|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:36 am: |       |
Glenn,
I completely agree with you.
Adam,
I am sure that Kosminski has his problem as a suspect (but there is no suspect which is totally convincing).
However, my point is that Kosminski is more than a name on Macnaghten's memoranda. He was strongly suspected by several police officials, he was identified by a witness (who? I do not know but you cannot so easily dismiss the possibility of Levy. Anyway, since it is confirmed by Swanson, we know that is witness is not Anderson's creation). There are several stories (admittedly, there are not all very reliable) that confirm that kosminski was closely watched in 1891.
you wrote:
"And if Kosminski was the Ripper, and contemporary police believed it, why was he able to wander the streets for almost another 3 years before being put into an asylum?"
Because he was probably not suspected before 1891. It does not seem to be a big problem.
We can imagine that his illness was undergoing rapid change from 1885-1891.
Best,
Olivier |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
IMHO:
1. Anyone with an alibi, obviously.
2. Anyone cleared by the police at the time, or looked at in connection with the murders and presumed entirely innocent, and not reconsidered in later years by anyone involved with the case.
3. Anyone who went on to a ripe old age - especially those who had a documented interest in the ripper case. (A serial killer who simply loses interest in killing and mutilating, yet talks to associates about it for years after his retirement from the game? Doesn't sound too plausible to me.)
4. Anyone who had difficulty with the basics of life, and for whom mere survival was an everyday struggle: the extremely poor, physically weak or malnourished; the very feeble-minded and so on - especially if they didn't even share the same ethnic background as the victims.
5. Anyone too tall, too flamboyant, or too busy thinking about interfering with young men - especially if they went on to a ripe old age.
I think that probably covers it. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 28, 2004) |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Caz,
It is very interesting and very structured. But can you put some names in your categories. You have some ideas in mind, I suppose.
Best,
Olivier |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Oliver, Caz,
i would think that you(Caz) would be implying the following egs, alibi (1) Prince albert victor (he has alibis)
(2) John Pizer.
(3)Sickert
(4) eg Komonski? or perhaps by and so on you mean those dying of drug dependencioes but i digress!
(5) Tumbelty
Caz, would I be right about that????
I would even agree with you on some of them
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Jennifer, Caz,
(1) is very general and may include: Ostrog, Cream, Sickert & Druitt (more questionnable)
(2) there is also Benelius
(3) Of course, Sickert
(4) is more difficult (yes, kosminski)
(5) Of course, Tumbelty
It makes a lot of persons. Who is remaining?
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2532
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
It's possible that Caz could refer to Joseph Barnett in her first (1) point, but I don't know, since he is supposed to have alibi (according to some) for Mary kelly's murder.
But... just my two pence...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
i would think that joesph fits with number two on the list.
though i wouldnt agree with some of the criteria i certainly agree asome of the popel implied, eg sickert, barnett and duke where not tohe ripper
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2538
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Yes, of course, Jenni. I was too fast.
Number two -- that must be Joseph Barnett, among others (although number one could fit as well).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 1:11 am: | |
"Anyone too tall, too flamboyant...'
Caz--a couple of years ago the U.S. had a serial sniper by the name of Malvo. If he had never been caught, he surely would have made the 'ridiculous' list of those discussing the case in the year 2075. He wasn't a local ( he came from 3,000 miles away); he wasn't the single white-male the profilers were looking for (he was black and had a partner); he didn't drive the white van seen at multiple crime scenes by multiple witnesses (he drove a blue sedan). It's only the last point I wish to dwell on. You see, the red-herring was pretty understandable on reflection; Maryland was full of white vans....just like spitalfields and whitechapel were full of 5' 3" chaps that looked like dock laborers.
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 87
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"If you acknowledge that the police opinions were divided, why do you so strongly take Abberline's words for it regarding Chapman, although he apparently only threw it to the papers in order to give them something (he has himself never confirmed this in his own writing, and he also said that he actually didn't know who the killer was more than in 1888)."
"He apparently only threw it to the papers in order to give them something" - where is the proof of this? Why is it apparent?
And if he did only throw him in to give them something, why didn't he say Kosminski instead of Chapman, so he was in agreement with Swanson and Anderson? Or, a suspect that was already dead but known about by 1903 - like Montague Druitt?
"Not that I find Kosminski especially credible (I agree with many of your objections, especially the three year period of running around in the streets), but why should Abberline's words be more credible, seen in the light of your own arguments above? Aren't you contradicting yourself?"
Abberline's words are more credible because he had a first-hand knowledge of everything to do with the case. Swanson only received some of it from Abberline, therefore Abberline knew it first. So no, I'm not contradicting myself, because Abberline, as I've said before, had a knowledge of the case like no other - even Swanson.
