Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Monty]

We know how he became involved he was appointed OIC that's not an issue

But are you suggesting his role in those events is different to as I suggested in a previous post ?

Take the marginalia out of the equation and what have you left from Swanson to rely on to prop up Kosminski ?

I wasn't talking about his status as head of investigation, but more his role regarding Kosminski.

Monty

[Batman]

Could you refuse to testify back in 1888 - x ? I suspect not. Hence if Anderson wanted a conviction then its just a matter of Lawende getting into trouble with the Judge until he agrees with the court that he has a legal responsibility to identify a suspect if he has that capability.



The Sadler confusion certainly is interesting.
1891 - Check.
Swanson involved - Check.
PC Witness - Check.
Lawende Witness - Check.

[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

Not necessarily, could be his skills set were required elsewhere, or it was felt a fresh impetus was required, so Moore was bought in.

I certainly do not see the change of personnel as a change in investigation status

Monty

[Jonathan H]

To Monty

You're behind the times on all this.

There is no evidence that Kosminski -- or Cohen -- was put before any witness at all, let alone one who refused to testify on sectarian grounds.

There is just Anderson saying so in his memoirs-- never before in the extant record--at a time when an interview two years before shows, as Sudgen argued, that he was capable of all sorts of self-serving confusions and conflations.

Swanson backs him but the story may come just from Anderson, so back to square one. These are not annotations ever tested in any kind of public forum. Funny that, unless you were not sure what you were being told was really what happened and you just wanted to not embarrass the old man.

Henry Smith and Macnaghten both denounce the tale, the former explicitly and the latter implicitly. No other policeman back the story--period. Not even Swanson, in public. In fact nobody else, epriod. Yet it would have leaked like a sieve.

It's a myth.

Chris discovered a new Dagonet source from 1910 that shows that Macnaghten, via Sims, arguably went in hard against Anderson and his clumsy anti-Semitism. That means no identification either.

Evans and Rumbelow argued in 2006 a theory that explained all this; as a confusion with Lawende and Sadler (I would add Grant too) and the Sailor's Home.

I have never seen anybody counter it, with something more persuasive.

To Trevor

I agree.

To Jeff

Sagar was not talking about Kosminski, as he said no identification was possible, and Cox was not talking about Kosminski as he says no evidence was available, and it is 1891 and after Kosminski was incarcerated.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor you are aware that Swanson wrote a summery of the gsg days after it was found?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=327570&postcount=146

Posted a few pages back.

I am not one of those who subscribes to the GSG being written by the killer or that it was anti semetic in content.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

As always, I'm only trying to arrive at the most likely interpretation of what the police sources say. I'm not implying Aaron Kozminski is likely to have been the killer, because I don't think he is.

Yes this is something Paul Begg was always keen to point out. Even if the sanario I'm putting forward answers the problem of the various source conundrums..

And there was indeed a Seaside home ID…

It still doesn't make Aaron Kosminski Jack the Ripper… The sources up to March 1889 are clear that no proof could be had against the man they followed.

And we still don't know why the family would have suspected him?

Frankly if it could be proved Aaron entered an Private Asylum in March 1889 I'm of little doubt Kosminski was the man…

But thats not a court of law and doubts will remain

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

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.

Yes, let's agree to differ. What we really need is more data, and Jeff is to be encouraged in looking for it.

As always, I'm only trying to arrive at the most likely interpretation of what the police sources say. I'm not implying Aaron Kozminski is likely to have been the killer, because I don't think he is.

[Batman]

We know how he became involved he was appointed OIC that's not an issue

But are you suggesting his role in those events is different to as I suggested in a previous post ?

Take the marginalia out of the equation and what have you left from Swanson to rely on to prop up Kosminski ?

Trevor you are aware that Swanson wrote a summery of the gsg days after it was found?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=327570&postcount=146

Posted a few pages back.

[Chris]

PS Its also clearly odd if four reporters heard the exact same press call and all came up with such diverse versions, which makes me wonder if he gave more than one interview on the same day?

