Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect - Rob House

[robhouse]

At one point I was trying to get my hands on the Goad's Fire Insurance map for Greenfield Street, and I never got around to it. These maps are very detailed and might show something interesting. Yes... I am a visual person too. I am guessing that there would not be a back entrance. The family (Isaac's family) lived in the house, which was a separate building. The workshop was in the backyard. The map of Greenfield Street I had in the book is based on the 1894 ordinance map of London... so it gives you an idea. It seems that there was a bit of a space between the main house and the workshop. But the Goad map would certainly be much more detailed.

Rob H

[Chris]

At one point I was trying to get my hands on the Goad's Fire Insurance map for Greenfield Street, and I never got around to it. These maps are very detailed and might show something interesting. Yes... I am a visual person too. I am guessing that there would not be a back entrance. The family (Isaac's family) lived in the house, which was a separate building. The workshop was in the backyard. The map of Greenfield Street I had in the book is based on the 1894 ordinance map of London... so it gives you an idea. It seems that there was a bit of a space between the main house and the workshop. But the Goad map would certainly be much more detailed.

We don't have a copy of the contemporary Goad Plan, but we do have a copy of the one from 1938, courtesy of Rob Clack. (The layout of number 74 is identical to that in the 1890 version.)

[GregBaron]

Back door?

Very interesting, thanks for the map Chris, it makes me wonder if there was a back entrance? And the back abuts to a playground and school........hmm...might be a nice place to get cleaned up............I wonder if the cops patrolled the playground....? If Koz had to go through the front of the house after nightly sojourns that might arouse the wrath and suspicions of the family.............a back entrance would be ideal for someone hiding something.........

Greg

[robhouse]

Very interesting, thanks for the map Chris, it makes me wonder if there was a back entrance? And the back abuts to a playground and school........hmm...might be a nice place to get cleaned up............I wonder if the cops patrolled the playground....? If Koz had to go through the front of the house after nightly sojourns that might arouse the wrath and suspicions of the family.............a back entrance would be ideal for someone hiding something.........

Greg

I originally wondered if there might be a back entrance too, but I doubt it.

RH

[Chris]

I originally wondered if there might be a back entrance too, but I doubt it.

Yes, I agree. I think the only realistic way in and out of the workshop would have been through the house.

[Chris]

Yes, I agree. I think the only realistic way in and out of the workshop would have been through the house.

Which is actually a plus if you are arguing that these might have been the premises that Harry Cox described having watched from a house opposite. However, I think this theory is difficult to reconcile with Cox's account in other respects.

[Stephen Thomas]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their comments on the book. I have been sort of laying low so as to allow others to discuss the ideas I raised in the book without my input. But since I see this thread has stalled, I was just wondering if anyone had any questions or comments they would like to address to me. I would be happy to discuss anything.

Rob H

Rob,

Being familiar with your posts here for several years, your book wasn't much of a surprise to me, but I will say that it is superbly written and, most importantly, magnificently fair with regard to the known facts as opposed to those suspect based books with all their 'perhaps' and 'maybes'.You may not care what I think but I imagine that getting the seal of approval from Stewart Evans must have been pretty gratifying.

All the best

[Wickerman]

...... I was just wondering if anyone had any questions or comments they would like to address to me. I would be happy to discuss anything.

Rob H

Hello Rob.
One of the inhibiting factors, apart from no knowledge of his description in 1888, is that we have no idea of his medical condition at the time of the murders.

The thought which crossed my mind was that it would be beneficial to the argument to see if a timeline could be offered derived from a study of other patients progressive conditions.

How other patients may have deteriorated over five, ten or fifteen years might offer a clue. If we then see that the condition of patient 'x' in his year 12 was extremely similar to what we know of Kosminski in 1892, then we might be interested in what patient 'x' was like 4 years previous, suggestive of a parallel for Kosminski in 1888.

Possible or not, it just crossed my mind. Though I am not sure if such records are accessable to the researcher. Modern records may not be helpful because today we treat mental illness with drugs but in 1888 they had no treatment so 'older' records may reflect a more accurate condition than modern records might.

Regards, Jon S.

[robhouse]

Rob,

Being familiar with your posts here for several years, your book wasn't much of a surprise to me, but I will say that it is superbly written and, most importantly, magnificently fair with regard to the known facts as opposed to those suspect based books with all their 'perhaps' and 'maybes'.You may not care what I think but I imagine that getting the seal of approval from Stewart Evans must have been pretty gratifying.
All the best

Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your compliments. I did try to be as fair as possible in the book. I do think Kozminski is a very good suspect, so I tried to present a fairly strong argument in favor of him being the Ripper, despite some apparent problems or contradictions. Given what we now know about him, it is really impossible to draw any specific conclusions.

