Thread: Another thought
View Single Post
Old 03-31-2012, 10:51 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329


We do not entirely disagree.

I was probably too convoluted, sorry.

I am saying that the Swanson Marginalia is authentic but unreliable, or rather reliably repeating Anderson's memory mish-mash. So we disagree on this aspect.

On the other hand, I do not think that 'Kosminski' -- as in Aaron Kosminski -- was ever the subject of an affirmative (or negative) witness confrontation, at the Seaside Home or anywhere else.

So we agree on that aspect, and for the same reason.

Such an extraordinary tale would be well known, would leak like a sieve. Even if other police did not think it was such a clincher, they would at least know about it.

In 1988 I was at a party and had forgotten to set my video to record the Peter Ustinov program on the Ripper. So I was trying to catch it, in fragments on a television, over the music and dancing and kissing, and the like.

I knew the Royal stuff was a modern hoax and so none of that caused me bother.

Later I caught the Druitt bit, and was aghast to discover that the 'police' had made so many glaring errors about this 'suspect'. It made no sense? How could they be so incompetent?

Then later I caught the jaw-dropping bit about a Jewish witness who said, yes, this man is the Ripper but subsequently refused to testify against a poor, mad, Jew! They even showed a sketch of the bearded suspect falling to the ground, with his hands tied behind his back and surrounded by cops.

Or, so my memory tells me.

But I just thought, I must be missing so much of this program as this can't be right?!

For if the 'police' had such an awesome witness and a prime suspect -- in custody -- who knew he had been identified, then it's not a mystery.

How on earth did the doctor, who is really a barrister, get roped into it all ...?

A generation later I still have the same reaction to Anderson's 1910 version of the story (except for the already sectioned bit in the mag) that it would not be possible to keep this a secret, not from senior police. Not from Macnaghten for a start. Whether others agreed with the witness' veracity, it would still be the most famous story of the whole saga.

I think Anderson was right. It's not a mystery. It's just that he had the wrong deceased prime suspect (his was not even dead!)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote