Letīs talk about that identification again

[Fisherman]

Im not surprised that you fail to see Christer,

By stating 'Official Final Report, Jonathan gives the impression that Macnaghtens memorandum was the Polices official stance on suspects.

It was not. It was merely a newspaper article naming 3 men he felt more likely to have commited the murders than Cutbush.

Those 3 men were 3 amongnst many and were not the sole 3 concentrated on by the Police.

Monty

But I DO see, Monty. I know full well that the memoranda was no police report. I do not question that. Nor do I think that Jonathan would do so - although I will not speak for him.

What I am saying is that I do not think that we should hold Jonathan responsible for Simsīshortcomings. I made my quotation from a longish text by Sims, quoted by Jonatahan, in which Sims makes the error to state that the conception that the three men mentioned were part of an official report, which - as far as we know - they were not. Jonathan is not the one stating that it was a final official report on the matter - Sims is!

But we often quote material that we know holds mistakes. Those mistakes, however, should not reflect poorly on the person who uses the quotation unless it can be shown that the purpose is to mislead. If others, like you this time over, find it called for to point to the mistake, then fine.

I just donīt want people to be pointed out as being in any way irresponsible or misleading unless there is a good reason to do so. We can clear things up in much better and less infectuous ways, if only the will is there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Christer,

Where the hell does 'Simms shortcomings' come into it? I never mentioned anything of the sort.

All I am stating is that Jonathans choice of words (and they were his words) were misleading. Im sure it wasnt intentional however to claim Macnaghtens memo was 'The Final Official Report' is not correct. The memo was purely complied in response to the Sun article on Cutbush, and is clearly his (Macnaghtens) own interpretation of the situation and not the official Police interpretation.

Besides, Im sure Jonathan can address this himself, as opposed to someone who has a track record of mudding waters with twisting words to cause conflict, see above post.

Cheers
Monty

[Fisherman]

Christer,

Where the hell does 'Simms shortcomings' come into it? I never mentioned anything of the sort.

All I am stating is that Jonathans choice of words (and they were his words) were misleading. Im sure it wasnt intentional however to claim Macnaghtens memo was 'The Final Official Report' is not correct. The memo was purely complied in response to the Sun article on Cutbush, and is clearly his (Macnaghtens) own interpretation of the situation and not the official Police interpretation.

Besides, Im sure Jonathan can address this himself, as opposed to someone who has a track record of mudding waters with twisting words to cause conflict, see above post.

Cheers
Monty

So, you decided to infect instead of discussing in a civil tone. Fine.

Then I will just answer the question you posed, give my view and leave you to it.

Where (letīs skip the "the hell" part, shall we?) does Simmsīshortcomings come into it, you ask, and add that you never mentioned any such thing.

Thatīs right. But you should have. At any rate, you instead blamed somebody else for Simmsī mistake - Jonathan.

This is what you wrote, in exact quotation:

"By stating 'The final Official Report', Jonathan misleads slightly"

So, your take is that Jonathan is misleading. And yet you know full well that he is quoting Simms. What Jonathan says at the end of his post is:

"In Anderson's defense, it can be argued that Sims was also backing up the ex-chief's claims.

That there was some kind of definitive ('final') report in the Home Office files which let an open verdict as to which of the three was the likeliest suspect, and that one of them was a Jew."

He therefore - at least to my mind - says that it can be argued that there was some sort definitive report which left an open verdict.

How does that work? It works like this: Simms says in an interview that there WAS such a document at the Home Office. Jonathan says that this therefore can be argued. He does not say that there is any proof, he simply suggests that Simms may have been correct in his claim.

Can either of us say with certainty that there never was a document that marked the end of the efforts of the police, naming these three men as potentially being the killer?

I donīt think so.

Of course it seems like Simms is mistaking MacNaghtens memoranda for an official document, but MacNaghten did not dream the men up, did he? He would have drawn upon his knowledge of the case, using names of men that were suspected of the crimes, and his knowledge would have come from what the Met had amassed during the scare and after it.