"After all, the man with the best overlook on the case was Swanson, not Abberline. Swanson not only worked close with Abberline, he also was the link between Abberline and Anderson. Every piece of paper and all reports had to go through Swanson, so he probably knew more about the over-all information about the case than Abberline did. Abberline certainly didn't have access to all the internal information as Chief Inspector."
But Abberline had to know it first for it to be passed on to Swanson, and subsequently Anderson. What if Abberline missed something? What if he, in his own mind, had come to suspect Klosowski during the murders. He could hardly send a note to Swanson/Anderson and say "I reckon it's Severin Klosowski", could he? Besides that, if he didn't mention Chapman until 1903, during the time he was in prison, then that explains why he didn't say something earlier - Chapman was still alive and wandering the streets, he could find himself in trouble. What better oppurtunity than in 1903, when Chapman was going to get hanged?
Olivier, you wrote:
"However, my point is that Kosminski is more than a name on Macnaghten's memoranda. He was strongly suspected by several police officials, he was identified by a witness (who? I do not know but you cannot so easily dismiss the possibility of Levy. Anyway, since it is confirmed by Swanson, we know that is witness is not Anderson's creation). There are several stories (admittedly, there are not all very reliable) that confirm that kosminski was closely watched in 1891."
Levy? Joseph Hyam Levy you mean?
He is the least likely to have been the witness. Like Harry Harris, he claimed he saw nothing at the time, and more to the point, he ran away while Harris and Lawende were still standing there. If Levy identified him, then I think it would be safe to say that he got it wrong.
As for Swanson, he only confirmed that.."Kosminski was the suspect..." He didn't particularly endorse him, although he does seem to have leant towards him.
"Because he was probably not suspected before 1891. It does not seem to be a big problem.
We can imagine that his illness was undergoing rapid change from 1885-1891."
But it wasn't the police who had him put into an asylum, he was staying with someone else at the time. So that can't be right. And why would it take 3 years to suspect him if they did?
Phil, you wrote:
"As I have said repeatedly, MM is NOT inaccurate in the point he is making, and the memorandum must be read in that light. It was not written as a biography of any of the three men, and thus should not be read in that way."
That's true. But if he couldn't get so much as their ages, professions or situations correct, which takes up probably 40% of the memo on their own, what's to believe about any of the rest of what he says? And the fact that he suspected Ostrog is damaging to it as well. Ostrog is about as likely to have done it as Macnaghten himself. (He'll probably be a suspect now I've said that.)
"Why should the memorandum be described as "infamous". As has been argued here recently, it is one of the key documents for letting us into the detailed thinking of senior policemen at the time. Read in the correct way - ie from the perspective that it was written - MM's words become a treasure trove of information and insight from a priveleged source."
It wasn't really "at the time", he wasn't in the police force until nearly a year after the murders. A treasure trove it may be, and provided us with 3 new suspects, but it is largely inaccurate and, in my opinion, can not be trusted. Druitt and Ostrog have largely been discounted, Kosminski really is the only one with a stronger case against him, and he wasn't Macnaghten's favourite suspect. So where does that leave it?
Just as a side note, that is another reason why I suspect Klosowski/Chapman. Macnaghten largely got it wrong, and Swanson/Anderson, working close together, are likely to agree on a suspect. But it was the man who knew most who suspected Klosowski, and with apparent good reason.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 177
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:49 am: | |
1. Prince Eddy
2. George Hutchinson
3. D'onston
4. Kosminski
5. Tumblety
Is this your list,Caz?.... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2548
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"'He apparently only threw it to the papers in order to give them something' - where is the proof of this? Why is it apparent?"
Because, as I said, he never repeated this in his own writing (while most of the others mentioned a suspect in some way in their internal communication or personal writing; Abberline never did that); it was an interview in a news-paper, not said in an authobiography or in an internal police document. His mentioning of Chapman is only in print in a news-paper!
He also the same year said that the police was not more certain of the Ripper's identity than they were in 1888, which he wouldn't say if he was convinced that Chapman was the Ripper.
You can't just pick out a line that suits you -- you must look at the over-all picture.
"And if he did only throw him in to give them something, why didn't he say Kosminski instead of Chapman, so he was in agreement with Swanson and Anderson? Or, a suspect that was already dead but known about by 1903 - like Montague Druitt?"
Because at that time, Chapman had actuality; he had recently been captured and hanged (or was about to be hung) and was news stuff of the day. Futhermore, one of his own "old" people had been invlved in the man's capture. It is also possible that he really believed in Chapman's guilt at that particular time, but maybe not enough in oder to stress that point any further beyond one news-paper article (and which he never did).
"Abberline's words are more credible because he had a first-hand knowledge of everything to do with the case. Swanson only received some of it from Abberline, therefore Abberline knew it first. So no, I'm not contradicting myself, because Abberline, as I've said before, had a knowledge of the case like no other - even Swanson.
