Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wouldn't Anderson Have Been Informed of Kosminski's Death?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    Sorry yes I could have made that clearer. Woolfe and his family were living in Providence street that is next to Berner Street. They pulled their daughter out of school in October 1888. As she was not registered in a school for the next 6 months its hard to know what happened. However Woolfe was living in Yalford street by feb/march 1889 as they had a baby that died there..Maybe the daughter was taken out to help her mum at home...

    Pat......goodnight !
    That was a truly great article in Ripperologist 128 in 2012 by you and Chris Phillips... great research you have done in the past... sleep well...

    Comment


    • #62
      "At the same time, it is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have added his thoughts without saying something like: "but, I wasn't convinced because...." in the event he wasn't convinced with Anderson's conclusion."

      Hello Mac,

      I am not so sure on this. If Swanson was unconvinced of K's guilt, why would he commit to paper something he already knew, i.e., his own views?

      In reading the marginalia it seems like Swanson was trying to refresh his memory for whatever purpose perhaps intending to respond in full at some future point.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #63
        S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)

        In reading the marginalia it seems like Swanson was trying to refresh his memory for whatever purpose perhaps intending to respond in full at some future point.
        I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...

        Pat.......................

        Comment


        • #64
          Even if Anderson and Swanson shared the same view it doesn't necessarily mean that they held it with equal conviction. In other words, Anderson might have absolutely believed that Kosminski was the Ripper so much so that he was willing to wager the souls of his children on it whereas Swanson simply believed him to be a good suspect.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Paddy View Post
            S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)



            I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...

            Pat.......................


            Hi Pat

            just had a reread of the article, and yes it is very, very good, certainly with the possible placements of home addresses for the Family.

            I am convinced that what Swanson wrote was a truthful account from his point of view.
            I tend to go with the view that he agrees with Anderson, and is adding information, not merely supporting it.

            However one must conceded the view you make is also entirely possible


            regards

            Steve

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Surely Kosminski's death would have been reported to him. Now I know that Anderson's memoirs were written some twenty years after the fact but wouldn't you expect him to remember Kosminski's death so soon after his incarceration (if this were in fact the case) along with the accompanying frustration that further information regarding the murders was now now lost to them? It just seems very strange that he got so significant an event wrong if indeed the suspect was truly Aaron Kosminski.
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              So instead of being told that Kosminski had died, Anderson was simply told that "X" had died. Now since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration I would think that a one or two year period should cover "shortly." The point being that you would think that the Ripper dying shortly after being incarcerated is something that he would remember even twenty years down the road and not get his facts wrong on this point.
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Which is why I think if what Anderson said took place was true that he would have remembered the date of "X's" death as significant.
              since Anderson states that X's death occurred shortly after incarceration
              Robert Anderson's memoir doesn't say anything at all about his suspect's death. Aaron Kosminski outlived Anderson.

              Comment


              • #67
                To Fisherman

                I can see what you mean, and that might be correct, but I think because of the reported comment by Swanson in 1895 -- about the Ripper likely being a deceased man -- that this was a solution with which he concurred.

                On the other hand Swanson may have been wholly dependent on the opinion of his revered chief, Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.

                The reason Anderson did not contact Colney Hatch, in 1895, was because "Kosminski" had [supposedly] been dead for nearly six years. In a private bit of revenge Macnaghten had misled Anderson, whom, being a repressed Victorian fundamentalist, pounced on the detail about "self-abuse".

                Something else to consider is that George Sims knows in 1910 about the suspect contents of Macnaghten's filed report, and writes in his regular column about it -- and absolutely denies that any Jewish people assisted this suspect to evade justice. He even uses Anderson's phrase about "definitely ascertained facts" but that such an assertion by the retired chief goes beyond the facts.

                The existence of this version of a Ripper report would not be referred to again until Robin Odell revealed the suspect's contents in the revised edition of his fine book in 1966 ("Jack the Ripper - In Fact and Fiction").

