Ripperologist 111

[DVV]

Hi Norma,

Frankly spoken, I enjoyed Jonathan's article, although just like you I disagree with its conclusion.
It's well written, especially the part in which Swanson and Anderson have tea together. Wonderful section!
But that wouldn't prevent me to see a serious flaw : ie "from Anderson to Swanson" - as if Swanson could be completely ignorant of Kosminski in 1910 (unless I've misunderstood).
That Anderson has mixed and confused some cases (Sadler, Miller's Court, Grainger) and that that would, lastly, enforce his theory is something I can't buy either...

But I admire the change of strategy, as I said : defusing critics re Anderson's personality with a merciless portrait, and keeping, at the same time, Kosminski on the top of the list.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

I just got finished last night reading Hainsworth's Druitt essay from some issues back and was confused by the conclusion. He developed a strong case for not taking Druitt too seriously, but concluding that he is a viable suspect? He also missed a couple of points that I felt should have been obvious, but overall I thought it was a very good work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sbfightfan]

Ripperoligist in print form

I'm glad Ripperoligist is going to be available in print form.I don't own a laptop and like reading in bed.Anyone know if past issues from #62 to present will be reproduced in print form?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi SB, I too like reading in bed, so lately I've taken to printing off (at work) the articles I want to read. The print issues will be quite expensive, I imagine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi SB, I too like reading in bed, so lately I've taken to printing off (at work) the articles I want to read. The print issues will be quite expensive, I imagine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Adam Wood can correct me here but I believe the print issues will be reasonably priced. My understanding is that the physical issues will be printed using print-on-demand technology. So in other words the price would not be jacked up because we are having to warehouse the printed copies or paying a distributor, etc, etc.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris, thanks for that. The reason I thought they'd be pricey is that Rip is often around 100 pages or more, which would put the cost at roughly about $15 or so per issue, if a service like Lulu.com is used. At least that's what I've paid for similar print-on-demand journals, like the Lizzie Borden mag, 'The Hatchet'. Very good quality, though.

I've rather come around to the digital format, though, because it's word-searchable. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, and I must say that Rip has improved considerably since its more restrictive print days. For instance, an excellent essay like Gavin Bromley's 50 page 'Mrs. Kuer's Lodger', would not have been feasible in a 60 page print mag. And some of the wonderful large illustrations, such as Luukanen's Mitre Square work, would not translate as well in print. However, I love the idea of compilation books by topic. I would buy those in print AND digital format.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To DVV and Norma

Thanks for your kind words about my 'Art of War' strategy, though the article was meant sincerely.

Nevertheless, I think upon reflection that the significant flaw in what I argued is that there is the complete lack of a bridging source which actually shows that Anderson knew, originally, that Kosminski was out and about for two years, before -- nearly a generation later -- his memory crumbled and redacted this suspect right inside 1888.

Therefore, a strong counter-argument is that 'Kosminski' began entirely with an unofficial investigation by Macnaghten -- who utterly rejected him in favour of, of all people, a fellow English gentleman. Mac, as Sims in 1907 shows, did indeed know that this lunatic was at large for a considerable length of time after the Kelly atrocity, and also knew that he was never the subject of a witness id.

I think that Swanson knew about Kosminski in 1891, but also knew that there problems with him being the Ripper. He did not realize, fifteen years later. that Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, of his article and memoirs, was meant to be the same suspect until, I postulate, he asked for a fuller explanation in 1910 -- and was amused and perplexed by the mishmash Anderson told him, which Swanson quickly scribbled down otherwise he'd have forgotten.

To Tom

Thanks for your positive words. I am sorry my Druitt article [Which one? I wrote three on this subject for 'Ripperologist' and the final was the best] failed with you because it was trying to show that a strong historical argument can be mounted for this this suspect to have been the Ripper.

I must ask what you think I missed about Druitt? No doubt lots.

And no, I'm not very popular.

In fact I'm loathed in certain quarters.

My students [I'm an History teacher] found this very amusing, and loved showing me the latest 'white-anting' post, and so on. That's why I started writing again, partly due to a fun bet which I won within a matter of hours, yet also to show these adolescent cynics that, all along, there has been a number of people on Casebook -- like yourself -- who have welcomed me as a serious researcher, with something worthwhile to contribute, despite being an admittedly anachronistic Druittist-Cullenite throwback.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Jonathan,
I thought your article was very thoughtful actually and tried to make sense of a very confusing rigmarole and set of personages.
Kosminski himself is a bit of a rigmarole too,what with being described as not a danger to others for thirty years and having no police record whatever unless you count walking a dog in Cheapside in November 1889 "without a muzzle" to qualify as a police record!
My own interpretation of the Anderson/Swanson events leans more and more to the meandering recollections of two gentlemen of note,the one intent on inserting a plausible and colourful little cameo in an autobiography otherwise given over largely to how Anderson and his informers defeated the Irish colonial struggle for Independence, the other gentleman,deeply muddled by what he was reading and possibly trying to clarify his understanding by writing in margins and end notes to console himself in case his memory was failing him,
Best
Norma

[The Grave Maurice]

I just don't know, Norma. What you, and others, say makes sense. On the other hand, Swanson and Anderson (at least after October 6th) were the only two senior police officers who saw all the evidence connected to the case. I too have problems with Kosminski; but, given their united opinion, he has to remain near the top of the suspect list.

