Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Batman]

I think 'ranking' isn't going to help here. What we have are a team of investigators whom after the Whitechapel Murders had finished, at some stage in their lives, seem to have settled on a suspect or a short list of them. That's all. They were also retired and not answerable to anybody (at least not like while working on the case).

We also know that for most of them, their recall isn't great and often conflicts with their own official reports. You know what I mean? It is people contradicting themselves etc and others.

So what do we do? Do we dismiss the actual case records (which is hopelessly incomplete) or do we accept their non-contemporary views? It's a hard call in some respects, but I think most historians would opt for the actual case records and contemporary accounts.

For example, maybe people who accept Swanson's suspect as the killer have no problems tying this up with Henry Cox and his surveiilance. Cox said there wasn't a shred of evidence against this man but he was seen to have accousted some women a few times.

Then there was also Sergeant Stephen White who did a ton of walking for the Whitechapel investigators. He was the one who interviewed Paker (and as far as I remember falsified his story).

[Pontius2000]

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.

Several of the people you named are the very ones who think they know more now than Swanson did then, and they're mistaken. Swanson had access to a mountain of information that will never again be available. So I think it's ludicrous and arrogant to suggest that modern researchers can know more. And that's not to take anything from the work they've done. All the genealogy work and connections facts through newspaper writings etc is great. But it can in no way rival the fact that Swanson had firsthand access to suspects, witnesses, and evidence.

[Pontius2000]

But we know there were several other "head men" who came out and said the police didn't have a clue as to the identity of the killer. Head men who were in a position to know !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tell me who had higher rank than Swanson while at the same time having their feet on the street and their nose right in the middle of the investigation.

[Batman]

G'day Batman

Please tell us just exactly where

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

You suggest that Swanson bent the truth to fit evidence to his pet suspect to "bring closure to it all"? Um, you do know I hope that Swanson's notes were written in a book in his own private collection. The notes were never meant to be seen by anyone. If he really wanted to bend evidence to fit his theory and profit from it, he could have published his memoirs. You say "whoever was in charge of the investigation". That would be SWANSON. If he had chosen to publish a book, it would have carried more weight than any other contemporary book on the case.

Swanson is also not the only officer to talk about following Jewish suspects or specifically, A jewish suspect. In the most detailed case, a Jew was tailed for several months, KNEW he was being followed, and was eventually institutionalized. Putting 2 and 2 together, this suspect was most likely Kosminski.

I don't think its abitrary at all to take seriously the word of a man who likely knew more about the investigation than any other person in history. What I find funny and presumption are many modern researchers who think they know more 125 years later than the head man on the ground at the time.

But we know there were several other "head men" who came out and said the police didn't have a clue as to the identity of the killer. Head men who were in a position to know !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk