Aaron or not

[Natalie Severn]

It has to be remembered that large numbers off suspects were seen by the police-even with regard to Sgt Thick"s "Leather Apron" .Many were released but some they did keep under watch for varying lengths of time,both by City Police and the Met.

[Jeff Leahy]

This last aspect is interesting if the suspect is Aaron Kozminski, and it has been suggested he may have been accused by a relative, such as for example his sister Matilda. The "Earl of Crawford" letter to Robert Anderson may in fact relate to Kozminski. This is the only letter in Sir Robert Anderson's surviving correspondence at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Department of Duke University. It reads:

"I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril."

As Stephen Ryder writes: "The natural conclusion, at first, is that this letter may relate to Anderson's suspect, thus explaining his reasoning behind keeping it among his correspondence." This indeed may be the case, and the letter seems to fit Kozminski, especially in that the author is a woman, "nearly related" to the suspect, and that "she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril."

Rob House

Good morning Rob, Chris and all

Just a couple of quick points as i have a lot of work on today. I'd always understood that the Earl of Crawford letter had been used by Druit proponants rather than Kosminski. However given the recent Farquenson/Druit conection that my have changed their position?

I just wondered why you beleive a low class polish jewish family might write to the Earl of Crawford?

Also, and I guess this is rather presumtuous, but is it possible to display some kind of map the illustrates the Batty street, Berner St, Greenfeild street conection? Visuals always help.

Of course bringing Kosminski into the intestigation at a much earlier point in the investigation would make some sense.(as it does Druit).but as Chris pionts out..how did he shake his observere's at the kelly murder..and would they not have gone straight to his door following it?

And what sought of time frame are you suggesting? Given the identification and Kosminski's dog incident?

Lots of questions I'm afraid..still its the most interesting observation on the subject in well, I cant remember when...many thanks to you both

Jeff

[Observer]

Hi

The fact that the Echo's suspect was aware he was being watched before and up to the 20th October flies in the face of the statement allegedly made by Swanson in his annotations, namely that once the suspect knew he was being watched, no other murders of the Jack the Ripper variety happened in London. Of course the Kelly murder took place after this time.



all the best

Observer

[Chris]

The fact that the Echo's suspect was aware he was being watched before and up to the 20th October flies in the face of the statement allegedly made by Swanson in his annotations, namely that once the suspect knew he was being watched, no other murders of the Jack the Ripper variety happened in London.

That's not quite right - the marginalia say that there were no more murders after the "identification".

But of course that claim is problematic in any case, because of the murder of Frances Coles, after Aaron was sent to Colney Hatch.

[Observer]

That's not quite right - the marginalia say that there were no more murders after the "identification".

But of course that claim is problematic in any case, because of the murder of Frances Coles, after Aaron was sent to Colney Hatch.

My mistake Chris, and as you say that statement is problematic anyway, in as much that the Cole murder was considered at the time to be the work of Jack the Ripper. Are we starting to punch holes in the veracity of the Swanson marginalia?

all the best

Observer

[Chris]

Are we starting to punch holes in the veracity of the Swanson marginalia?

I think the holes in their accuracy have been apparent for a long time.

On this particular statement, Sagar and Cox are credited with somewhat similar claims. Cox says that after a suspect was put under observation the crimes ceased; and a report of Sagar's reminiscences says that the series of atrocities came to an end when a suspect was committed to an asylum.

[Jeff Leahy]

As a matter of interest do we know if the 'Crawford' letter was dated? and when it was received?

For some reason I have it in mind that it was after the Kelly murder.

[Observer]

I think the holes in their accuracy have been apparent for a long time.

On this particular statement, Sagar and Cox are credited with somewhat similar claims. Cox says that after a suspect was put under observation the crimes ceased; and a report of Sagar's reminiscences says that the series of atrocities came to an end when a suspect was committed to an asylum.

Accuracy being the operative word. We can't get into the mind of Donald Swanson, but it could well be that Swanson writing in the marginalia sometime after 1910 realised that Coles was not a Ripper victim. His statement would then lie true. Likewise with Cox and Sagar, could they have realised that Kelly was the last Ripper murder?

all the best

Observer

[Chris]

As a matter of interest do we know if the 'Crawford' letter was dated? and when it was received?