[Jonathan H]

Norma,

Yes that is a strong argument.

I would add my own view that regarding Macnaghten we may be dealing with somebody quite different in knowledge, character, intent and political-media skills from Anderson [or Swanson for that matter]. Personally, I think the self-styled Etonian Super-Cop is the Cheshire Cat of the whole mystery, one who leaves behind not much more than a charming smile perched above his now-you-see-it and now-you-don't contradictory fragments.

In particular, his 1914 memoirs fly in the face of the expected bias and admit an embarrassing truth which perfectly dovetails with the timing of the Sadler debacle and the West of England MP story, both 1891; that the official investigation took over two years because Scotland Yard did not know the fiend had topped himself -- and he only did that because he imploded, not because of the police hunt.

If you have not read 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' recently then I urge you to give Mac memoirs another look. If you can view them fresh, and block off all the conventional wisdom about them, they are a revelation. Plus the cagey preface where the Ripper turns up too, juxtaposed right next to being a cricket champion [in his nostalgic chapter on Eton, Mac never gives credence to the claim that he was disappointed at being passed over for the elite team].

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
I suspect Macnaghten was trying to be vague and mysterious to draw a veil over his porkies .
But seriously I am interested in your line of thought here and intend getting his book out again to check it all out afresh.
Thanks for that,
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan,

If you're not popular with everyone, then you must be doing something right! I do need to re-read your most recent Druitt piece, because for most of it I got the impression you were building an argument for Druitt not having been a very strong suspect. Same with Kosminski.
Have you read Thomas Toughill's book, 'The Ripper Code'? A totally nutty theory and the Ripper sections were clearly written in the 1980's, but he did do some original Druitt research that further suggests homosexuality on Druitt's part. I wonder if Druitt did not have an affair with Mr Valentine (who was close to his own age), as opposed to the children? He also draws attention to the fact that Macnaghten, a big theater fan, was neighbors and likely friends with Oscar Wilde, and points to a Wilde play, as well as Dorian Gray, as containing Ripper references that suggest Wilde had knowledge of the memoranda suspects. Strangley, Toughhill suggests that it was Wilde who suggested Michael Ostrog to Macnaghten, whereas if there's any truth to it at all, it would be the opposite.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Nice to see Anderson's enterprising journalist making a further appearance in Macnaghten's preface.

He sure was a busy chap.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Natalie,

I am not sure how many times I have to say certain things before you will either respond, or stop posting things that are clearly wrong.

You keep saying (over and over and over) things like "what with being described as not a danger to others for thirty years." There is no evidence at all that he was described as "not a danger to others for thirty years." I have pointed out to you before that:

a) we do not have 30 years of documents for Kozminski. We have only 12 years. There are no records for Kozminski from Leavesden from 1894-1910.
b). The statement about not being a danger to others was entered on ONE OCCASION. That being his committal order. It was then COPIED FROM THE COMMITTAL ORDER (like everything else) into the Asylum Record.
c) Furthermore, this was simply a standard question on the committal form, and in all likelihood, it was probably simply answered by Aaron's family members... in other words, they were probably asked "Is he dangerous" to which his brother answered "No." End of story. In your mind this has somehow evolved into his "being described as not a danger to others for thirty years"

I am aware that you are going to trot out the old "it was let stand unaltered" argument... but that is neither here nor there. Moreover, NOT writing that he is dangerous is not the same as specifically writing that "Hei is harmless" as you keep saying. In addition, as has been pointed out countless times, many many serial killers are completely non-violent when placed in prison or otherwise incarcerated. Moreover, there is one noted incidence of violence in Kozminski's certification and another in his asylum records.

Next, you say this: "If Kosminski was Jack the Ripper he would not have been left in Colney Hatch and Leavesdon for thirty years.He would have been quietly taken to Broadmoor."

This is another of your points I have addressed before. To be committed to Broadmoor, a person had to be shown to be guilty of committing a crime. The Police (as Anderson himself says) had no hard evidence against Kozminski. Therefore, they had no legal recourse... there was absolutely nothing the police could do, legally speaking. And in fact Anderson said that if they did have evidence, the suspect would have been committed to Broadmoor... but they didn't, so he wasn't.

RH

[DVV]

Hi Jonathan,

sorry for the "Art of Strategy kind words", I was (unduly?) considering your article as an updated version of Kosminski's candidacy. Of course you are sincere and the article is brilliant, no question.

You demonstrate that Anderson was both confused about events, and a sort of mind that would never accept being proven wrong.
And the way you view the marginalia (after the teatime interview, wonderful piece of literature here, btw) is hardly a support of Anderson's solution.

But then you conclude that Kosminski is still the best suspect in the case.
For what reason ?
I myself cannot see any.

Amitiés,
David