These three men were on record at the Met. The police had discussed them, and had not been able to write them off, otherwise MacNaghten would not have named them. They were considered prime suspects back then, I think we can rely on that - Anderson opted for "Kosminski" as the killer, Mac opted for Druitt, and these were the leaders of the Met.
So how sensational would it be if the police closed the case in 1892 with these three as their best offer? Not at all, I would say.

To state that there WAS such a report is exactly what Simms does. If anybody is misleading us, itīs him - and that is only if we can be sure that he was wrong.

To say, as Jonathan does, that it can be argued that some sort of report like this once existed is fair game.

Thatīs all I have to say on that matter.

As for your wording about "someone who has a track record of mudding waters with twisting words to cause conflict", you will have to get used to getting the same reaction as always nowadays - none at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You promise Christer?

Again, I am not staing Jonathan is intentionally misleading, I am stating that he is misleading.

Monty

[Lechmere]

So Hutt's semi anonymous private letter to the press is a more reliable gauge of police opinion during the ripper investigation than the macnaghten memorandum.
Priceless.

[Monty]

So Hutt's semi anonymous private letter to the press is a more reliable gauge of police opinion during the ripper investigation than the macnaghten memorandum.
Priceless.

Semi anonymous?

You are either anonymous or not, surely?


Maybe I should type...slower.....for.....you.......Edward.


You mentioned Police attitude earlier, now its Police opinion. Talk about Goalpost shifting. Which is it?

My comment was in reference to the former, attitude. For which Hutts letter (again, it has been verified its Hutt) is an apt example.

Monty....who is really looking forward to his impending suspension. A break from the asylum.

[Lechmere]

There isnt a great deal of difference between police opinion and police attitude.
One of the wonders of the English language is that different words can be used to convey the same meaning without the need to shift any goal posts.

Hutt did not sign his letter off in his name - Hutt. Did he?
That is why I have described it as semi anonymous.
I don't think it is that easy to grasp this concept - then again...

[Fisherman]

Now, for those interested in discussing the actual aim of the thread, letīs make a sort of pitstop and see where we are before we race on.

I will outline a scenario for the ID process, using material that has been suggested here and adding a few things of my own, trying to produce something that holds the odd millilitre of water. Please observe that I am not saying that this is my own take - it is a comglomerate of many suggestions and observations.

So!

In December 1888, David Cohen is brought in, having been found wandering at large and being clearly out of his wits.
His detention is brought to the knowledge of the Met, and people are sent out to take a look at him. They return to the Met, saying that Cohen is a crafty maniac, given to violence but impossible to get something coherent out of, in terms of verbal cooperation. When he is sent on to Colney Hatch, it takes a lot of physical power to secure his hands behind his back.

The impact is immediate - he seemingly fits the model the Met are working after, and Swanson, among other people, adds the name Aaron Davis Cohen, a 23-year old Jew, to the list of possibilities. Swanson is the processor through whom all information is passed - heaps of it, in a never-ending stream. It is still early days in the investigation, though, and more names will be added to the list in days to come.

In 1889, Swanson is informed that Aaron Cohen has died, with no evidence at all attaching to him being the killer. Maybe some sort of indication has surfaced that points away from him being the killer at this stage, and Swanson directs his interest to other leads, making a mental note of what he has heard.

In December 1888 Druitt has been found dead in the Thames. Killing oneself is a sign of mental instability, and he has left a note pointing to the risk of an inherited insanity. Rumours have it that he has been fired from his job on account of inappropriate behaviour, and there is a suspicion that he was homosexual - a man, thus, that disliked women. The approximate correlation with the Kelly murder in time taken together with hints from his family that he may not have been a very honourable man makes him a suspect.

Other suspects surface too, Ostrog being one of them. There is suspicion that he has been in place during the murder period, and since he cannot be found, there is reason to believe that he has fled the scene. Second-hand information has it that he is a man with a flair for homicide - he may have been caught trying to steal something and bluffed his way out of the dilemma with the help of a knife and some juicy threats - and he is added to the bunch of suspects.

