Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, Jeff, but it is what the sources show because Macnaghten was there when Aaron Kosminski was sectioned in 1891.

MacNaughten is absolutely clear, the suspect Kosminski goes into an asylum in March 1889. Go back read the memoranda. Thats what it says...

Mac arguably knows accurate aspects of this suspect that either Anderson or Swanson.

No he dosnt. He says he goes into an asylum in March 1889. In the Abberconway version he deletes (and believe he still is) Another words he has no reason to suppose he isn't in an asylum.

And Sagar and Cox clearly say 'A Private Asylum in Surrey' March 1889.

You start from the wrong end of the telescope,

No I'm starting exactly where Martin Fido started. With the same info March 1889. Thats where he looked. But in a recent email to me he confirmed that he never considered or searched Private asylum records and theta he believes this line of enquiry to be a good idea.

So naturally I consider this theory an extension of Martin Fido's original theorising and research.

when you need to start with the sources themselves: their actual content measured against the facts. Who knew he was deceased? Who knew he was not really sectioned in March 1889, but a long time after the Kelly murder? Who knew that there was no positive identification by a witness (eh, one totally unknown to other senior police chiefs)?

This is full of complex supposition that is not required. i.e. MacNaughten knows nothing about the Swanson Seaside Home ID. Which clearly he doesn't as he's probably working from the Kosminski file put together by Sagar and Cox up to March 1889.

There is nothing in this file about the ID as its done in Private through a letter composed by the Earl of Crawford, who moved in the same social network as the Rothchildes and Political circles as Montagu, all with strong political connections to the Eastend.

It is not that you do not agree with me that is so pretzel-shaped. It is that you deny any other interpretation of such limited and contradictory data is possible, plausible, or even permissible.

Clearly if my theory is correct. Which I believe it to be so and will expand further at a later date. Then we both can't be correct.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

A man dress with a peak cap in 1888 was hardly unusual. And one can't help thinking that even if Jack the Ripper was not a sailor creating the appearance of being one would make him familiar to prostitutes working in the East End.
Yours Jeff

Lawende
He described the man as being of average build and looking rather like a sailor, wearing a pepper-and-salt-coloured loose-fitting jacket, a grey cloth cap with a matching peak, and a reddish neckerchief. Lawende said that the man was aged about 30, with a fair complexion and moustache, being about 5ft 7-8 inches tall. He did not believe he would be able to identify the man again.

Schwartz
Age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Two different killers with similar looks or one killer with minor witness variation (2 inches in height)? Logic points to them being the same person.

Neither is described as a Jew.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Jeff, but it is what the sources show because Macnaghten was there when Aaron Kosminski was sectioned in 1891.

Mac arguably knows accurate aspects of this suspect that either Anderson or Swanson.

You start from the wrong end of the telescope, when you need to start with the sources themselves: their actual content measured against the facts. Who knew he was deceased? Who knew he was not really sectioned in March 1889, but a long time after the Kelly murder? Who knew that there was no positive identification by a witness (eh, one totally unknown to other senior police chiefs)?

It is not that you do not agree with me that is so pretzel-shaped. It is that you deny any other interpretation of such limited and contradictory data is possible, plausible, or even permissible.

[Batman]

There is not one scrap of evidence to support this simply because we don't know who the killer or killers were and therefore do not know their motives


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Swanson describes the motive perfectly well in the contemporary. Why do we need to change it or reject it?

This is the same Swanson trusted for the Kozminski connection. For the marginalia. Yet now we just put that part aside?

Swason should be trusted more in the contemporary 1888 and to a lesser degree in later life into retirement making notes etc. Not the other way around.

Kozminski believers not only need to reject the GSG and Lipski slur to some degree but also now need for Schwartz/Lawende's suspect to suddenly transform into a Jew.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff
They are also weak theories.

They are still supported by several different source, but also the ever expanding wealth of knowledge about Aaron's family and broader community in the Eastend.

But trying to suggest that Swanson was not aware of Kosminski or the probable files relating to the Suspect before MacNaughten is surely running against everything that is known about the police investigation in general.

The police were already following a number of leads after the Kelly murder, and Sagar says that its then that they first got on the trial of the murderer.

Then theres the man described by Hutchinson, the man of Jewish appearance who the police took very seriously indeed.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

That Kosminski was in an asylum in Surrey is also a theory, as is that he was Cox and Sagar's suspect, as is that Schwartz was the witness, as is that Kosminski ever appeared before a witness confrontation by the cops.

They are also weak theories.

Fido rejected Kosminski [partly] because he was sectioned too late and was not deceased. That is what he said--however you might want to twist it.

To Chris

But Swanson and Anderson do indicate when this all happened, especially the latter--in early 1889. there were no more murders thought by the cops to be Jack the Ripper. That would place these events after Coles was killed in 1891. But Aaron Kosminski was sectioned before she was killed. And Anderson does not mean 1891 at all. It does not fit.