[...]
But Abberline had to know it first for it to be passed on to Swanson, and subsequently Anderson."
No, I believe that's wrong.
As Chief Inspector Abberline had no full control or over-all view of all information that came to the police or went in and out. Swanson had, since he had to report to Anderson -- not only the reports from Abberline, but from other directions and sources as well and he therefore also had knowledge of all internal communication. Abberline would most likely not have that access, and others were probably giving him the information they thought he needed to know.
Abberline was in charge of his own investigation and he worked on the field. But he couldn't be expected to be aware of all the documentation that came in from other directions and to have a complete over-all view of the whole case as Swanson had (after all, this WAS Swanson's specific job!).
I believe you are to an extreme extent exaggerating Abberline's inside knowledge of what occurred outside of his own investigation -- he had no first-hand knowledge of the case, only about the stuff that he himself delivered to the office concerning his own investigation -- not the other way around.
Swanson was the only one with the complete over-all view of the case, and he never ever mentioned Chapman.
"Besides that, if he didn't mention Chapman until 1903, during the time he was in prison, then that explains why he didn't say something earlier - Chapman was still alive and wandering the streets, he could find himself in trouble. What better oppurtunity than in 1903, when Chapman was going to get hanged?"
If Chapman was a contemporary suspect -- which he wasn't -- we should have had at least a note about him in the internal police documentation. The police investigated hundreds of possible and impossible suspects, and they were on a lot of pressure.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 398
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
“Aside from the problem with his mental status at the time for him being a viable suspect, he was also much younger than the average witness description of the Ripper.”
“Age: - Roughly, yes. Klosowski was 23-24 at the times of the murders, the average age for the witnesses was around 30-35. However, even in the photos of Klosowski, he looks older than his age, so that much is excusable.”
You wrote both these quotes. I’m not trying to be a pain in the a** (or ar*e), but I think you can’t just dismiss a point against your favoured suspect - or any for that matter - like you did and then use the same point against another suspect, considering that Kosminski and Klosowski were about the same age. As we don’t have any photo of Kosminski, he may have looked older as well, as far as I’m concerned.
“Finally, he came to light, like Druitt and somewhat Ostrog, thanks to the infamous Macnaghten memorandum. As I've said before, there were numerous errors in the descriptions of all 3 suspects, and Kosminski is no exception. The MM memorandum, which brought to light 2 major suspects in the case, and Ostrog as another possible one, has been proven wrong time and again, yet it was written just 6 years after the murders. How can a case for any suspect be built off it? In my opinion, it can't, and I entirely disbelieve that either Druitt, Kosminski and especially Ostrog were the Ripper.”
Regardless of my opinion (as suspects) on the 3 mentioned by MM, I don’t believe any of the 3 can be discarded as suspects simply because MM’s memorandum contained numerous errors – which is what you seem to be saying. We can’t take Sickert off the suspect list either just because of Cornwell’s book.
All the best,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 400
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Good post, Caz, I like (and agree with) it!
All the best,
Frank |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Because, as I said, he never repeated this in his own writing (while most of the others mentioned a suspect in some way in their internal communication or personal writing; Abberline never did that); it was an interview in a news-paper, not said in an authobiography or in an internal police document. His mentioning of Chapman is only in print in a news-paper!
He also the same year said that the police was not more certain of the Ripper's identity than they were in 1888, which he wouldn't say if he was convinced that Chapman was the Ripper.
You can't just pick out a line that suits you -- you must look at the over-all picture."
That's true, and Abberline never did write an autobiography or anything. But since it was said in a newspaper, is a quote of him, and was backed up by atleast 2 other high ranking and well known policemen later on (Godley/Neil), there is no reason to lessen its value. If the quote of Abberline was got wrong, since he was criticised so much, then surely he would have had something done about it.
Just so you know, Abberline doesn't constitute the whole of Scotland Yard and the police force. Just because he said "Scotland Yard really is no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago" doesn't mean that he himself didn't believe it.
"Because at that time, Chapman had actuality; he had recently been captured and hanged (or was about to be hung) and was news stuff of the day. Futhermore, one of his own "old" people had been invlved in the man's capture. It is also possible that he really believed in Chapman's guilt at that particular time, but maybe not enough in oder to stress that point any further beyond one news-paper article (and which he never did)."
Chapman wasn't the only one who had actuality at the time. Tumblety, for example, was still a red hot coal, and had been ever since he got back to America. He died the month after Chapman was hanged, so what better oppurtunity for Abberline to regain his reputation by saying in June 1903, for example, that because of Chapman's trial, it had helped change some thoughts within him, and the recent death of Tumblety (who was a contemporary suspect) had sparked some memories back into his mind, and actually suspected Tumblety?