Then there is Aaron Kosminsky! He is incarcerated by his own family, who have seen him growing more and more insane. As long as he has seemed unviolent, the family have dealt with the issue themselves, more or less, but when he takes to threatening his sister with a knife, they feel that they cannot afford to take the risk to keep him at home. They turn him over to the authorities, and he goes to Colney Hatch in 1891.

But the asylums report all possible Ripper types to the police, and Kosminsky is no exception - the police gets word of him and his knife threat, and they decide to take a look at him. He ticks a lot of boxes at a stage when the investigation is crying for a useful suspect - he is a foreigner, he is mad, he deals with knives. He is what Robert Anderson has been looking for all along, Anderson who has faced total defeat on the Ripper score, something that does not sit well with his ego.

He is well aware that they have no evidence at all, but they do have a witness that has given a picture that seems not to differ very much from Kosminskyīs looks. He therefore wants to try an ID process, but since Aaron is certifiedly nuts and incarcerated, he knows that he is going to have to settle for a succesful ID and no conviction. Moreover, he is going to need the consent of the Kosminsky family to even be able to perform that ID.

He speaks to the Kosminskyīs, pointing out the need to settle the business once and for all, and it proves to be a difficult matter since the family feels sure that Aaron is anything but a vicious killer.
In the end, and after much discussion and haggling, the family decides to allow for the ID. But they raise demands on total secrecy, since they do not want it rumoured that their boy could be the Ripper.

It is suggested that the ID is performed out of London, and the Kosminskyīs suggest that the ID is carried out at the seaside resort where Aarons brother has a summer house. They request that Aaron is allowed to spend some little time there with his kin after the ID process, which is to take place at a police convalescent home in the same seaside resort. Anderson, but not Swanson, is in place. The secrecy is high, as demanded by the Kosminsky family - the witness is never told the name of the man he takes a look at. Otherwise he would have recognized this name as typically Jewish.
The witness is brought in to take a look at Kosminsky, and Anderson thinks he sees recognition in both partiesī eyes. Somewhere during the process, however, Kosminsky does or says something that reveals his faith, and the witness says that "That could be him, he is about the same age and he looks just about the same. But I cannot be a hundred per cent sure, I saw very little detail that night". Anderson curses the fact that the witness, himself a Jew, found out about the suspect being a Jew too. He feels that he was very close to a clincher.

Kosminski shows signs of being terrified by the proceedings, and Anderson takes this to prove that he realizes that he has been made. Maybe Kosminsky calls out something in Jiddish, and this is what makes Anderson think that he admits to being made, whereas it makes the witness less willing to go the whole way. To Anderson, the ID is nevertheless a success and an example of how moral guilt is obtained, but to the Kosminsky family it is no such thing. So Aaron is returned to his brotherīs house for some short time, after which he is sent back to Colney Hatch.

At the Met, things have grinded to a halt now. The paperwork has reached no further in 1892, when the investigation is ended. The last names on the papers - the final document, as it were - are Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminsky.

In 1894, MacNaghten wrote his memoranda. At that time, he had decided upon Druitt, stating afterwards (1914) that "certain facts" were not in the hands of the police until some years after he had become a detective officer himself. Apparently, to his mind, these facts trumphed the evidence attaching to Kosminsky.

And so, in 1910, Anderson wrote his famous book, and a number of years afterwards, Swanson scribbled in itīs margin what Anderson had told him many years after the Ripper outrage; that there had actually been an ID process at which a Jew named Aaron Kosminsky had been pointed out as the killer down at a seaside home, for reasons of security. After it, the Jew had been returned to his brotherīs house, and then sent back to his incarceration. The witness, Anderson said, had evidently been totally sure that the man was the correct one, but on learning that the suspect was a Jew he had said that he did not wish to have the manīs fate on his conscience.

And when Swanson jotted it all down, it struck some chords in his memory of a mad, dangerous Jew who had been incarcerated in 1888 and who died some short time after that. An Aaron something ... Since Anderson had now spilled the beans, he felt sure that the man spoken about was dead, leading him to conlude that he was the mad, violent Jew from December 1888.