For some reason I've always visualised it as some pressmen treating Sagar to a few drinks on the occasion of his retirement.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you do not know, you are making conclusions based on your interpretation.

I do not know that Swansons words are correct, however I'm not the one making a definite statement on that matter. That said, having reviewed Swansons work not just in connection to this case, but others, and his work in other MEPO files, plus that fact I have been fortunate to view some of his private papers, leads me to infer that Swanson was a precise and meticulous detective and man. Not prone to be erroneous, not prone to jump to conclusions.

Which leads me to the fact that there is NO evidence to support that Swanson preferred Kosminski as Jack the Ripper. He merely clarifies a suspects name.

I've no idea how, precisely, Swanson came about Kosminski, but I have a pretty good idea of his role within those events, and therefore how he became involved. Which is pretty clear.

Monty

We know how he became involved he was appointed OIC that's not an issue

But are you suggesting his role in those events is different to as I suggested in a previous post ?

Take the marginalia out of the equation and what have you left from Swanson to rely on to prop up Kosminski ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Australia Seatle Daily Times

Hi Jonathon

I've been doing some checking on a point you raised earlier about Robert Sagars retirement interview.

There are four variations of this: City Press, Morning Leader, Daily News and Seatle News.. And apparently a number of variations on these basic reports.

The only one that appears to state a direct original report is the Daily News '"I am a Lancashire man by birth," he told a representative of "The Daily News" on Saturday,

ANd its difficult to know how many press people he spoke with at that time..

But the Seatle version published 4th Feb, appears to be a re-telling of a different version of the story as yet undiscovered, as it seems not to contain reference to the title 'Charmed Life'

So I think we should be cautious with the 'Australia ' comment as it is a re-working from an unknown source, while the other three version mention the Asylum…and the Morning Leader version clearly says: Who was the Murderer?

"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."

Daily News: I feel sure we knew the man, but we could prove nothing. Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum, and the series of murders came to an end."

Trust that helps clarify

Yours Jeff

PS Its also clearly odd if four reporters heard the exact same press call and all came up with such diverse versions, which makes me wonder if he gave more than one interview on the same day?

[Batman]

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.

Lawende is a city police witness not Met. Anderson & Swanson are Met. The Met witness is Schwartz.

Obviously Hutchinson has been dismissed by then.

[Monty]

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".

Kosminski was not put before a witness?

Care to cite the evidences for this Jonathan, thanks.

The waters are muddied, often due to those with alternate agendas. However, that is that. The identification is often assumed to be all about trial and conviction. Whilst clearly that would have been a preferred option, the expectation may have been something more realistic.


Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

He's NOT sectioned to late if he is placed in an Asylum in Surrey in March 1889. As both Sagar and Cox tell us.

He's sectioned at exactly the correct time and everything Anderson says is correct as it matches Swansons claim of an ID at a Seaside Home which must have been when Aaron entered a Public Asylum in Feb 1891

Two separate events and everything fits… accept he died shortly afterwards... unless…. As Martin Fido observes , there was a confusion between Cohen and Kosminski at Leaman Street early in the investigation, leading to a confusion by Dr Saward at Colney Hatch who looked after both Cohen and Kosminski.

The confusion happened later when Aaron was transferred to Leavesdon

And all the sources fit neatly

Yours Jeff

[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 ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you do not know, you are making conclusions based on your interpretation.

I do not know that Swansons words are correct, however I'm not the one making a definite statement on that matter. That said, having reviewed Swansons work not just in connection to this case, but others, and his work in other MEPO files, plus that fact I have been fortunate to view some of his private papers, leads me to infer that Swanson was a precise and meticulous detective and man. Not prone to be erroneous, not prone to jump to conclusions.

Which leads me to the fact that there is NO evidence to support that Swanson preferred Kosminski as Jack the Ripper. He merely clarifies a suspects name.

I've no idea how, precisely, Swanson came about Kosminski, but I have a pretty good idea of his role within those events, and therefore how he became involved. Which is pretty clear.

Monty