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

[The Good Michael]

There was absolutely no "slide over" from one individual to another. Martin had settled on David Cohen for good and sensible reasons long before he came across Aaron Kosminski's name.

I think the point is that Kosminski's name was known if not in asylum records certainly prior to finding Cohen's name. In a way, that could be construed as a slide or a dismissal of Macnaghten's memoranda. It doesn't make Martin Fido's work less sensible, but it does mean he fancied Cohen after he found him in the records, thereby ssslliddiingg over Kosminski... in a fashion.

Mike

[PaulB]

I think the point is that Kosminski's name was known if not in asylum records certainly prior to finding Cohen's name. In a way, that could be construed as a slide or a dismissal of Macnaghten's memoranda. It doesn't make Martin Fido's work less sensible, but it does mean he fancied Cohen after he found him in the records, thereby ssslliddiingg over Kosminski... in a fashion.

Mike

Not really, Mike. "Kosminski" was known, that's why Martin went looking for him. It was only when he couldn't find him that Martin looked at other potential candidates and settled on Cohen. So, he didn't slide over "Kosminski", he simply didn't find him in the records where Macnaghten had led him to expect him to be, and far from sliding over "Kosminski", he thought Cohen was "Kosminski" and explained how the East End Jewish nasal twang could have made the one name sound like the other. He was subsequently told that "Cohen" was a common John Doe name given to Jews whose names the authorities found difficult to spell and advanced that possible explanation too. Martin therefore accepted that "Kosminski" was Anderson's suspect, but believed him to be in the asylum records under the name David Cohen.

Only later, when he found Aaron Kosminski, could there be any question of sliding, but even then it's questionable.

[Phil Carter]

Then there's this from back awhile (apologies for diverting the thread's subject matter a bit.)

Howard Brown has posted an interesting article on the forums site, entitled "The London Police by James Monro in the North American Review, November 1890, v 151, no. 408, pp. 615-629.

Howard highlighted a significant part of the piece - important for time it was written and because of Monro's position at the time of the writing - Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police.

Monro wrote: "Excluding the unique series of outrages in Whitechapel, - at the non-discovery of the perpetrators of which none grieved more than the Metropolitan Police, - I cannot call to mind half a dozen really serious cases of murder which, within the last five or six years, have remained undetected; and the number of such offences committed is really small."

If David Cohen was Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, surely Monro would have know about it and in this quote he clearly does not. Cohen had been dead for over a year at the time of Monro's writing. Monro's view also tallies with another piece in the Cassells Magazine of the same year, where he told the interviewer that the police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.

my emphasis

Hello Scott,

It is not often we find ourselves in agreement.. but this I certainly DO agree with. Allow me, if I may, to expand upon it a little? This little nugget from Scott has been missed, I feel.

Firstly, Monro says in 1890, that the Whitechapel murders were unsolved.
Secondly, Monro states that the police had nothing positive about the identity of the killer. (clueless)

If Monro, the head honcho, tells everyone in 1890 that HIS POLICE FORCE had no idea (nothing positive) about any single suspect being the killer.. then the entire police force is therefore clueless. I doubt whether any/all the underlings in his police force would know, but Monro wasn't privy to the information his employees had.

Therefore, Abberline, Swanson, Reid, Anderson, Arnold, and I would imagine the City police as well, Griffiths, Smith.. all didn't know in 1890. They were, as Monro puts it, clueless about the killer's identity. The police force, as a whole. None more so than the Met Police, so aggrieved were they.

So whomever Sagar and Co were following in 1888... whomever Det Insp Harry Cox was shadowing.. it doesn't matter.. because in 1890, Monro said that NOBODY qualified. (So if it was Kosminsky being followed... it can't have been him as the suspect of being the Ripper, because in 1890, Monro says they didn't have a clue as to whom, ipso facto, anyone followed wasn't the killer, whatever their name was.)

Moreover, if anybody was locked away, or even better, dead, before 1890...(Cohen, Druitt) then.. err.. they can't be the killer either... the suspect the police (Monro, as head honcho, reperesenting the police) say they didn't have a clue about any identity in 1890.

Moreover, if we go on a little while in time... anyone mentioned of the above, that must be a non-suspect by 1890, then mentioned in 1894 by Sir MM in his memoranda, must be false... because Sir MM is referring backwards in time to 1888, 1889 and 1890 when there was no suspect identifiable. So if one believes Kosminski to having been followed.. or Cohen.. it can't be the Ripper they followed. Ipso Facto.. Sir MM has placed three non suspects in the memoranda.