No, it isn't dated. It's a letter of introduction, written by the earl of Crawford and addressed to Anderson, to be presented personally to him by the unknown woman.

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks for that Chris,

I did not a quick search and found a copy of the letter posted by Stephen Ryder.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=506

There is also some interesting discussion on the subject.

you would appear correct about the date. Many thanks.

Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Returning to the theme of whether or not Anderson had identified the Ripper and the man he had identified as the Ripper was Aaron Kosminski,John Littlechild told Sims, the journalist and writer friend of Macnaghten, that "Anderson only "thought" he knew."
And this appears to fit with the FACTS.
For if Anderson really knew who the Ripper was, then Macnaghten,Abberline and the Commissioner of the City Police, Henry Smith,would also have known,presumably?And since both Smith and Macnaghten wrote autobiographies .after 1910 ,in neither of which do we find either saying the Ripper case "was solved",then we have to ask ourselves why they would want to hide from the public such a fact-more especially when revealing that the case was solved would also be solving a nagging mystery as to whether the Ripper might still be alive.Such a revelation would bring public gratitude rather than incrimination so why hide it? Philip Sugden says in the " Complete History of Jack the Ripper" that it looks like what they were actually doing was intentionally "distancing" themselves from Anderson"s "addle headed nonsense".
And Macnaghten ,Smith and Abberline were not the only ones who didnt perceive the case as in any way "solved".
Thomas Arnold Superintendant of H division spoke of the murders as "unsolved" in 1893.Edmund Reid who served in H Division as Head of CID, spoke of the last of the murders as having been committed on Frances Coles,in February 1891 and Frances Coles was murdered AFTER Kosminski"s committal to Colney Hatch.
Later in 1903, Arnold also dismissed Macnaghten"s DRAFT account of "three suspects" which had been re-served by Griffiths as "full of inaccuracies".
And even this same Macnaghten,writing up his OFFICIAL report in 1894 states:
" MANY HOMICIDAL MANIACS WERE SUSPECTED BUT NO SHADOW OF PROOF COULD BE THROWN ON ANY ONE" so the case was definitely NOT solved by 1894.

[Chris]

We can't get into the mind of Donald Swanson, but it could well be that Swanson writing in the marginalia sometime after 1910 realised that Coles was not a Ripper victim. His statement would then lie true. Likewise with Cox and Sagar, could they have realised that Kelly was the last Ripper murder?

The only snag is that the marginalia specify "no other murder of this kind", which suggests it wasn't based on a retrospective judgment about which murders were attributable to the Ripper.

An odd feature of Cox's story is that although it was published in December 1906, he speaks of the incidents having taken place 15 years earlier.

[Observer]

Call me thick, but I can't grasp how the statement "no other murder of this kind" can suggest that Swanson was not acting on retrospective judgement, regarding who was and was not a Ripper victim. It's probably plain for all to see but I can't grasp it at this moment.

Slip of the tongue regarding Cox, or did he believe the Ripper was still out and about in 1891?

all the best

Observer

[Jeff Leahy]

Call me thick, but I can't grasp how the statement "no other murder of this kind" can suggest that Swanson was not acting on retrospective judgement, regarding who was and was not a Ripper victim. It's probably plain for all to see but I can't grasp it at this moment.

Slip of the tongue regarding Cox, or did he believe the Ripper was still out and about in 1891?

all the best

Observer

Or in and out in time to walk the dog?

[Chris]

Call me thick, but I can't grasp how the statement "no other murder of this kind" can suggest that Swanson was not acting on retrospective judgement, regarding who was and was not a Ripper victim. It's probably plain for all to see but I can't grasp it at this moment.

It just suggests to me that he was thinking of the kind of murder, not the identity of the perpetrator. Maybe "kind of murder" could mean something specific enough to exclude Coles, though.

Of course, there is that list of victims that Swanson retained (reproduced in "Scotland Yard Investigates") which includes 8 names up to McKenzie in meticulous copper-plate writing, with the details of Coles added afterwards in another hand.