On Swansonīs behalf, it would not be a strange thing to do, to mix these two up. He had seen thousands of documents and thousands of names, sorting it all in neat piles, trying to extract the important bits and pieces from the junk. That was his task in the investigation, heading the paperwork and making no decisions at all in any matters of importance.

And there you are - this is one possible take on things, leaning on bits and pieces suggested on the thread. Letīs see if somebody else can take it in another direction, suggesting another solution. Criticism is welcomed of course, but donīt forget that I am playing the devilīs advocate here to some degree. I am not even convinced that Aaron Kosminski was ever subjected to any ID process, for example.

But over to you now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So Hutt's semi anonymous private letter to the press is a more reliable gauge of police opinion during the ripper investigation than the macnaghten memorandum.

Of course it isnīt. Newspapers typically offer a "Letters to the editor" space, where people may express their different views. It is in this space we can learn that UFO:s land every second hour at the back of Heathrow airport, that corn is good food because of itīs ties to the incas and that people of foreign extraction are best served by a kick in their behinds and the advice to do some honest work for a change.
Private personsīopinions are always intresting, but they represent private persons only until otherwise proven.

Letīs not forget that we know about all the hilarious nutters who expressed a wish to catch the Ripper by means of glue mostly because the papers offered up space to private musings.

Hutt could have been representative or he could have been unrepresentative, we canīt know.

But in the wacky world of Ripperology ....

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You may want to get that template mail to Admin up Christer, you will need it.

Yet again you have either not read my post or deliberately decided to alter its context.

As stated to Edward, my response was in regards to attitude, not opinion. That's the attitude of a serving Police Constable. Hutt, whose initials, working address are on the letter, whose confirmation of authoriship was established.

So whilst you, Edward and Garry harp on about the 'Official' Police stance the actual reality is that it was confilictiing.

I bow to your higher knowledge, thou truly are in the best position to pass judgement on the Police opinion and attitude of the time.

....Dear Admin....

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

According to the 1888 Post Office Street Directory, Bishopsgate Police Station was situated between 35 and 40 Bishopsgate Street Without.

Just as a point of clarification, can you throw any light on why G.H.H. was writing from 48 & 49 Bishopsgate Street Without [between Catherine Wheel Alley and Sweedland Court], which in the same year was the premises of William Barker & Son, wine merchants?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

I see you've read Rob and my article Simon,

And not forgiven me for putting your Warren letter to Fraser under scrutiny.

When was Kellys Post Office directory compiled?

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

You were quite right to put the Warren/Fraser letter under scrutiny, and I hope I satisfactorily provided its provenance.

The 1888 Post Office Street Directory was compiled in the latter months of 1887.

According to Kelly's Post Office Directory of Brewers and Maltsters, William Barker & Sons had been at this address since at least 1884.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

You did Simon, and your patience was duly noted also.

Hutt worked Special Duties.

Cheers
Monty

[Fisherman]

You may want to get that template mail to Admin up Christer, you will need it.

Yet again you have either not read my post or deliberately decided to alter its context.

As stated to Edward, my response was in regards to attitude, not opinion. That's the attitude of a serving Police Constable. Hutt, whose initials, working address are on the letter, whose confirmation of authoriship was established.

So whilst you, Edward and Garry harp on about the 'Official' Police stance the actual reality is that it was confilictiing.

I bow to your higher knowledge, thou truly are in the best position to pass judgement on the Police opinion and attitude of the time.

....Dear Admin....

Monty

I am in a position to know what journalism and papers are all about, Monty. And that was what I wrote about. What impact we are to ascribe to a single policemanīs attitude, I donīt know. I only know that it cannot be used as any overall picture of all policemenīs attitude.

If you dislike my giving my wiew, you are of course at liberty to report that to the administrators. I do hope, however, that giving oneīs views is what Casebook is all about. Thatīs why I post here, saying - not harping on about - what I think needs to be said.

The best,
Fisherman