Moreover, when Sadler was caught, in 1895, the police believed THEN they had caught the Ripper. So that confirms Monro's comment from 1890, and dispells Sir MM's from 1894. The Ripper had not been identified by 1894 either.. goodnight Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog.

Because Sadler wasn't the Ripper after the investigation about him was concluded, one can't then go back in time and say that any of the previously named/followed/dead/locked away/ etc was the Ripper. They are already counted out of the equation... By Monro, in 1890, and by dint of Sadler being suspected of being the Ripper in 1895.

That suspicion of Sadler tells all the truth. No one was the suspect by 1895. And that rules out a locked up Kosminsky, a drowned Doctor called Druitt, A thief called Ostrog, a thug called Le Grande (who gets locked away for a long time in 1890) and anyone at all, infact.

But then again.. clinging on to a favourite suspect is par for the course in Ripperology. Doesn't matter about what Monro said in 1890 about his entire police force knowing nothing, or that they tried to pin the Whitechapel murders on Sadler in 1895. Mustn't let small things like that get in the way of a theory, must we? Perhaps someone will now say that Monro wasn't telling the truth... unlike Anderson of course.. Hahaha

kindly

Phil

[Lechmere]

Phil – I agree in general with your case but Sadler was cleared by 1891 surely?
I think the police found out about most of these ‘suspects’ after the event. In other words after they were locked up or died, their circumstances filtered through and they were logged in the minds of various policemen keen not to have the memory of their careers blighted by being clueless about the most notorious case to have occurred during their career.
Were Aaron Kosminski a serious suspect on his admission to the asylum then I find it impossible to believe that no note, however obliquely, warning of his dangerous potential would be in found in his medical files.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lechmere,

Correct, its late here, 1891 it should be for Sadler.

Re Kosminski.. totally agree.

If, as you surmise, the police found these suspects after the event... then Sir MM, who was referring to the case itself from the time of the murders, is naming three people who according to Monro cannot have been the killer.

Time for bed. Enjoy the evening.


best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

I think you might be merging Sadler in 1891 with Grant in 1895, both English Gentile sailors who were -- apparently -- 'confronted' by a Ripper witness, probably Lawende on both ocassions.

I think what you are saying is correct, about the significance of Monro's comments, except that I have a different take on both Montague Druitt and Aaron Kosminski.

I agree that Macnaghten in his [unknown and obscure?] 'Report' of 1894 does self-servingly redact Druitt and Kosminski back into 1888, and 1889, and that he knew it was not true.

The alternate version of this 'Home Office Report', communicated to Griffiths and Sims and by them to the public, in 1898 and the years subsequent, also performs this sleight of hand -- in fact pushes even harder -- for those suspects to be thought of as contemporaneous to the 1888/9 investigation.

Whether intentionally, or not, Anderson's memoirs also give this impression as does the Swanson Marginalia (partly I think because Kelly and Coles, both young, pretty and both the 'final' victim, were confused and fused together in fading memories).

But as the 1891 'West of England MP' story shows and Macnaghten's 1914 memoirs confirms, Druitt is an entirely posthumous Ripper suspect who did not come to police -- or how about just Mac's -- attention until 'some years after he committed suicide.

The same could be true of Kosminski.

Had Martin Fido known, as he could not have known in 1987, that police agitation over the Coles murder in 1891 strongly indicates that they did not have a top suspect, let alone a suspect who had been positively identified, he would have started his asylum search from the other direction.

From, say, 1894 and the archived version of the Macnaghten 'Report', or at least 1893, and worked backwards towards 1888. Thus Aaron Kosminski, the figure presumably behind the semi-fictional 'Kosminski', would be found where we would expect him to be: sectioned in 1891 just before the Coles murder, although incriminating information -- if there were any -- may not have reached senior police until some time after that.

Macnaghten was thus, arguably, not 'six months too late' to be at the Met when two, too-late suspects emerged, and emerged in a way which bypassed other police: a suspect who had been dead for several years, and a suspect who had just been 'safely caged' after being out and about, apparently harmless, for several years. It is the excruciating embarrassment over the timing of when these two suspects became known that Mac buried in in his Report(s) as they were so late and totally beyond the reach of the law.