Why not? He no longer had a reputation as a policeman to preserve, he had retired. Why care what others thought? Aside from that, Tumblety was a favourite suspect amongst the press on both sides of the Atlantic.
Almost seems an obvious choice to swap from Chapman to Tumblety, doesn't it?
But does he? No.
And why not? Because Chapman was and had for a long time been his favoured suspect. It makes sense.
"As Chief Inspector Abberline had no full control or over-all view of all information that came to the police or went in and out. Swanson had, since he had to report to Anderson -- not only the reports from Abberline, but from other directions and sources as well and he therefore also had knowledge of all internal communication."
But, as I said, Swanson had to get some of the information from Abberline first. If there was a tiny detail, for example, that Abberline had found out, would he have passed it on to Swanson?
Let me give an example.
A man with blood on his face and hands was seen loitering around the murder areas on the night of the double murder. He stumbles, a bloody knife falls out of his jacket, and 2 men walking together see it, and inform the police. Upon a quick check, it was found that he was a butcher who worked a late shift, and was not near the murder sites at the exact time of their happenings.
Now, would it be necessary to report something like that to Swanson, if it was quickly disproved, and if so, why? I'm just curious about the level of what had to be passed on or what wasn't necessary. Obviously not every tiny detail could be passed on at the same time as trying to run an investigation.
"I believe you are to an extreme extent exaggerating Abberline's inside knowledge of what occurred outside of his own investigation -- he had no first-hand knowledge of the case, only about the stuff that he himself delivered to the office concerning his own investigation -- not the other way around.
Swanson was the only one with the complete over-all view of the case, and he never ever mentioned Chapman."
Mentioned Chapman he may not have done, but as for Kosminski, he did little more than simply identify Anderson's suspect as him anyway.
Besides, just because Swanson/Anderson may have suspected Kosminski, especially Anderson, does that make him the Ripper? No. There is glaring factors that go directly against Kosminski as a viable suspect.
I'll probably cop it for saying this, but to be perfectly honest with you, Glenn, I would trust what Abberline said more than Swanson or Anderson put together any day. I would regard Abberline as a more reliable source.
"If Chapman was a contemporary suspect -- which he wasn't -- we should have had at least a note about him in the internal police documentation. The police investigated hundreds of possible and impossible suspects, and they were on a lot of pressure."
And what of all the missing documentation and files? There could well have been something about him in one of the lost files, if indeed he was a contemporary suspect. We can't be sure.
Frank, you wrote:
"You wrote both these quotes. I’m not trying to be a pain in the a** (or ar*e), but I think you can’t just dismiss a point against your favoured suspect - or any for that matter - like you did and then use the same point against another suspect, considering that Kosminski and Klosowski were about the same age. As we don’t have any photo of Kosminski, he may have looked older as well, as far as I’m concerned."
That's just the trouble though Frank, we have no photo of Kosminski, atleast not one that is known of. It is clear from the photos of Chapman that he is older than what he looks, which makes up for the several year age gap. And since there is no photo of Kosminski at all, we can't tell. So for the time being, unless a photo surfaces, we can only presume Kosminski looked about his age.
"Regardless of my opinion (as suspects) on the 3 mentioned by MM, I don’t believe any of the 3 can be discarded as suspects simply because MM’s memorandum contained numerous errors – which is what you seem to be saying. We can’t take Sickert off the suspect list either just because of Cornwell’s book."
In my opinion, the 3 suspects listed in MM's memorandum can be dismissed. I know that will most likely never be the case on the wider Ripperology spectrum (Although Ostrog has largely been discarded with), but in my own view none of the 3 are the Ripper, and the fact that MM constantly got it wrong doesn't make the case against any of them any more plausible.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
I have begun to think that Kosminski was a convenient suspect for Anderson-thats all.
He had it in his head that JtR must have been a foreigner,was probably prejudiced about the more recent Jewish settlers and convinced himself
that the ripper was this crazy character who the people feared because of his general behaviour.
There isnt any evidence that he was a violent person stalking prostitutes or any record that he was ever apprehended or even suspected in 1888
all we know is that he was into "solitary vices".
Well again so what?This probably means masturbation not mutilating dead prostitutes .
Prince Albert Victor-he just simply was not smart enough.
Walter Sickert.Lived too long[82] was not suspected at the time and went on concentrating on his painting throughout his long life.The artists who we know committed murder-Carravagio
were more tempestuous than Sickert had a reputation for fighting and rash behaviour and died young[was murdered himself they think]..Poor Carravagio-one of the greatest of all painters
and whose paintings never give a clue to all that ferocious internal conflict-in fact are wonderful examples of controlled luminosity.But hey,he was no murderous mutillator more a man who liked to have a fight,like Michaelangelo did with his broken nose etc.No I can"t accept that Sickert was the ripper.
