Aaron or not

[Monty]

Off topic, apologies.

Hi Stewart,

R Harding Davies, this the author Richard Harding Davies?

Would it be possible to point me in the direction of this article?

Youre right, I am unaware of it.

Cheers

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

R Harding Davies

Hi Stewart,
R Harding Davies, this the author Richard Harding Davies?
Would it be possible to point me in the direction of this article?
Youre right, I am unaware of it.
Cheers
Monty

Yes, but I have a spelling mistake there, it's Davis without the 'e'. The article appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889 and was based on an article published by Davis in the Philadelphia press on his return to the USA after visiting London in August 1889. There has been quite a bit written about him and his work with discussion previously on the boards. I seem to recall that Chris George contributed to this. You can read the full article in the press reports section of Casebook.

[Jake L]

The Seaside & Sailors' Home -scenario

Interesting discussion. Thanks for interesting contributions (especially to Stewart Evans for his scans, always appreciated).

There's one point I'd like to bring up, namely the scenario where "Sailors' Home" in Dock/Well St and "Seaside Home" are mixed up by Swanson.

Given that Duncan Campbell "identified" Sadler at Leman Street police station and that Swanson, who personally saw Sadler on more than one occasion & personally took down Sadler's lengthy statement observing him in some detail (for example, noting the TS was obviously hung over), I find it a bit hard to believe that he'd mix up the London seaman with the immigrant Kosminski as well as misrememebring the identification as taking place elsewhere.

Unless, of course, his memory was seriously beginning to fade...

In other words, if Swanson indeed confused the two events,the implication is that his memory was less than reliable at the time (or totally unreliable).

/jake

[Stewart P Evans]

Possibilities

Interesting discussion. Thanks for interesting contributions (especially to Stewart Evans for his scans, always appreciated).
There's one point I'd like to bring up, namely the scenario where "Sailors' Home" in Dock/Well St and "Seaside Home" are mixed up by Swanson.
Given that Duncan Campbell "identified" Sadler at Leman Street police station and that Swanson, who personally saw Sadler on more than one occasion & personally took down Sadler's lengthy statement observing him in some detail (for example, noting the TS was obviously hung over), I find it a bit hard to believe that he'd mix up the London seaman with the immigrant Kosminski as well as misrememebring the identification as taking place elsewhere.
Unless, of course, his memory was seriously beginning to fade...
In other words, if Swanson indeed confused the two events,the implication is that his memory was less than reliable at the time (or totally unreliable).
/jake

Jake, unpopular as the idea might be I lean more towards the whole identification story as being concocted from existing ingredients. You might also say that it is hard to believe that Swanson would make the major mistake of saying Kosminski died shortly after he went into Colney Hatch - but he did say just that.

You may also say that it is hard to believe that Anderson should say that an identification that Swanson states took place before Kosminski's incarceration actually took place after that incarceration - but he did say that. As I keep repeating, we are left with speculation and guesswork when we try to address these problems, and others. Therefore given the nature of the present known information we have no proven answer.

In looking at the possibilities of how the police came to obtain the name 'Kosminski' as a suspect we are similarly in the dark. When Dr. Houchin assessed Kosminski at the workhouse he obtained antecedent information from one Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's. That information included the fact that Kosminski "took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister.'

We have a fresh Ripper scare just a week after Kosminski is locked up and the fact that the Coles murder was soon dismissed as another Ripper killing. It is easy to see how either Cohen or Houchin (who worked as a police surgeon) could have thought that in Kosminski they had an insane Jew who had threatened a woman with a knife and perhaps the police should consider him as the Ripper so they communicated their information to the police. On being given this information the police could well have checked their records of the October 1888 house-to-house enquiries and found that Kosminski's name was there amongst the many who fitted the critera for a possible murderer.