It was indeed very gratifying that Stewart gave his seal of approval for the book. Stewart and I obviously disagree over some things, and he does not think Kozminski is likely to have been the Ripper. But I respect his opinions very highly and see him as a true expert in the case. So I was happy to see that he gave my book a thumbs up, even though we have different views on things.

Rob

[GregBaron]

Hiding their own...

Hey Rob,

For the sake of argument let's say the Batty Street Lodger is Koz and his sister dropped off a bloody shirt for laundering. Doesn't this imply, as Anderson stated, that his family was protecting him? Or is it possible they alerted the police about this time to keep an eye on him?


Greg

[Hunter]

For too long the important suspect Kosminski has not had a book devoted to him; but now we have one. Written by an author who knows and understands his subject this is a must for all Ripper book collectors. Make sure that you secure a copy as soon as possible.

Whatever one believes in regards to Aaron Kozminski's candidacy as a murderer, the historical significance of this contemporary suspect can't be denied... but in many ways it had been; partly because he did not fit the popular image of Jack the Ripper.

In hindsight, it is remarkable that a link wasn't interpreted between the 'Kosminski' in Macnaghten's documents and Anderson's 'Polish Jew' when the former was placed in the public domain in the mid Twentieth century. Even though writers such as O'Dell and Cullen touted Druitt, not a ripple by others emanated about the possible link between the man in Macnaghten's 1894 'memorandum' and the man referred to in Anderson's book. He just didn't fit the bill of the cunning madman stalking the foggy streets of London, outfoxing the police at every turn.

The preeminence that was received upon the release of the Swanson Marginalia in the late eighties was short lived; surviving, in most part, only among serious students... and most of them chose to 'theorize' around Kozminski or dismiss him outright. The one exception may have been Paul Begg, who chose to remain somewhat objective about the subject... and as a result, has been wrongfully viewed by some as being a proponent of Kozminski's culpability while trying to provide what he believed should be a fair assessment of the three main police officials involved.

In the meantime, the public has been inundated with more 'classical' suspects such as Maybrick and Sickert, with a movie revolving around the good old Royal conspiracy thrown in for good measure.

Sugden attempted to bring the case back down to earth in 1994 and his work is rightfully considered a benchmark in the study of the Whitechapel Murders, but he had to pick a suspect too; although he coyly suggested it was the best of a poor lot. His admiration for Abberline influenced his decision in that regard (in my opinion). However, he failed to mention the inaccuracies in Abberline's assumptions about Klosowski and he accused both Anderson and Swanson of inhabiting a 'world of wish-dreams' when it came to 'Kosminski'.

Anderson was an easy target and most of the accusations leveled at him by Sugden (and later many others) were well founded. Anderson was even controversial in his own time and proved less than tactful in his own assertions. But in accusing Donald Swanson of inhabiting the same world of wish-dreams, Sugden provided no evidence. In promoting the very capable and popular Frederick Abberline, he failed to recognize (at least beyond being 'clerical') the man who actually was in charge of the case throughout its duration - Donald Swanson.

Both Macnagten and Anderson come to the mix with their own caveats, to be sure. They came to position by patronage, rather than experience in investigative procedures. Even Anderson's involvement as a 'spymaster' did not prepare him with the knowledge of the more mundane criminal activities in the street. Sugden emphasized this and appears to have made short work of the 'theories' that these men proposed, although the records of both men suggests that they proved to be quite capable in the positions that they attained. Admittedly, the Whitechapel murders were far different than what any of them had, or would, encounter during their careers.

But, what of Swanson? Rob's chapter 'Macnaghten and Swanson' was one of the shortest in his book, and yet, if there's any veracity at all in Kozminski's viability as 'the prime suspect', it lies with Swanson much more than either Macnaghten or Anderson. I believe a good case can be made that it was he who was responsible for any ID attempts and that Anderson relied upon information from him in developing his theory and, later assumption, that 'Kosminski' was likely the murderer.

From the surviving documents, Swanson's role in the investigation appeared to increase from the 'clerical' one of compiling and disseminating the various reports to actual investigation after Anderson's return (as evidenced in the Mylett, Pinchin St. Torso and the Coles cases) and possibly with Abberline's recall back to the CO.

As the furor of the 'Autumn of Terror' subsided, it is evidenced that he was the one left to officially deal with what remained of the hunt for the culprit... And, in my view, readily explains his extensive notations in Anderson's book and the details he inserted. It was his work and his conclusions that Anderson later ran with; although he may not have been as 'certain' as Anderson was. It seems he still followed up any subsequent inquiries (as may have been the case with Grainger in 1895). It was a policeman's duty to do so, regardless of what he personally believed.