Inspector Abberline.To me this is just ridiculous.
Maybrick.Really cant accept that these diaries were authentic.
Gull.He may have feigned something to protect someone elses odd behavoiur-that he himself had concerns about.If he did I suspect his suspicions
were unfounded.For me the two men he MAY have had in mind were JKStephens who ended up in the Loony Bin and whose doctor he was OR The Duke Of Clarence who may well have had syphilis,who was easily led by all accounts and who may have talked a lot of rubbish in the delirium of one of his last bouts of illness.
But he was not the ripper and neither was JK Stephens as far as anyone other that [maybe] Stowell thought
Natalie |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Adam,
You wrote:
Levy? Joseph Hyam Levy you mean?
He is the least likely to have been the witness. Like Harry Harris, he claimed he saw nothing at the time, and more to the point, he ran away while Harris and Lawende were still standing there. If Levy identified him, then I think it would be safe to say that he got it wrong.
It is possible that Levy knew Kosminski by sight. This idea is proposed by Paul Begg and Scott Nelson. OK! it is pure speculation. But it is proven that Joseph Levy knew Martin Kosminski (which perhaps is unrelated with Aaron). Scott Nelson has also written a dissertation about the acquaintances of Joseph Levy with Kosminski's family. My impression is that some elements are missing in Swanson and Anderson's statements, so that we are unable to put that together. The story is strange in many respects. However we cannot easily discard it (except if we suppose that Swanson and Anderson were both senile).
As for Swanson, he only confirmed that.."Kosminski was the suspect..." He didn't particularly endorse him, although he does seem to have leant towards him.
It is exactly what I say: Kosminski was a suspect (an important suspect for MacNaghten, the main suspect for Anderson and we do not know excactly what for Swanson but probably a strong suspect).
But it wasn't the police who had him put into an asylum, he was staying with someone else at the time. So that can't be right. And why would it take 3 years to suspect him if they did?
There are explanations in the dissertations aboutr that (I have forgotten the details but the idea is that his name was cited in 1888 during the search after the double event. He was identified later (when he tried to kill his sister)). |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Hi Olivier,
Kosminski is not recorded as having "tried to kill his sister"-yes he is recorded as having taken a knife to her but that ,sadly seemed to have happened from time to time in a lot of home s think of Leonard Cohen"s line -"and the homicidal bitchin that goes on in every kitchen!"
and you begin to see what I am getting at.Here was a man not arrested as many others were during the Autumn of 1888 but who became more and more disturbed,apparently,until the family couldnt cope.People were pointing at him in the street-eating out of gutters,looking very strange and dirty,fiddling with himself inappropriately etc etc.So he started to be "looked" at.Conveniently committed to the loony bin putting him out of bounds for testimony[including alibis from neighbours and his family to prove it wasnt him and providing meanwhile a neat little "get out" for the failures of Anderson,Macnaghten and Swanson to apprehend Jack the Ripper-and with the whole wide world as audience for their failure to do just that.
With Druitt it could be similar-a family deeply concerned[or was it just his friends?]"very conveniently" drowns himself etc etc-and everyone is sworn to the utmost secrecy[though its all only rumour and hearsay]------or is it? Maybe some bloodstained clothing was found in his rooms with the amputation knife that Donald Rumbelow is said to possess.Maybe more will eventually come to light.At the moment though I am inclined to think both Kosminski and Druitt were just convenient suspects about whom we currently dont have a jot of evidence ---oh-unless we believe Sgt White was the police witness who got a good view of the murderer---that begins to change thinks viz a viz Druitt in my view anyway[sorry I know I am hedging my bets here]
Nats |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
Nathalie,
I am not entirely convinced by Kosminski. I am sure that antisemitism was prevalent during this period and may explain the direction taken by the police investigation. Finally, my impression is even that Jack the ripper was not Jewish.
However, Anderson's comments and Swanson's marginalia are puzzling me. Several points are obscure (who is this suspect? why the identification at the Seaside Home? etc) and we cannot discard this suspect without an explanation of these points. It is why I do not reject the possibility that Levy was the witness.
Moreover, I am oriented toward Kosminski by elimination: the other suspects seem even less credible than K.
In fact, my list of the worst suspects could include almost all the suspects listed on the suspect page of the casebook.
By the way, i do not think that the attack against his sister is significant. In my opinion (very subjective), Jack the ripper was a quiet person most of the time. His rage was oriented against some specific persons (not necessarily prostitute but some persons that he despises).
Best,
olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2575
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Hi Adam,
Regarding Abberline and Swanson, I think you're missing the point although I tried to explain it thoroughly.