To my mind the fact that Kosminski's incarceration was quickly followed by another murder that was initially thought to be possibly another Ripper crime must be related to the identification story. Between 14 and 17 February 1891 Sadler was subjected to an attempted identification as Jack the Ripper by a Jewish witness, Lawende. Lawende was unable to identify Sadler but, if the police had just had the insane Kosminki brought to their attention, it would not stretch credulity to suggest that they arranged for Lawende to also see the detained Kosminski for purposes of identification. Granted he was insane and if he was identified his insanity would save him from prosecution but, at least the police might then know that the probable Ripper was locked away insane. This could answer some of the questions raised by what we do know, and it is then still the identification of a Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness.

This, of course, does not square with the Swanson endpaper notes about the identification that was carried out - no more than it does with Anderson's statement that the identification was carried out after the committal to the asylum.

Jake as regards your comments about the Duncan Campbell identification, I am not sure where that fits in. The identification I am concerned with is the one where Lawende was used to try and identify Sadler as the Ripper, and we don't know where that took place. The Sailors' or Seamen's Home identification was cited merely as an element introducing the corrupted idea of a 'Seaside Home' identification because, really, such a location for an identification truly does sound very odd.

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting Point

Another interesting point suggested by the above is the mention of Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's as being the informant on Aaron Kosminski. This is in view of the recently found reports of Aaron Kosminski being taken to court by the City Police for walking an unmuzzled dog in Cheapside in December 1889. Cheapside is off St. Paul's and in court Kosminski is quoted as saying that the dog was not his and "...the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine." Did Kosminski say, in a simplistic way, 'the dog is Jacob's', meaning Jacob Cohen, who obviously knew Aaron well. I believe others are researching with this possibility in mind.

[Jake L]

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

I cannot but agree. Doubly so after having read the recent threads here. Of course 'twas a mysterious bit of marginalia to begin with...

One would expect such rather vague, hybrid narratives containing "echoes" of true or alleged events from a journalist (cf. "Sgt White's Nightly Vigil"), rather than from personal notes of someone who has been personally involved in the said events (such as Swanson with Sadler).

When such vagueness (and the host of inaccuracies) is juxtaposed with the odd detail (in the vein of "hands tied behind his back") we do have ann odd mixture indeed.

My point about the Campbell story is just that it doesn't fit in as Swanson's personal (mis)recollection - unless he was completely gaga.

With all this in mind, I wonder if Swanson's notes were a result of, not personal recollections, - but rather notes from conversations with a source (or sources) who had less than perfect recollection/grasp of the events (possibly having no first hand knowledge himself) , or who was vague for some other reason.

In other words, (sorry if this has been suggested n number of times) what if we're looking at someone else's words, jotted down by Swanson?

If Swanson's notes were prompted by the memoirs, who would he consult? A fellow officer? A dear old master?

If further discussions were needed to prise out the name of the "suspect", this would explain the marginalia's staccato ending with the name "Kosminski".

Maybe the marginalia is not a corraboration of Anderson's words, maybe they are Anderson's words?

/jake

[rjpalmer]

I read with surprise this lengthy diatribe by RJ Palmer, attacking Dan Norder.

You've GOT to be kidding me, Natalie. I expected better from you.

The trouble is, you're so wound up about Anderson, that you no longer even care if Norder's posts are accurate or fair-minded. As long as he's attacking the Polish Jew theory everything is "peachy keen."

I am in no way, shape, or form supporting either Begg or the Kosminski theory--I've made that plain several times. I am attacking the way in which Dan Norder operates by dishonestly distorting the arguments of the opposition. I've seen him do it to others, and Begg deserves as much fair play as the next fellow. Being "cricket" is the English way, no?

We, as a community, are absolutely LOST if we no longer even require an HONEST RENDITION of the other side's argument. It has to be utterly obvious to anyone who is dispassionately reading this thread that Norder has misstated what Begg was arguing about Schwartz and the identification.


Are you saying, Natalie, that it is O.K? It is, in your mind, o.k. to misrepresent Begg's position simply because you don't agree with it?

If so, then you and I inhabit different planets.

Norder accuses Begg of stating opinion as fact. He never once actually quotes Begg doing this, but IN THE SAME BREATH states that Anderson was "involved" with the Piggott forgeries which is not a proven fact. There is no direct evidence whatsover that Soames didn't originally believe the letters were genuine, and indeed, they had originally been verfied by a document examiner. Anderson's connection to this event is currently theoretical.