Both men's memories are obviously contaminated by the 'autumn of terror' propagandist timeline created by Macnaghten (and which he repudiated in 1914).

[Jeff Leahy]

It sounds as though your source has read the article in Ripperologist 128 describing Pat Marshall's work!

The relationship between Woolf and Betsy isn't certain, but it seems likely.

And Betsy's brother was known as Jacob Cohen in England, though again it's not certain that he was the same Jacob Cohen who informed Dr Houchin about Aaron's symptoms.

Ah so if Jacob Cohen were Betsy's brother, in family terms it would make Jacob Cohen…well Aaron's step brother?

That would make more sense why it might be Jacob Cohen having a special relationship with Aaron, walking a dog , taking him to the Asylum. It would match to some extent?

Is this the same Jacob Cohen who lives in Manchester (Centre of textile manufacture) and connections to Birmingham… Who later emigrates to South Africa?

Yours Jeff

PS Might it ever have been considered that it was Jacob Cohen and not Aaron Kosminski who at one time worked in a hospital in Poland? Would that explain Jacob taking care of Aaron?

[Jeff Leahy]

What I am trying to get at is this. I think putting aside evidence

Again I'm not putting aside evidence, I'm saying without knowing its context its impossible to conclude anything from that evidence. If you check the 'Definitve Story' you'll note that we cover the GSG and 'Lipski' event in considerable detail as they are import parts of the Jack the Ripper story

so that a suspect works better will always play second to the solution that incorporates this stuff. How many crimes with 'odd' elements suddenly fell into place with the right suspect?

A man dress with a peak cap in 1888 was hardly unusual. And one can't help thinking that even if Jack the Ripper was not a sailor creating the appearance of being one would make him familiar to prostitutes working in the East End.

But I agree that once you concentrate on the right suspect more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

To Chris


My theory is that Anderson and Swanson never knew anything more about 'Kosminski' than what they were informed by Macnaghten. Whether deliberate or not, this information was a fictional variant of a real person.

.'

Its a theory Jonathon. However it doesn't fit any of the known facts as Swanson was clearly in charge of the investigation, where as MacNaughten doesn't even join the MET until Kosminski is safe in an Asylum in Surrey

So its back to the beginning

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

However it does make sense to the contemporary investigators. JtR was an anti-semite who wanted to stir ill-feelings towards Jews because Jews were getting in his way.

There is not one scrap of evidence to support this simply because we don't know who the killer or killers were and therefore do not know their motives

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jeff Leahy]

Although this is now a very unwelcome and politically incorrect opinion, Martin Fido could not go with Aaron Kosminski without rejecting Sir Robert Anderson too (and it was not just because Fido thought Kosminski too harmless).

Its not unwelcome or politically incorrect, its just basically wrong.

MArtin Dismissed Aaron in 1987, because he had already written his book and Aaron Kosn=minski was a late find. He dismissed him at that time because he appeared HARMLESS.

He later revisited the problem and stuck by his cohen solution, believing that there may have been a mix-up as (Has been pointed out in the previous post) Cohen was a sort of John Doh name.

But it never debunked what Anderson said, as Anderson simply said what he said and according to Martin Fido (an expert) 'He would not have lied for personal kudos' and that I'm portent FACT doesn't change however you try and twist it..

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Of course your correct . Swanson says in his home office report that he believes its an insult against Jews..

But thats not why a dismiss both the GSG and Lipski

I dismiss them because they could both mean almost anything without knowing their context. So why I don't say they could have been written by and shouted by the killer…they don't tell us anything.

And even if it was Kosminski shouting 'Lipski' your talking about a man with Schizophrenia possibly having a psychotic episode, So perhaps he thought he was God warning Lipski to be careful…It could mean anything when considering the mans illness.

So I dismiss them a long time ago, because they can't tell us anything.

The apron on the other hand tells us a lot (And not that Eddows didn't have a sanitary towel )

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

On the night of the double event, we have two anti-semitic incidents occuring in connection with the murders. That's two coincidences to buy if one chooses to dismiss them, or one can accept them and claim they don't make sense, which is fine because Kozminski is a Schitzophrenic and this sort of killer isn't expected to make 'sense'.

However it does make sense to the contemporary investigators. JtR was an anti-semite who wanted to stir ill-feelings towartds Jews because Jews were getting in his way. We have not just one Jew, but several taking into account Lewende and his friends who noted the oddity of the couple standing in the darkness.

The next part is important. Neither Schwartz or Lewende described seeing a Jew. In fact the vast majority of JtR witness descriptions are gentile, not Jewish.

The GSG is in double cockney. That tells us something about the writer's dialect. Lewende's character is a sailor type. Schwartz isn't too far off describing someone like that. They seem to agree on the hat, age/height and general look of the person.