Firstly, just one comment to what you wrote above: I find it very hard to believe that there were details that didn't pass through Swanson from Abberline. After all, it was Swanson's job to keep all the files together and collect all the documentation. If Abberline didn't give Swanson all the stuff he picked up, I believe he would have found himself in trouble.
But now to the CRUCIAL point, which you missed:
Abberline had no auhtority that would give him access to documentation in the case that lay OUTSIDE his own investigation. Abberline was not the only one receiving tips regarding suspects etc. and Abberline hadn't necessarily any access to the papers that came FROM Anderson TO Swanson. So in fact, Swanson knew more about all the aspects of the case, since every piece of paper from every direction came his way. Swanson was the ONLY ONE with an OVER-ALL VIEW of the case (while Abberline only had control over things he himself directed). It is really quite simple.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Adam wrote: "That's just the trouble though Frank, we have no photo of Kosminski, atleast not one that is known of."
>There is no known photo of Kosminski, however McNaughton wrote that "This man (Kosminski) in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square." Granted, McNaughton probably got mixed up regarding the witness, but the gist of this statement is that his appearance matched the witness description(s).
Also, in response to Natalie who said "There isnt any evidence that he was a violent person stalking prostitutes" and "all we know is that he was into "solitary vices"."
>We also know that McNaughton said: "He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies." This cannot be so easily dismissed, as some people seem ready to do. It implies that some evidence or statements existed which have since disappeared from the files.
Finally, regarding Levy. While it is true, as Adam points out, that "he claimed he saw nothing at the time", we should also recall that a newspaper reported that Levy seemed like he knew more than he was letting on. (Sorry, I can't find the source of this quote) I personally do not think that Levy was the Seaside Home witness, but Scott Nelson makes an argument in favor of this idea.
Rob H |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
To pick up on a few points raised by Olivier and Rob:
Poor old Kosminski was in the bin for some 20 years.Apart from a single recorded incident of him having thrown a chair at someone there isnt the slightest hint that he was violent during the whole of that time and for most of that time the records say he was in reaonably good health though they do say he believed himself to be in contact with a supreme being from whom he knew the secrets of the universe.Well OK thats classical paranoiid Schizophrenia kind of thing.But numbers of people suffering from this are NOT violent and there is no evidence that we have to suggest he was violent or that anyone at either Colney Hatch or Leavesdon found him ever to be violent or to have had the merest whiff of a hint that they actually were harbouring Jack the Ripper.To me it has begun to sound like a fairy story spun by Anderson .Once Anderson began to drive this curious merrygoround of fantasy of apparentlyy baseless accusation both Macnaghten and Swanson, similarly desperate to pretend they knew who he was jumped on the merrygoround with him...so now we have all sorts of difficulties making any sense at all out of it.Well in my view there is no sense to be made of it ,its all nonsense.Where Rob is the evidence that Kosminski had a hatred of a particular kind of woman?We have the evidence on one or two of the other suspects who at the very least were taken in for questioning.We have it on Tumbelty too.But Kosminski?----and why would they "lose" it? Actually I am pretty sure we would all have known about it if anyone of them thought for one moment that they really knew the identity of Jack the Ripper.We would know and know for sure.
Now there is another written record of Sims in which he ststes categorically that there was a man who lived some 6 miles from Whitechapel who had a "frenzied hatred" of a certain class of woman etc and who Macnaghten had told him during conversation with him that this was the individual seen by the PC emerging from Mitre Square[ and afterwards "stumbling across the body of another Victim[Catherine Eddowes].So it seems to me they at times confuse Kosminski with Druitt.
No wonder Abberline would have none of it and more or less said it was a load of cobblers-the whole story -presumably!
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Funny though isnt it Glenn,that both Swanson and Anderson talk about someone who died shortly after being admitted to the asylum whereas Aaron Kosminski lived for twenty years after his being admitted.It really sounds as though they either didnt really know their a*se from their elbow and made it up as they went along [Anderson and Swanson and Macnaghten too possibly] or it really is a different Kosminski altogether,who we have at present no record of in any of the London asylums.
Best Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Glenn,
Also thankyou for that information on Swanson"s centrality to this case and role of co-ordinator.I hadnt realised this until you pointed it out above.
Natalie |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 102
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Glenn's information is completely incorrect. The man collating reports on all officer's progress and organising admin, was Comissioner Anderson, (with Commissioner James Monroe). Anderson, after the double murders, ordered a write-up of Officers' progress, including Superintendant Swansen. Hence, we have Swansen's special report of the night of the double murders. Commissioner Anderson's orders. In the UK you can see it on microfilm- there's a whole edit of reports going through Commissioner Anderson at this time. They were all written up carefully by hand. It's intriguing that the Home Office (Government) had a tight hold on matters during this period. A whole wad of reports was submitted to Home Office, via Anderson, at this time. The Home Office have written notes on Superintendant Swansen's reasoning, calling him 'confused.'