That's my theory trying to 'square the circle', based on primary and secondary sources:

Sir Melville Macnaghten, 'Days of My Years'
Paul Begg, 'Jack the Ripper--The Facts'
Andrew Spallek, 'The West of England M.P.--Identified' [article]
Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow, 'Jack the Ripper--Scotland Yard Investigates'

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan, Lechmere, all,

I have transferred the discussion over to another thread, here..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=185120#post185120

as to not distract from the title of this thread.


kindly

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm reading a new book on my kindle about a murder case that occurred in the 1990's. I hit a couple of chapters discussing the suspect's medical history and my jaw dropped because it reminded me A LOT of the stuff Rob House wrote about Kozminski in his book. Incidentally, the murder in question was with a knife and the cuts were numerous and severe. I'm only at 23% on the book with my Kindle, but I wanted to post to say that while I've never dismissed Kozminski, I am more willing to consider him as the Ripper since reading Rob's book, and even more so now as I'm beginning to understand Rob's medical points better and seeing them applied by other authors to other cases.

Anyone out there who doesn't have this book yet should get it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Malcolm]

Hey Tom,

Just a few more thoughts to add to yours:

Whether or not one might actually be an "Andersonite" or "Kosminski-ite", Rob's book has so much more to offer than simply being a "suspect-based" book. Although it obviously falls into this category (I prefer Rob's original title Deemed Insane to the one the publisher pushed him into), it goes well beyond the customary pin-the-tail-on-the-Ripper game. This book is not only the best one written yet that concentrates on a single suspect, it ranks right up there with any book on the subject. The plight of Aaron Kosminski (or Kozminski, as Rob prefers) notwithstanding, Rob's work gets real deep into some previously neglected areas, such as the immigrant community, which played such a major part in the overall narrative of "Jack the Ripper". It baffles me that it has received such little attention. That, of course, has much to do with the generally accepted characterizations of Robert Anderson and his "theory", which, to my mind, have been grossly distorted- and I'm not talking here about SPE, who seems to truly believe Anderson was wrong (and who has given us much food for thought to plant the seeds of doubt), but the parade of blow-hards who fill paragraph upon paragraph with the same ignorant drivel about "wish-dreams", etc. It's a shame that Ripperology has been driven so far away from Anderson and "his" "suspect", because despite the damage control efforts by his contemporaries, it is simply stupid to dismiss the nebulous "definitely ascertained fact", whether it was ever actually "definitely ascertained" or not. Of course it seems utterly pointless to engage the "anti-Anderson" cult (we've been over the arguments ad-nauseum) because it seems like the queue continues to grow, all armed with bigger and bigger bags of feathers with which they use to attempt to pummel the hapless Sir Robert. But bags of feathers are their only weapons, no matter how bulky. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, if one is truly interested in the Whitechapel murders, take Tom's advice (because I'm well prejudiced) and read this book, if you haven't already.

[Jonathan H]

To John Malcolm

Yes, I know just how you feel.

I have sometimes the same problem defending Macnaghten and his preferred suspect, though at least you have people who agree with you and a recent text.

I would urge anybody serious about history, and this subject, to get Rob's book and make up their own minds, as I agree that it it elegantly written, and has excellent primary-sourced research on the Jewish immigrant aspect of the Victorian era.

Just a couple of points of dissent:

1. There is no such thing as a 'suspect book', just books on Jack the Ripper.

If you think that a particular individual [probably] was the killer, and that this was known at the time then what you are writing is a book explaining why people mistakebly think, today, it is an unsolved mystery.

2. Rob's book will mislead the lay-reader into thinking that there is a compelling consensus among the significant primary and secondary sources that Aaron Kosminski was a very strong police suspect -- if not the strongest.

To make this work you have to narrowly exploit a number of sources from that era (eg. Macnaghten, Griffiths, Sims) while burying right at the back that major contemporary writers, Evans and Rumbelow -- whom you quote wheh they agree -- actually do not fundamentally agree with you.

I don't mean that this is all done in a deceitful sense, not at all. Bias can be so strong that it infuses what we write to point that we cannot see it (some people have argued that this flaw describes my own articcles to a tee) and we end up with an airless polemic; with a stacked deck.