                Therefore questioning the veracity of Anderson's solution is not just a modern examination. Major Smith denied the credibility of the solution at the time, as did Abberline -- and so did Macnaghten, by then Assistant Commissioner, via his literary proxy Sims.

                Textual evidence that "Kosminski" emerged originally from Macnaghten is that the former first enters the extant record in the latter's 1894 report(s) and Mac's abbreviation to just the surname is exactly how Swanson will write the alleged killer's name in his copy of his boss' memoirs in 1910, or thereabouts.

                Comment


                • #68
                  It is theorized that Anderson believed, just like Swanson in 1895 and 1910, that his Ripper was deceased -- because of the biography written about him by his son:

                  "Sir Robert Anderson and Lady Agnes Anderson" by Arthur Posonby Moore-Anderson, 1947

                  From Chapter IV:

                  "... The criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent kind living in the immediate vicinity. The police reached the conclusion that he and his people were aliens of a certain low type, that the latter knew of the crimes but would not give him up. Two clues which might have led to an arrest were destroyed before the C.I.D. had a chance of seeing them, one a clay pipe, the other some writing with chalk on a wall. Scotland Yard, however, had no doubt that the criminal was eventually found. The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum."

                  The clay pipe detail is hopelessly wrong (a mistaken memory fusion of the Kelly and McKenzie murders, neither of which produced a pipe of anything like the significance Anderson gives it) and so is the alleged killer being long dead.

                  Why not the detail about the witness being wrong too?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
                    Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.
                    Was Anderson aware Macnaghten hated him? The one he was wholly dependent on.

                    Paddy

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      To Paddy

                      Hard to tell, I would guess not -- because the son writes about his father relying on Macnaghten and this professional relationship is characterized quite benignly (and blandly).

                      The two police chiefs were certainly polar opposites in background, temperament and personality, and this time opposites apparently did not attract. Their memoirs reveal a "cold war" between the pair, and their Checkpoint Charlie is "Jack the Ripper".

                      Dr. Robert Anderson was hard-working, tertiary educated and an incorruptible civil servant. He was also a humorless egotist and a sectarian crank (who believed that Christ's return was imminent). Born to the elite Melville Macnaghten, by contrast, was a charming smoothie, a fanatical Old Etonian, an ex-Indian overseer, a true crime aficionado, a toff who enjoyed the company of working men, an, despite his desk-job saw himself as a roving sleuth (and between 1889 and 1891 was frequently down in the East End trying to catch the Ripper, not realizing that he was long in his grave).

                      I think we see definite glimpses of the enmity felt by the younger, more modern and affable man towards the older, stuffier, Victorian hold-over.

                      For example, in Anderson's 1910 memoir, in which the colleague he worked with for twelve years, Macnaghten, is never mentioned by name, he makes a reference to a Scotland Yard figure who supposedly made an embarrassing "fuss" over a threatening note -- in effect Anderson is accusing the man of acting like a coward. Yet in a very passive-aggressive way Anderson claims to be admitting his own error: he burned the note, but then the same lunatic nearly shot Prime Minister Gladstone. Anderson writes he should not have burned the note, but his colleague's fear was so distracting he made this error. Swanson's annotation identifies this top cop as being none other than Macnaghten, an upper crust gentleman who styled himself as "a man of action".

                      More likely is that Macnaghten tried to bring to the attention of his boss evidence of a dangerous lunatic, but Anderson dismissed it. This colossal error of judgment nearly led to the decapitation of the national government. Rather than really take responsibility, he shifted the blame to his allegedly nerves-of-jelly subordinate.

                      It is an appallingly bitchy and unpersuasive bit of slander against an English gentleman, albeit "Good Old Mac" is not named. Nevertheless Macnaghten took his revenge, I think, in two ways.

                      In 1910 he had his close pal Sims (as Dagonet) inform his enormous readership that Anderson did not know, for certain, the true identity of the Ripper -- and, just to sink the boot in, was unfairly picking on Hebrews.