The files admirably demonstrate how Police rank and file coordination during this time was anything but habitual, and you certainly couldn't call it simple. It's also clear that while Abberline was responsible to Superintendant Arnold, at most times, he also coordinated matters with Superintendant Swansen, and was in contact with Warren, whose answers he sought out when he saw fit. Nothing can be directly attributed to irregular coordination, as serial killers often cause such upheavals- obviously- and yet at the same time, a lack of Police coordination in some cases could be put down to different Police Offices discreetly coordinating some matters with some offices, whilst expressely keeping matters from others. From the file itself it's in fact very difficult to say whether certain Police were in conspiracy or whether the organisational upheavals related to international embarassment caused by a serial murderer! But the organisation and coordination is certainly a key feature of the case. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2589
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Please, Kitty,
Your deductions here are totally based on your paranoid conceptions on that there HAS to be a conspiracy.
Of course the organization within the force was complex and turned upside-down in a case such as this, where the force had no experience whatsoever and also was subject to enormous political and public pressure.
There were personal disagreements and confusions everywhere -- just look at the spectacle triangle Warren-Matthews-Monroe and all the internal conflicts that scraped off the surface.
Facts remain, that Chief Inspector Swanson's job was to collect all the information that existed and that he was the link between Abberline and Anderson. Swanson was in charge of the whole Ripper investigation until October 1888 and then became a desk officer directly under Anderson. It was Warren himself who put Swanson in charge! As a Chief of the CID, Anderson -- who had to deal with all the political rubbish -- could not likely focus on the vast bundle of material in the case and it was not his task either, but it was Swanson's. Still, Anderson was very much well informed on the case, but it was Swanson who worked closely with Abberline, not Anderson. Anderson, on the other hand, were closely liased with Swanson as well as with Monro.
Swanson's contemporary John Sweeney called him "one of the best class of officers" and Macnaghten praised him. Swanson got the upper-most responsibility of the whole investigation when Anderson took on his sick leave. Superintendent Thomas Arnold was "only" head of the H Whitechapel Division at the time of the murders (although he was absent from duty prior to the double event) and he was initially the one who ordered the Gouslton Grafitto to be erased (which was concurred by Warren when he arrived at the site), and he had hardly a good over-all view of the whole Ripper investigation.
Abberline has often wrongly been described as the one in charge of the whole case, which is a fallacy; he was, on the other hand, in charge of the detectives on the ground in Whitechapel, but that is something else.
Anderson was the head chief, and Swanson was the link in between.
You need to get rid of that conspiracy stuff, Kitty, if you are ever supposed to be able to interpret the documentation objectively.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
It still looks to me,no matter how its dressed up
in officialdom or who was in charge of what,like a policeman"s version of the "Mad Hatter"s Tea Party".
Lets face it none of them seemed to have had the feintest idea who the ripper was and all this stuff about Kosminski and Co was to save face and have someone to pin it on who could never be properly tried.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2593
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Absolutely, Natalie, and is what I've been feeling all along.
None of them seemed to have a clue whatsoever, apart from later personal theories.
At least I don't think they had any CONTEMPORARY suspects, that is.
I think they just tried to make themselves look good in retrospect, but I have no proof of this, naturally. But the fact that many of them favoured different suspect, implies this, I think.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 30, 2004)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
So it would appear Glenn.Mind there were a large number of cranks "confessing" as well as writing off hoax letters muddling it all up I guess.Same sort of thing happened here not long ago with the Yorkshire Ripper which caused the police to fly off in the wrong direction looking for the man with the accent on the taped voice they had been sent which was just a hoax and meant they were on a wild goose chase for many crucial[and vital]months.
Cheers Glenn
Natalie |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Nathalie,
I can understand that Anderson's comments were written to save face. But how can you explain swanson's marginal note? Is it to save face?
How can you explain this very complicated story told by Swanson?
How can you explain this surprising sentence "he knew he was recognized" in the marginal note?
Before dismissing this suspect many things have to be explained.
By the way, it makes me think: it is possible that the witness was recognized by the suspect (instead of the contrary). In this case, it is not important that Lawende, Schwartz or anybody has had a good view of the suspect. Just an idea.
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2596
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Hi Olivier,
Well, I guess no one really can explain that, although some make good attempts.
After all, Swanson's scribblings wasn't meant to be read by the large public anyway, so that's a bit of an enigma. At least he agrees with Anderson regarding that special suspect, but was he himself convinced that this suspect Kosminski was the Ripper, or was he just elaborating on and adding to Anderson's information, and naming the suspect (without really confirming that he was the Ripper?)?
We can't say.
