Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

Annotations

Also, as I understand, and from memory, there are other examples of Swanson marginalia, other than this poticular one, which gives some creadance to this marginalia as genuine..
I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong but this is how I understand the situation, am I correct?
Jeff

There are a few other marginal notes in the book. However, it is not the marginalia that raises the questions, it is the annotations on the rear endpaper.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

Hi Stewart
I realise that the police were desperate to apprehend the killer at all costs, it was common sense to show Kosminski to Lawende, but surely they also let Levy and Harris view Kosminski, and why stop there, how about Long, Cox Lewis, Hutchinson, PC Smith, Marshall, Schwartz et al?
All the best
Observer

I'm afraid that there are no definitive answers we have only speculation. Factors involved may be that Lawende, in the end, was considered as the witness who got the best look at the supposed murderer and witness availability may have been a factor; some may have moved on and been untraceable at this later time. Mrs Long did not see the suspect's face and various reasons could be guessed at for the others not being used. We simply don't know. All we do know for certain is that it was reported on 18 February 1891 that the Mitre Square witness had been used in a failed attempt to identify Sadler as the Ripper.

[Natalie Severn]

Now Jeff,steady on. Just think a bit about what you have just said.If Kosminski"s family had "approached" Swanson...like what "Hi Mr Swanson, we"ve got news for you about our brother Aaron.He"s not quite right in the head you see and we think he might be Jack the Ripper!"-------ok not quite like that but what does that give Swanson? Carte Blanche to tell the world,thats what ,that Jack the Ripper had been found! Think of the kudos for the yard-----all those hateful newspapers insinuating none of them could do their jobs properly----!Even more importantly no one could have stopped the police from properly naming him-because the family werent that important and could either be persuaded to allow the police to go public with the news or,if they objected to that,let the news leak into the National Press and call it "an accident'.
Jeff,if they had known who the ripper was so would we !

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Observer

One point that I have always agreed with Stewart 'Totally' on is the suggestion that Kosminski is Swanson's suspect not Andersons.

The pieces just fit together better for me that way.

Anderson sifts through the various suspects put foreward, picks up on Swansons Idenification..and convinces himself..'we new who it was'

It explain why Swanson creates the marginalia in the first place...

But the point you raise is fair..given that Swanson believes he has his man, why only bring Schwartz foreward in an attempt to identify the killer? Why not every witness?

For me Swanson has to be opperating on other information...

There must be a specific reason why Berner Street? why Schwartz?

and why Aaron kosminski?

And I cant help thinking what if Aarons own family had approached Swanson and put him forward as a suspect? That to might tick a lot of boxes?

The question is did Swanson have information that we do not..

And i think that highly probable.

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

As I have explained already, whether or not Lawende's evidence would have been any use is irrelevant as it would appear that he was used in the attempted identification of Sadler as Jack the Ripper between 14 and 18 February 1891. Any half decent defence counsel would have made short work of any of the suggested witnesses (Lawende, Schawartz or Levy) had they been used at a trial. For a start none of them could be actually proved to have seen the murderer at work because of time differentials and, in the case of Eddowes, lack of proper identification of her as the actual woman seen. This alone makes a nonsense of the claims of Anderson and his 'definitely ascertained fact.'

Hi Stewart

Hi Stewart

My post #17, came before your post #19 so at the time of writing post #17 you hadn’t explained anything to me.



But as you rightly point out, what’s the use of Anderson declaring that the only person who had a decent look at the Ripper declined to identify Kosminski on the grounds that he was a fellow Jew, and his identification would lead to Kosminski’s hanging. Surely Anderson would have realised that a competent defence team would have made mincemeat out of any evidence from any witness.

I realise that the police were desperate to apprehend the killer at all costs, it was common sense to show Kosminski to Lawende, but surely they also let Levy and Harris view Kosminski, and why stop there, how about Long, Cox Lewis, Hutchinson, PC Smith, Marshall, Schwartz et al?

All the best

Observer

[Jeff Leahy]

Begg inists that the person referred to as the "City PC" who witnessed someone in "Mitre Square" as being Schwartz, who was not a PC, not in the City, and nowhere near Mitre Square.

Are you trying to tell me that Paul Begg beleives Schwartz to be the CITY PC?

If so you are in factual error (again). Of course Begg does refer to McNaughtens 'three jews in a cart statement, are you getting confused also?

It is generally accepted that the witness being referred to was Lawende, who, while not a PC, was a witness for the City police and was near Mitre Square and most certainly was used as a witness in later attempts to try to identify people as the Ripper.

No it is NOT generally accepted that Lawende is the witness (shall we take a poll on it?)..infact as I have clearly pointed out to you 'It does NOT make sense'.