                      Secondly Macnaghten's own memoirs of 1914 -- which likewise do not mention Anderson at all, though he gushingly praises Williamson, Abberline, Monro, Swanson, Littlechild, et al. -- subtly refute Anderson and his Ripper solution.

                      According to Macnaghten's "Days of My Years" the likeliest Whitechapel suspect had never been in an asylum, was maybe seen by just one witness (a Bobbie, but his description was useless) and Scotland Yard did not know about this man until "some years after" he had killed himself, -- they, as in Anderson, had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom. Macnaghten does not even concede that a Polish immigrant had ever been a suspect of significance.

                      Furthermore Macnaghten devotes a chapter to the Adolf Beck case of the mid-1900's in which multiple witnesses had mistakenly picked out the wrong man and sent him to prison for the crimes of another (Mac, perhaps too generously, takes the lion's share of the credit for getting Beck cleared). The pertinent point is Macnaghten says that eyewitness evidence, by itself, is notoriously unreliable. An outraged Jewish critic of Anderson had made the same point to the retired chief during the imbroglio his memoirs caused in 1910, and he too cited the Beck debacle.

                      I think another glimpse is that Macnaghten knows that "Kosminski" is not deceased (that was Druitt) and yet Anderson (and Swanson) think he was. This disinformation can only come from Mac misleading a boss he neither liked nor trusted (did not trust to be discreet, that is, and if it was in 1895, when Anderson first learned about the Polish suspect as the likeliest Ripper, he was telling people about "his" solution; people like Major Griffiths).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
                        To Fisherman

                        I can see what you mean, and that might be correct, but I think because of the reported comment by Swanson in 1895 -- about the Ripper likely being a deceased man -- that this was a solution with which he concurred.

                        On the other hand Swanson may have been wholly dependent on the opinion of his revered chief, Anderson, and he in turn was wholly dependent on the information supplied by his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten -- who hated his conceited, pious boss.

                        The reason Anderson did not contact Colney Hatch, in 1895, was because "Kosminski" had [supposedly] been dead for nearly six years. In a private bit of revenge Macnaghten had misled Anderson, whom, being a repressed Victorian fundamentalist, pounced on the detail about "self-abuse".

                        Something else to consider is that George Sims knows in 1910 about the suspect contents of Macnaghten's filed report, and writes in his regular column about it -- and absolutely denies that any Jewish people assisted this suspect to evade justice. He even uses Anderson's phrase about "definitely ascertained facts" but that such an assertion by the retired chief goes beyond the facts.

                        The existence of this version of a Ripper report would not be referred to again until Robin Odell revealed the suspect's contents in the revised edition of his fine book in 1966 ("Jack the Ripper - In Fact and Fiction").

                        Therefore questioning the veracity of Anderson's solution is not just a modern examination. Major Smith denied the credibility of the solution at the time, as did Abberline -- and so did Macnaghten, by then Assistant Commissioner, via his literary proxy Sims.

                        Textual evidence that "Kosminski" emerged originally from Macnaghten is that the former first enters the extant record in the latter's 1894 report(s) and Mac's abbreviation to just the surname is exactly how Swanson will write the alleged killer's name in his copy of his boss' memoirs in 1910, or thereabouts.
                        Well, Jonathan, if nothing else, your post goes to show how multifaceted this errand is, and how many interpretations can be made. Whether Kosminski was a good suspect or not and whether there was a genuine belief in his guilt hinges on a good many things.

                        I take your comment on the 1895 statement by Swanson, but will add that the "likely" seems less aimed at the killer being deceased than his being the killer. The exact wording was, I believe, that Swanson "believed" the killer to be dead, but that amounts to the same: no certainty.

                        Plus, of course, as always - Aaron Kosminski was definitely not dead at this stage.

                        Around we go.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-29-2016, 11:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Hi Pat!