You yourself wrongly attribute a quote by an Irish MP to Winston Churchill, and state -- as fact-- that Anderson was involved in 'agent provocateur' schemes.

This is a dubious contention, and I've read widely on the subject. That was really more Edward Jenkinson's method; Monro, Anderson, Williamson, and Littlechild appear to have been committed to a policy of exposure, confrontation, and deterence. It's "o.k." to state this as fact?

You're take on the Parnell Commission is also too biased to be useful as evidence of Anderson's duplicity. There is no evidence that Littlechild, Monro, or Anderson weren't acting in good faith in believing there was a genuine connection between certain Irish MP "Parnellites" and the Clan-na-Gael. Indeed, it is a matter of absolute certainty that the National League in America...which was supplying funds to Parnell's Land League office---was a Clan-na-Gael controlled organization. It was lorded over by Alexander Sullivan in Chicago who was, among other things, guilty of cold blooded murder and insurance fraud--(and yet vocally supported by Henry Labouchere !) Do I think Parnell was treated shabbily? Absolutely. But it is a highly complex set of circumstances, and it defies "dumbing down" and cannot be used as evidence that Scotland Yard, nor the Special Branch, was "crooked." In their mind, they had genuine reasons for suspecting the Irish MP link to American Irish-Nationalism.

Once again: I think there are serious questions about the Polish Jew theory. I support Evans, Harris, Sugden, and others addressing those questions. I also support Begg and Fido's right to have their positions CORRECTLY stated and quoted. If it is obvious to the public that that is not happening, then you are simply playing into hands of the very theory you wish to argue against. The truth is what you should be after, and what should be guiding your posts.

[jason_c]

I agree with most of what rjpalmer says. He at least tries to argue his case without resorting to misinterpretation(we are all guilty of it at some time).

No worries rj, im sure someone will be along soon with a snide comment for you.

[Natalie Severn]

So was Major Henry Smith and a lot of other police "there at the time

My apologies for barging in here when there is such an interesting discussion going on,but I said I would answer some of RJ"s earlier remarks about Dan-and others of us for not quoting their sources,when engaging in criticism of a writer"s work,in this instance Paul Begg"s work.
OK RJ did not make his point in reference to me but he included these "others" and I therefore want to give some specific instances of where I have found Paul Begg a little "wanting" with regards to giving prominence and the fullest possible background information on other police views especially when writing about Anderson"s certainty about his suspect,Kosminski.Anderson wrote both in Blackwell"s serialisation and in his 1910 Autobiography that the police knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and that it was a "definitely ascertained fact"----later allegedly confirmed by name in end notes by Swanson,finishing with the phrase," Kosminski is/was the suspect".