The fact is in order for Kozminski to work we need to go beyond describing the GSG and 'Lipski' to either coincidence or mental illness. We need to have the star witnesses change their stories to seeing a Jewish person. How could these Jews not recognize another Jew? It requires Kozminski to have transformed himself into a shabby genteel of the East End.

What I am trying to get at is this. I think putting aside evidence so that a suspect works better will always play second to the solution that incorporates this stuff. How many crimes with 'odd' elements suddenly fell into place with the right suspect?

[Chris]

The thing is, though, we don't really have any indication of when the "identification" occurred, apart from Swanson's indication that it was soon before Kosminski's committal to Colney Hatch.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Aaron Kozminski was admitted to an institution of some kind in early 1889 for identification. Then the only clear and demonstrable errors are Swanson's, aren't they - (1) on the timing relative to his later committal to Colney Hatch and (2) on his death soon afterwards?

[Jonathan H]

To Chris

We will have to agree to disagree about Fido.

To me, in 1987, he was being rigorous and not stubborn, and I admire him for it.

I do not think for a moment that Anderson (and Swanson) were talking about David Cohen either, he just fits critical data they left behind better than Aaron Kosminski. I certainly do think that Cohen is more likely to have been the Ripper than Kosminski based on his demonstrable violence.

But I cannot credit the view that Anderson does not point towards a resolution considerably before 1891.

My theory is that Anderson and Swanson never knew anything more about 'Kosminski' than what they were informed by Macnaghten. Whether deliberate or not, this information was a fictional variant of a real person.

Swanson wrote in Anderson's book because I subscribe to the theory that he is repeating what he was told by the chief he revered. What he was told was so new to him that he hastily recorded right next to the text and on the back flyleaf otherwise Swanson knew he was not going to remember events with which he was both unfamiliar and had not experienced himself.

we can even provisionally date when this happened. Just after the controversy of Anderson's memoir erupted and 'Mentor' made the devastating comparison with the Adolf Beck debacle. This created the need by Anderson to explain how a single witness could be remotely convincing when a dozen witnesses mistook Beck for another man (and caused such a public outcry it led to the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal). Hence the annotation making the point that the suspect gave the game away by his gestures--he knew he had been identified. Mentioning the City Police explained how Swanson was unfamiliar with the identification, and the Seaside Home was really the Sailor's Home, and Sadler. Also the Judas witness has been somewhat softened; rather than a sectarian automaton it was his conscience that got the better of his duty to his adopted country--he felt he would have been a murderer too. Poor man.

Just as Anderson conflated the Kelly and McKenzie murders in his 1908 interview (and pipes and Home Secretaries) so is he conflating the Coles and Kelly 'final' murder(s), and the identification of Grant by Lawende. Events that happened over several years is being telescoped, and sincerely if self-servingly forgotten.

We see this in Swanson recording that no other murders of this kind took place. In fact, there had been at least one, Frances Coles, within days of 'Kosminski' being incarcerated (when Swanson may have believed the killer disguised himself as a woman). But I don't think Anderson via Swanson means this all happened in 1891, not at all. He has compressed everything into the 'autumn of terror' (if he did recall Anderson would not have just dismissed the McKenzie murder in his memoir footnote, but Coles too) and this can be seen in a number of sources.

I would draw your attention again to these:

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.”

But it was not 'cut short'. Aaron Kosminski was about and about for years between the murder of Mary Kelly and his being sectioned just before the murder of Frances Coles, the latter initially believed to be the final murder by Jack. Aaron Kosminski was not temporarily at large but rather at large for years.

Whereas if you recall the Ripper case as happening only between late 1888 and Mary Kelly's murder then it would seem to have been temporary and cut short if you also accept that 'Kosminski'went into an asylum in about March 1889 and soon after died there.

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.'

This mistake is then passed onto Swanson:

The Swanson Annotation [excerpt]:

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

[Chris]

Whatever he says now, Fido understood nearly 30 years ago that the 'Swanson Marginalia' was the last nail in the coffin for the reliability of Anderson (I agree, it is) if you switch to Aaron Kosminski, because this person does not match the most important elements of what the ex-chief had written (and told his son and probably Swanson), e.g. wrapped up by early 1889 and dead soon after that.

But how can Swanson's errors tell us anything about Anderson's reliability? Did Anderson write that the case was wrapped up by early 1889 or that the suspect was dead? In fact, did Swanson say anything about early 1889?

If they meant David Cohen then they are still afloat as reliable sources, albeit they have the name wrong.

There are few enough hard facts in Anderson's and Swanson's accounts, but if they had been talking about Cohen, nearly all of them would have been wrong. He didn't live with his brother and he wasn't taken to Stepney workhouse, and he wasn't called Kosminski.

In my opinion, Martin Fido wouldn't have settled on Cohen as a suspect if he'd known about either Aaron Kozminski's records or the Swanson Marginalia, because Cohen doesn't fit the details given by Swanson at all.