If former Superintendent Donald Swanson had reduced himself to a world of 'wish-dreams' after his retirement, it may have been that he was impressed that his 'old master' believed that he had really found the culprit among several suspects that had been investigated in the aftermath of the murders. Since Swanson actually did prefer to live up to the maxim of not 'telling tales out of school'... we will probably never know the answer; despite the possibility that, among all of the police officials involved in the case, he would have been the one who would have possesed an answer... if one ever did exist at all.

[Robert]

I've just read an account of an 1893 burglary at 13 Greenfield St. It's rather weird, for the door of the house seems not to have been locked, only bolted - the burglar (who lodged next door) got in by breaking the glass over the door and unbolting the door. Even weirder : the burglar was wearing only his nightshirt.

[robhouse]

Hey Rob,
For the sake of argument let's say the Batty Street Lodger is Koz and his sister dropped off a bloody shirt for laundering. Doesn't this imply, as Anderson stated, that his family was protecting him? Or is it possible they alerted the police about this time to keep an eye on him?
Greg

Hello Greg,

Well... for the sake of discussion, let's say this. First, it seems that the laundry was dropped off by a man, specifically a ladies tailor, who lived within a radius of a few hundred yards of the Berner Street murder. So, arguably this would fit one of Aaron's brothers. Isaac was a ladies tailor who lived on Greenfield Street for example.

So let us speculate and assume that one of Aaron's brothers dropped off the shirts (as I suggest in the book). Well, I don't know if this would mean that his family was protecting him or not. It might mean that. But perhaps whoever dropped off the laundry didn't notice the bloodstains. Or perhaps this person thought there was an innocent explanation for the bloodstains.

In any case, it does seem likely that two separate people were picked up and questioned by the police at this time. It is at the very least an interesting incident, given that several of the circumstances seem to fit Kozminski. But it is really an unknown.

A person's motives for doing something, especially under trying circumstances, are often not so black and white. When you say they were "protecting him" this implies that they believed (or knew) he was guilty, which may not have been the case. Sometimes, a close relative (or friend or spouse) of a killer will not believe in the person's guilt. If a serial killer tells a family member that he is innocent, it is entirely possible that the relative will believe him, even if there is abundant evidence (or at least grounds for suspicion) that the person might be hiding something (ie. guilty). Such was the case with Peter Sutcliffe's wife I think. This really gets into the realm of psychology and emotions driving action.

If Kozminski's family had suspicions about him being the killer (which is entirely possible), they would certainly want to believe he was innocent, and therefore they would be more inclined to accept whatever explanation he gave for something suspicious (like blood on clothing). It is possible that they kept back their own suspicions from the police. And it is also possible that they may have later changed their mind and given information to the police about their suspicions.

For example, say the family did suspect Aaron, but essentially were in a state of denial about it. There might have been heated arguments among the family members. "What should we do? We have to go to the police," says one. "No, we can't go to the police. Think what will happen to us. He is not guilty! He can't be!" etc etc. Then later (as I speculate in the book) perhaps one of the members of the family, Aaron's sister for example, later approaches the police (perhaps without the consent of the rest of the family) and tells them of her suspicions, hoping that the police could devise a discreet solution that would save the family from harm should it become known that Aaron was the killer.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

Being familiar with your posts here for several years, your book wasn't much of a surprise to me, but I will say that it is superbly written and, most importantly, magnificently fair with regard to the known facts as opposed to those suspect based books with all their 'perhaps' and 'maybes'.You may not care what I think but I imagine that getting the seal of approval from Stewart Evans must have been pretty gratifying.

Well said. By now Rob has no doubt received MANY seals of approval for his important and exceptionally well-written book. Is it just me or is it impossible to tell that it's his first book? It reads like a book written by a seasoned pro.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GregBaron]

The Power of Denial...

Hey Rob,

Thanks and I completely agree with your assessment. Who knows what level of denial a family will go through to protect one of their own. Human nature is such. I remember Ted Bundy marrying a woman at the trial at which he was convicted to death – a highly intelligent woman who I believe may have had a PhD. – such is the power of denial……………also, as you suggest, having blood stained shirts could be more easily explained in 19th century Whitechapel than it would today for certain. Koz may have said he stopped and helped out a butcher friend of his or something which is very plausible. And yes perhaps the dropper of the laundry had a big heap and didn’t know blood stains were on some clothing – again multiple interpretations exist as they do for everything in this case…….I know we’re dealing with shadows and we all wish we had more………I do appreciate your work on Koz and all we can hope for is that more evidence somehow comes to light……………there seems a bizarre Jewish angle to this thing that no one has really figured out but the whole Cohen, Koz, Jacob Levy, PC Sagar tidbits almost have to be more than coincidence……………….I’m sure I’ll pop more questions about your book………..oh yeah, on Greenfield Street we sort of decided the workshop back door didn’t exist…………….what about the small alleyway between houses and workshops………….could one traverse this and enter a workshop without going through the front of the house……………?

Greg