Now Paul does indeed acknowledge that a number of people" found the basic facts of Anderson"s story impossible to digest.It has been argued that one Jew would not have protected another Jew simply because he was Jewish,and Anderson?"s claim has been seen as a gross and serious example of "anti- semitism". page 358 -the Facts.Also ,to be fair ,on that same page Paul cites Sir Robert as having been lambasted in the "Jewish Chronicle" by the contolling editor of that journal, Leopold Jacob Greenberg,under the pen name "Mentor"-for claiming that Jews "guarded [Jack the Ripper] so that he could continue his horrible carreer,just because he was a Jew".
However, a concentrated read of this chapter on Kosminski ,reveals that Paul,for the most part ,shows partiality to Anderson and his views ,and defends his reputation and the significant inconsistencies that appear throughout in certain of Sir Robert"s statements.These can all be discussed in more detail and scope at another time ,suffice is to say that Paul appears to take him at his word and makes many allowances for the criticism"s he received both in his pronouncement on the Ripper and in his CID record. .Moreover,because Anderson thought Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper and Swanson did too,Paul actually finishes the Kosminski chapter with the words "They were there and they ought to know".
So reading those words one is bound to ask oneself,"yes,but who else "WAS THERE" at the time?
And then immediately Anderson"s "definitely ascertained fact" comes under the spot light and in a better perpective, because,actually,hardly anyone else in the police force seems to have agreed with Anderson and Swanson on this. Certainly not Abberline,certainly not Dew ,because they are both on record as saying they did not know.Indeed the only other senior Police Official who happened to mention a "Kosminski" suspect was Sir Melville Macnaghten,and not only did he think Druitt was more likely that Kosminski to have been the Ripper,he announced that there wasnt a shred of evidence against either or any of them.So much for Anderson"s "definitely ascertained FACT"
But to come to my real grouse with Paul over the Kosminski suspect:This has to do with his failure to give any real credence or decent source material to what the prominent City Police Commissioner had to say-----a man who was not only in as senior position as Anderson in the investigation ,but unlike Anderson ,who was in Paris for four of the five canonical murders, WAS actually "THERE AT THE TIME"----and in person,----- viz Major Henry Smith,acting Commissioner of The City Police.And he was present in Mitre Square on the night Catherine Eddowes was murdered.
Sir Henry Smith had a great deal to say about the murders----first and of crucial importance from this City Police Commissioner,a refreshingly open and honest statement that neither he nor any of his men had ever had ANY IDEA where the Ripper lived or who he was ---and this was written TWENTY YEARS after the murders.Moreover he was convinced The Ripper was a Gentile rather than a Jew---and he took Anderson to task in much the same way as the editor of The Jewish Chronicle had above on this delicate matter.
Moreover,in sharp contrast to Paul"s rather sensitive and understanding treatment given to "Sir Robert Anderson", Paul is keen to cite various derogatory remarks he has discovered about Sir Henry Smith in an obscure newspaper,the" Yorkshire Post" where it was noted that Major Smith had never been a "Constable"before becoming a Commissioner and had received the positions he had obtained through "favour"-------[unlike Macnaghten who Monro called over from his tea planting in India to take the post of assistant CHIEF CONSTABLE!!!].The newspaper also thought certain remarks Major Smith made to be not in the best taste----by which I understand them to consider he had implied Anderson"s Polish Jew theory was "anti semitic" etc
and where there has been other criticism made of Major Smith over the years it has originated from Scotland Yard and the metropolitan police,not the City Police and has taken the form of sniping.
Anyway Sir Henry Smith thought Sir Robert Anderson was talking nonsense about a Polish Jew suspect and certainly didnt appear to know about any "identification" that had taken place of a City Police Suspect on his patch----by the Met at that.Must leave it there for now.

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

I'd also like to thank you for taking the trouble to scan and reproduce here the marginalia in Swansons copy of Andersons book. It was the first time that I'd viewed the Swanson marginalia. It was also interesting to read your description of the differing types of pencil used, and the fact that the endpaper notes were brighter in appearance. Taking this into account did you form the opinion that the endpaper notes were written at a later date than the faded marginalia?

I was more interested in the faded marginalia, but looking at your scan, could not make out what was written. Could you provide a transcription of the portion of the faded writing? Also would you agree that if any of the notes are authentic, then the faded margin notes are the more likely to have been pencilled by Swanson?

I appreciate that you are at times weary disscussing things Jack the Ripper but would be most interested to read the content of the faded marginalia.

all the best

Observer

[Dan Norder]

I dont’ know what I find more depressing, that Dan Norder is completely misrepresenting Paul Begg in a fundamentally dishonest way, or that no one here seems to care that he’s doing it.

What's truly depressing is that you continue misrepresenting pretty much what everyone says in a feeble attempt to attack anyone who has ever proven some of your claims about your favored suspect to be wrong... which is a whole lot of people by this point, because you are so consistently wrong and so consistently unwilling to admit it.

[Dan Norder]

As far as the claim by RJ, made at length, that Begg does not try to claim that the witness in question Macnaghten refers to as being a "city PC" "near Mitre Square" who was the only one who might have seen anything was Schwartz, who of course was not a City PC witness or anywhere near Mitre Square, all anyone has to do is read the book. It's right there. RJ quotes at lengths from other sections of the book and tries to claim that that's Begg's main argument or that he is open to the idea when the rest of it clearly shows that he is not.

