghten, unlike anybody else, can be shown to know that 'Kosminski' was alive, e.g. not deceased, and out and about --and functioning normally-- for a considerable time after the Mary Kelly murder.

[Batman]

Which would excuse some of the minor factual errors in the recollection. I don't think he would have misremembered that Kosminski was the suspect identified or that Kosminksi was the "Polish Jew" suspect. And also, Swanson never said definitely that Kosminski WAS JTR. He only stated definitively that he WAS identified by a witness.

Some historians concluded that the man wasn't Kozminski but David Cohen who fits the description more than Kozminski both in behaviour, place of incarceration and when he died.

Having said that though Robert House seems to have been able to avoid a Cohen hypothesis, but like I said in my original post, I think there is a lot of bias that goes into the Kozminski hypothesis.

[Pontius2000]

I think you are omitting several factors here. There is Swanson on the ground who knows just as much if not more than Abberline in 1888.

Then there is Swason who retired in 1903 writing in a book that was published in 1910 so could only have written that stuff 22 years after the events at the bare minimum right? That's two decades after the events making Swanson 62.

Which would excuse some of the minor factual errors in the recollection. I don't think he would have misremembered that Kosminski was the suspect identified or that Kosminksi was the "Polish Jew" suspect. And also, Swanson never said definitely that Kosminski WAS JTR. He only stated definitively that he WAS identified by a witness.

[Pontius2000]

And again, Swanson wasn't trying to impress anybody, the notes were for his own use. I can't imagine him purposely embellishing facts to convince his own self.

As for proof against the man being followed, of course there wouldn't be much proof since he didn't kill while being followed. That is not to say there wouldn't have been good reason for him to be followed and it's not to say he wasn't the man identified AFTER he was followed. The only real point is that he didn't provide any proof of guilt WHILE being followed. You could also point to the cessation of the killings while he was under watch as circumstantial evidence.

[Batman]

The funny thing is, even if Swanson wrote his Marginalia at the earliest time possible, rather than a little later, his suspect wasn't dead. Swanson said "....and died shortly afterwards"

Kozminski died 9 years after that book was published.

[Batman]

. So I think it's ludicrous and arrogant to suggest that modern researchers can know more.

I think you are omitting several factors here. There is Swanson on the ground who knows just as much if not more than Abberline in 1888.

Then there is Swason who retired in 1903 writing in a book that was published in 1910 so could only have written that stuff 22 years after the events at the bare minimum right? That's two decades after the events making Swanson 62.