(A rich source such as 'Jack the Ripper--The Facts' is so invaluable because Begg itchily considers the sources from this angle, and then that angle. and though the work also argues for the primacy of Anderson as the source on this subject, I was inspired to come to a different conclusion -- rightly or wrongly, eg. Mac was a very distiguished officer, whose Ripper prognostications might be better taken not so literally?).

Are those two points above facts?

No, they are opinions -- and both are minority ones.

I also think that strong historical arguments can be mounted for both Druitt and Tumblety too as they also had police advocates in Macnaghten and Littlechild -- and who, in the former's case, was just as certain.

[John Malcolm]

Jonathan,

Not much to disagree with you about here. I'm not sure complete objectivity is possible when getting into the Whitechapel murders, as the gaping holes in the information we have make it virtually impossible not to speculate...I'm certainly guilty of having strong opinions and, unfortunately, it's very easy to get (unnecessarily) defensive which is often reflected in my posts. Sometimes I get a little too worked-up. I thought I had reached the point of being able to agree to disagree on the most contentious issues, but I guess I'm not quite there yet.

John

[Jonathan H]

But John you are being agreeable (agreeing to disagree, or agree) in that previous post.

Let me self-reflect on my limitations as you just did:

An example of potential bias about myself is that I severely criticise Rob House for being so polemical in his work -- which people need to make up their own mind about -- and yet, hypocritically, I priase Tom Cullen (1965) for doing exactly the same thing.

In fact Cullen does it even worse, shamelessly manipulating the limited data to make it seem as if nearly all the police knew it was Druitt.

But then this American hustler and spellbinding wordsmith, was a leftist and so am I, and so there you have another layer of prejudice, arguably, fitting hand-in-glove.

[Tom_Wescott]

Two of the smartest Ripperologists ever...and me, the sexiest.

Hi John and Jonathan. I completely agree with John's post and partially agree with Jonathan.

Firstly, JH, you shouldn't apologize for being a fan of Tom Cullen, as writers from Oklahoma named Tom are typically at the top of their field. I also COMPLETELY AGREE 100% that there are just Ripper books. Saying 'suspect book' like it's a dirty word is a pet peeve of mine and unfair to many writers, including myself, as I am currently writing the suspect book to end them all. Oops... I mean Ripper book.

Was Rob's book biased? Of course it was! He chose a suspect (Kozminski) and explored the case from that angle, which our field sorely needed and which was long overdue. Stewart did this with Tumblety, and wasn't he correct to do so? The point of these books is to take a suspect and place them into the frame and review the evidence by the lens they throw on it. In the case of legit suspects such as the Tumster, Koz, and Druitt, this is a crucial exercise. I thought Rob maintained a rather balanced approach overall and a lot of his material (such as the medical stuff, or background to Poland, etc) COULD have been very boring, but in his hands, made for excellent reading.

John Malcolm, arguably one of the most intelligent and irreverent writers in Ripper world, put out a little gem a number of years back which I have on my shelf. I didn't get it at first. I thought it was pompous masturbation, to be honest. But certain things in the book stuck in my head and kept revisiting me, in a way that only happens with the best of writers. Now I get it...almost. What the world needs now is a 400 or 500 page tome from Malcolm and the same from Hainsworth. They would piss everyone off, they would make people think, and would get us talking again.

We've been the 'next generation' of Ripperology for a decade, but the old guard aren't publishing any more. That means we've become the NOW generation of Ripperology. The present AND the future, so I say it's time we kick it in the ass.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Hi Tom,

Might I ask what book you are reading on your kindle, and about what murder case from the 1990s?

Thanks

Rob H

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

I look forward to your book very much.

I look forward to finishing mine even more ...!

The best argument, I think, against Mac-Druitt, which could knock them out of contention for say a Le Grand -- eg. a suspect perhaps unknown to the police of that era -- is the 1913 Littlechild letter to Sims.

The retired chief is arguably pulling back the veil not on Druitt, about whom he knows nothing, but about the real engine of the alleged hunt for a suicidal doctor in 1888: Tumblety.

That Mac engaged in propaganda from start to finish, driven by one single mission: to bury Dr. Tumblety. He took three minor, minor suspects and sexed them up for public consumption.

I just think a book on an infamous mystery should consider alternate theories for the reader, and try and show how they are, arguably, not as compelling as the one you are proposing.

It is up to the reader to make up their own minds.