                          Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                          S Brett, Thank you very much (How can one go wrong with Chris)
                          It appears that the family of Woolf Abrahams was not the only family branch that lived near Dutfields Yard. More than a half year ago there was a discussion on JTRForums and Chris Phillips wrote that it would have been possible that Israel Lubnowski was living 23 Batty Gardens (behind Dutfields Yard) at that time. This address comes from a record of the London Hospital. Marie Lobonoffski, most probably a daughter of Israel Lubnowski, was a patient there from April to May 1887. 1891 we find Israel Lubnowski, a Rabbi Minister (brother of Morris Lubnowski, the husband of Aaron Kozminski´s sister Matilda), 6 Yalford Street, the same street (34 Yalford Street) where Woolf Abrahams was living between 1889 and 1890, if not earlier. Perhaps both men, Woolf Abrahams and Israel Lubnowski, left their streets near Dutfields Yard after the Double Event when the police had arrested the man who dropped off the bloody shirts. Mrs. Kuer (Batty Street "Lodger") said the man who dropped off the clothes was a ladies tailor working for a West end house. This might have been Isaac Abrahams, the freemason. In October 1888, you know, there were press reports about a man, inmate of an East End Infirmary, who was shadowed. Other newspapers have reported about a who man was shadowed but did not leave his house anymore. Aaron Kozminski? In October 1888 no murder took place. I remember your great grandfather´s brother Henry Cox who stated:

                          "It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased"

                          Was this madman put under observation two times, after the Double Event and after the Kelly murder?

                          Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                          I have the impression that Swanson was just adding explanation to Andersons statements, but not giving his own point of view...
                          My impression is that Swanson was the first who received the information about Kosminski´s "death"! Lady Anderson (wife of Sir Robert Anderson) once remarked that the Ripper was interned in an asylum near Stone. His son Arthur Anderson, via his father, stated: the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he had died in an asylum! It is hard to imagine that Anderson was not sure whether Kosminski died in Stone or Colney Hatch. It is possible that Anderson was telling certain people:

                          "he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Stone, Kent and I believe he died there"

                          Maybe Swanson had the idea to send his copy to Anderson, with all this remarks. Remarks like:

                          "he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards"

                          or:

                          "...because the suspect was also a Jew"

                          Did Anderson not entirely realize that the witness was a Jew? Did his name not sound Jewish? On this thread I gave the example of Frank Ruffell a carman (witness in the Farmer case).

                          Oldbailey 1885 shows:

                          THOMAS HALEY (22) and FRANK RUFFELL , Robbery with violence with another person unknown on James Carey, and stealing a watch, a chain, and seal, his property.

                          “AMELIA RUFFELL . I am a Dutch Jewess and Ruffell's mother—I am a widow—I live at 10, Wine Court, Whitechapel—on 24th September Ruffell had been selling grapes at the corner of Baker's Row—I brought him his dinner at 4 o'clock.”

                          Via Worldvitalrecords you can see a Francis Ruffell, Carman, in 1891.

                          I don´t know if Oldbailey´s Frank Ruffel is identical with Frank Ruffell (Carman 1888/Farmer) and/or Francis Ruffell (a Carman in 1891) but Ruffell sounds not Jewish to me. But the maiden name of his mother might have been Abrahams, Cohen, Levy, Lewis, Solomon, Goldstein etc.

                          This is my idea of the Seaside Home witness, young, his mother widowed, both living in Whitechapel, Jewish but the name Ruffell, I´m not sure, of a Scandinavian origin. I must confess I really do not know it but I think in the Netherlands it was possible to marry a man or woman who were not Jewish. In the case of Ruffell it would be possible that his father was not born Jewish.

                          However, pure speculation.

                          Karsten.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            It appears that the family of Woolf Abrahams was not the only family branch that lived near Dutfields Yard
                            Hi Karsten I did read on a very blurred newspaper article (find my past) that When Aarons' sister came to Whitechapel she had many relations here.

                            I am sure there are more cousins around...

                            Pat......

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Thanks Pat!

                              As might be expected... can I see the newspaper on findmypast without being logged in?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                As might be expected... can I see the newspaper on findmypast without being logged in?
                                Dont think you can see the whole lot maybe just a snippet but I still think you would have to register to search. Unfortunately it didn't name the relations just said she had many.

                                Pat...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X