'IF' Lawende was the man who identified Kosminski, why would the police knock on his door some weeks later and say "excuse me Mr Lawende, I know that you positively identified Mr Kosminski as Jack the Ripper last week but would you come down to the station and look at a different man just incase you were wrong and he is also Jack the Ripper?"

It dosn't make sense. And Begg quite clearly gives several pages evaluating the evidence against the people who may or may not have been the witness..Given that evidence, I personally beleive that Schwartz is the most likely person to have been Swanson's witness...

Though hey perhaps it was Pipeman? We do not know for sure that he was working with BS...I'm simply making the point that Schwartz is the obvious chioce and then you have to ask yourself (staying on thread) Could Aaron Kosminski and BS man be one of the same?

Lawende was also a City Police witness, the ID was a MET line up, he simply does not make sense...

Jeff

[Varqm]

Just an observation,

From what I gather is that ,without drawing conclusions, with what is known of Aaron and the memoirs' description of him it is more likely than not he was not the Kosminsky Swanson, etc. were writing about. But since Aaron Kosminski is the only one on record of having been brought to an asylum we kind of,for now,have no choice.

[Sam Flynn]

In point of fact knowledge of what schizophrenia is has NOT progressed all that much.

...at the very least we have a standard name for it now, Nats, which is more than Whitfield had in 1891 ("Manchurian Moon-madness" notwithstanding)

[Jeff Leahy]

Jason,
Since Anderson was a SPYMASTER working for the state,devoted to the Ulster Unionist cause who had spent his entire working life SPECIALISING in "DISINFORMATION" ,it strikes me that anybody willing to trust a word he ever said on anything really does need "to get real".
The dozen or so books he wrote on his millenarist Christian theology dont reassure.Far from it-------I often wonder how well Kosminski who believed he was obeying the instructions of a "guiding universal power' would have got on with Anderson and his conversations with Christ..........I mean if anyone was "hearing voices" in this Ripper Saga it was those two...............!!!

Ah! the old Anderson and Jack had lots in common argument..yes it would appear so

[Natalie Severn]

No evidence against Kosminski being the Ripper or violent?

1 Threatening his sister with a knife.
2 Sole occupant of certain premises after nightfall.
3 The disputed Identification.


In fact the ID is the only contemporary evidence we know of against anyone. Wether only points 1 and 2 lead directly to the ID i do not know. Or was there additional evidence against him that led to police suspiscions?

Natalie, i think you do Anderson a disservice giving him the belief that only a Jew could have committed such a crime. Im sure Anderson dealt with many Christian murderers in his time. His worldview would not have been moulded by only his religious knowledge but also his career in CID.

Jason,
Since Anderson was a SPYMASTER working for the state,devoted to the Ulster Unionist cause who had spent his entire working life SPECIALISING in "DISINFORMATION" ,it strikes me that anybody willing to trust a word he ever said on anything really does need "to get real".
The dozen or so books he wrote on his millenarist Christian theology dont reassure.Far from it-------I often wonder how well Kosminski who believed he was obeying the instructions of a "guiding universal power' would have got on with Anderson and his conversations with Christ..........I mean if anyone was "hearing voices" in this Ripper Saga it was those two...............!!!

[Jeff Leahy]

In the sense that schizophrenia wouldn't be named, or even classified as such, until long after 1891, that's perfectly true. However, to diminish Whitfield's opinion on this basis would be as invalid as it would be unfair - the term just didn't exist in his vocabulary.

Now, that's not to say Whitfield couldn't have looked at a case and ruled it out as (e.g.) "Manchurian Moon-madness", based on his previous experience and the terminology available to him at the time.

Ah ha.. And many thanks for that Sam..

And by strange chance I head down stairs and turn on BBC 1 and Allan Yentobs program on music and the Brain...

and we witness Allan Yentobs brain scan and reaction to music, we witness a young man with Tarrets who plays drums, we witness a man stuck by lightning who can now give classical recitals..

The BRAIN..its close to my heart..I cant spell..but I know rythm and music, I visualize them in a way you will never be able to understand..

the beat, the tone, the nuonce of each verbal expression..

Aarons brain was simply wired differantly to you or I...schitzophenic..

Its hard to understand but if perhaps your brain was also wired differently you'd get it...

So I'm not trying to say that just because we have 'NAMES' for various conditions today that they did not know what we are talking about then..they clearly had experience of these conditions..

Schitzophrenia goes back to the dawn of time..they understood..what it meant alright..

However, we clearly have started to discover more about brain activity and brain abnormality, TODAY, than at any other point in history...and we clearly still have lots to learn.

So yes Whitfeild would have had first hand experience with patients..

Clearly not that disimilar, to that, my brother would have had..

However my brother would have had a sense of perspective about the brain and its functions today, not available to Whitfeild..

I referance you back to Allan yentobs program.re:music..and the human statuses..Dyslexia is simply another variation of thought process, we now know that there a many variations on thought processes..