RJ has a long history of taking unrelated quotes (whether it be from Begg's work or regarding his favored suspect) and ignoring the ones directly about what is being discussed and trying to misrepresent what was said so hat he can launch attacks. RJ is being, and generally is, fundamentally dishonest in how he makes his arguments. And he's been caught so many times at it that I'm surprised he hasn't just given up at this point, because anyone who has paid attention for more than a few months has numerous examples of it.

[rjpalmer]

Another deeply intellectual post by Dan Norder with no specific citations. Just more vague innuendo. Please show me where I misrepresented your screed. I quote it and demonstrated that you misrepresented Begg's argument in a fundamental way.

Dan Norder:

he [Begg] presents his own opinions as if they were the facts and pretends (either through omission or outright declaring it) that nobody who says anything different even exists. .

“Nobody who says anything different even exists”

Natalie Severn:

Now Paul does indeed acknowledge that a number of people" found the basic facts of Anderson"s story impossible to digest. page 358

Also ,to be fair ,on that same page Paul cites Sir Robert as having been lambasted in the "Jewish Chronicle" by the contolling editor of that journal, Leopold Jacob Greenberg,under the pen name "Mentor"-for claiming that Jews "guarded [Jack the Ripper]

Funny thing how much more intellectually persuasive a post can become when it isn’t dripping with bombastic rhetoric and ridiculous exaggeration and obviously bogus claims.

By the way, Dan, could you post some examples of Paul Begg “attacking” Sugden, and “attacking other researchers?" Maybe Natalie would like to help.

And by the way, don’t Evans & Rumbelow paint a rather bleak picture of Major Smith? Haven’t a dozen people on this website done it, too? Or is it that Natalie merley doesn't like it when Paul Begg makes the same point in support of his theory? Like I said, the Polish Jew theorists are not stupid.

[Natalie Severn]

Another deeply intellectual post by Dan Norder with no specific citations. Just more vague innuendo. Please show me where I misrepresented your screed. I quote it and demonstrated that you misrepresented Begg's argument in a fundamental way.

Dan Norder:

“Nobody who says anything different even exists”

Natalie Severn:




Funny thing how much more intellectually persuasive a post can become when it isn’t dripping with bombastic rhetoric and ridiculous exaggeration and obviously bogus claims.

By the way, Dan, could you post some examples of Paul Begg “attacking” Sugden, and “attacking other researchers?" Maybe Natalie would like to help.

And by the way, don’t Evans & Rumbelow paint a rather bleak picture of Major Smith? Haven’t a dozen people on this website done it, too? Or is it that Natalie merley doesn't like it when Paul Begg makes the same point in support of his theory? Like I said, the Polish Jew theorists are not stupid.

Yes, you are quite right,RJ,few give Major Smith much credence and I suspect that may stem from the bias of both the press and old rivalries passing on gossip.
As I pointed out the "Yorkshire Post" seized on Major Smith"s rise to prominence through "knowing people" while neglecting to say that Macnaghten got his job via Monro in just the same way and by an even bigger jump through the ranks from Tea Planter to assistant Chief Constable.I never said anybody was stupid!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I am at odds how anyone can credit major Smith as a reliable source. Smith was a busybody - with much higher ambitions than his actual capacity and competence for the job - who had no actual experience in police work; it is well known that he for years had applied to several positions in the police but failed and only managed to get the job as Assistant Commissioner for the City police taking advantage of his personal contacts. The title of his memoirs - From Constable to Commissioner - should alone be enough to verify him as a very dubious source since he never was a constable.
As is also evident from his - I admit - very entertaining accounts, he made up a lot of stoires in order to make himself important.

Now, the above is well known for most people who have done the slightest study in the field, so it amazes me how anyone can actually refer to major Smith as a valid source on any subject. No doubt, he belonged to a police force that has to be considered a bit more up to date with its criminal investigation methods compared to the rather primitive approaches of the Met (although that was probably more due to people like James Fraser rather than Smith), but besides that he stands out as nothing but a comic figure.

All the best