SO im not knocking Whitfeild..his experience would have been totally valid however he simply couldn't have had the case studies and back ground material on the subject that psychologists have today..

So sorry a Sam I must beg to differ, Whitfeild could only have worked with what was known at the time..and compared with today thats...well "tiny"

Jeff

PS that yentob bloke he's pretty damn good isnt he?

[Natalie Severn]

In the sense that schizophrenia wouldn't be named, or even classified as such, until long after 1891, that's perfectly true. However, to diminish Whitfield's opinion on this basis would be as invalid as it would be unfair - the term just didn't exist in his vocabulary.

Now, that's not to say Whitfield couldn't have looked at a case and ruled it out as (e.g.) "Manchurian Moon-madness", based on his previous experience and the terminology available to him at the time.

I happen to know something about the history of Colney Hatch and its co- asylum St Bernards.Both were far in front as regards the treatment of mental illness from the 1850"s.Mostly this was due to the pioneering work of Joseph Connolly.In point of fact knowledge of what schizophrenia is has NOT progressed all that much.There is still debate as to how much is due to nature and how much to nurture and it is still a puzzling illness.However the chemical changes that happen in the brain during psychosis can now be treated with reasonable success,whereas in 1888 straight jackets and padded cells were the norm.Strangely we hear nothing of restraint mentioned with regards to Kosminski and as Stewart points out he was considered "harmless" upon admission----hardly an adjective most sane people would
expect to be applied to Jack the Ripper.....and dont forget in 1888 there were no drugs we know of to arrest the illness at any stage,only restraint ,and occupational therapy----both methods still in use today, but now alongside chemical therapy as well.

[Sam Flynn]

And there is simply no way that that Whitfeild could have been more aware of the schitzophrenic behaviour paterns in 1891 than a modern trained psychietrists

In the sense that schizophrenia wouldn't be named, or even classified as such, until long after 1891, that's perfectly true. However, to diminish Whitfield's opinion on this basis would be as invalid as it would be unfair - the term just didn't exist in his vocabulary.

Now, that's not to say Whitfield couldn't have looked at a case and ruled it out as (e.g.) "Manchurian Moon-madness", based on his previous experience and the terminology available to him at the time.

[Jeff Leahy]

Can I quickly say that I agree with Stewart that Aaron Kosminski being Swanson's suspect makes far more sense, a position I totally agree with..

However Anderson would have been aware of all the theories..and clearly went with Swanson..

Also, as I understand, and from memory, there are other examples of Swanson marginalia, other than this poticular one, which gives some creadance to this marginalia as genuine..

I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong but this is how I understand the situation, am I correct?

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson

Hi Stewart
What's your position on Swanson? It seems to me that if you discount the Jewish suspect/Jewish witness ID story, then there are only three possibilities for Swanson :
1. He was misled by Anderson.
2. He knowingly supported (albeit privately in his marginalia) a revision of history on the part of Anderson.
3. Some or all of the Swanson marginalia isn't genuine.
Robert

My position on Swanson is well known and detailed in my assessment in Scotland Yard Investigates. With no positive data to prove any of the above it leaves us with personal interpretation and speculation.

Another point that has always missed mention in the past is the fact that Anderson was not an investigating police officer, he was a high ranking Scotland Yard official and was to all intents and purposes 'desk bound.' As we know, all the operational information was fed along the upwards chain via Swanson, therefore in a practical sense Anderson would have had no physical involvement in any identification process but would have relied upon Swanson for his information. That being the case it is possible that the whole Polish Jew/identification story came from Swanson in the first place and that Anderson, in his book, was relating information that had originated from Swanson. On reading the book Swanson could have (there's the obligatory 'could have') added to and corrected what Anderson had written in the book from his own personal knowledge.

As to whether any part of the marginalia/endpaper annotations is not genuine we will probably never know. It has never been properly assessed but had been accepted without question since 'Ripperologists' examined it at the time of the centenary. Thus I was very surprised that when I examined it personally at Jim Swanson's home some 12 years later I was immediately struck with the fact that the writing on the rear free endpaper commencing "continuing from page 138..." was in a different pencil and in slightly variant handwriting. This, of course, may be entirely innocent as it is possible Swanson may have used two pencils and had more room to write on the endpaper. It would be unfair to claim that it was 'wrong' as this cannot be proven.

When the book was handed over to New Scotland Yard recently my deductions were proved correct when their document examiner agreed with my conclusions and even stated, as I recall, that the latter annotations were written at a later time when the writer was older. So nothing conclusive and it would be wrong to state that anything is proven. But it does leave a certain 'unease' and I have never been happy with the convenient 'Kosminski was the suspect' at the end of the notes and the fact that the apparent errors are in this part also. It also seems a bit odd that anyone making notes in his own book should sign those notes with his initials, i.e. 'DSS'.