I for my part can't rule out the Polish Jew suspect, but whether he really was Kosminski is another matter.
And if Swanson meant to mislead people (for those who believe in a conspiracy) why put down this information as private notes in a book margin, which he probably couldn't know was to be read by anyone anyway?
That whole thing is a delicate mess, if you ask me.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Well my hunch Olivier[for what its worth] is that they had begun to believe their own nonsense.We all do it a bit-or a lot of us do from time to time shall we say
You get an idea about someone,this then starts to become a "fixed" idea for a time and instead of working with facts or actual evidence you start to
fit the chosen person up so to speak.You build your own evidence around your suspicions r ather than anything concrete.In the case of Kosminski they[Swanson tells us as well as Anderson]write "the assassin was well known to the police,he was a low class Jew --honestly--[!]being shielded by his fratenity"[how did they know?]"unfortunately in the absence of sufficient legal evidence to justify his arrest,they were unable to take him.It was a case of moral versus legal proof......etc
and at the bottom of page 138 of Anderson"s book Criminals and Crime,which he apparently gave to Swanson as a New Years Day gift in 1908 Anderson writes "I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatinglyidentified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...at this point Swanson wrote in the margin in pencil" and after this identification which suspect knew[I doubt it if it was poor old Aaron released from the bin],no other murder of this kind took place in London Kosminski was the suspect---[sounds like the "happy Ever After " formula popular in Fairy Stories to me ].
Then there is some strange stuff about Jews not being willing to snitch on each other[I ask you!]
and about the witness not wanting the suspect to hang [because he too was a Jew]and finally that suspect died very shortly after[identification[!]
How very convenient for all concerned--except ofcourse that if it was Kosminski as Swanson writes in the margin he certainly did not die-not for a long time!
Best Natalie |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Interesting thread. Good to have people discussing key issues. As usual, Glenn can't discuss anything in a sensible, non defensive way. It's dissapointing. He is in fact incorrect. My guess is that he's never seen the files on microfilm in UK.
I am not atall paranoid about a conspiracy, in fact my suggestion is that it should be looked at objectively, along with anything else. This is obviously sensible.
I notice that Glenn doesn't actually contradict my report on the situation re the double murders. If you look at the Microfilm on the file, you will see that my rendition is correct.
I never said that Anderson didn't place Swansen in charge of part of the action, he did. But it is a grave mistake to state that he left organisation uniquely to Swansen. EG James Monroe was very much involved, as were the Officers I mentionned. Abberline reports a great deal to Arnold. (for example.) otherwise my outline is correct without omission. Glenn in Sweden is not really in a position to advise on it.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Ok, so forget the 'too tall, too flamboyant' and just leave the 'anyone...too busy thinking about interfering with young men - especially if they went on to a ripe old age.'
Where would that leave Dr.T, for example? 
As for supplying names for my five 'anyone' categories, I can safely leave that to others. As long as their suggestions fit my criteria, that's fine. 'Anyone' means 'anyone'.
Happy New Year to everyone.
Love,
Caz
X
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Caz--As always, it's a great pleasure to hear your thoughts. But I'm a little confused why you think living to a 'ripe old age' would have anything to do with it. Provided Jack got plenty of veggies & excercise & stopped smoking, I see no reason why he couldn't have staggered into the 20th Century.
At the risk of being a grump, I tend to agree with that ol' pariah of the boards, D.M. Radka on this one, anyway. The "suspects game" is fun to play, it's probably the high-point of any book on the subject. But as a way to solve the case it seems a very, very poor way to proceed. There's two enormous pitfalls at the outset:
a) A reasonable doubt that Psychology has advanced to the stage where it can look at the body of a mangled woman in a dark alley and come up with a credible idea of what type of person or persons 'done it.' As you know, there's people who come & go on these boards who have great confidence in their ability to know these things. I don't pretend to. Rational man? Sure. Deranged lunatic? Sure. Man living in Liverpool coming to London on the week-ends? sure. Local man? Sure. I have no direct way of knowing.
I might have educated guesses on certain points, but I have to use extreme caution.
B) the possibility that the historians of the case give us such a distorted picture of the 'suspects' in question that we're not properly evaluating them anyway.
No one cares to hear this sort of thing, but the thumb-nail sketches we have of D'Onston, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cutbush, Klosowski, etc., are largely cartoons; whether or not they portray the actual person with any accuracy at all remains an open question. It wasn't too many years ago that Druitt was thought of as an ineffectual and failed Barrister--which we now know isn't true.
Have a great New Year. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 31, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Great, Kitty.
I guess you are the only person in the whole UK who have looked at the microfilms...
No, I have not looked through the UK microfilms, and for obvious practical reasons, but others have (and I know some researchers who have the entire material copied over in their own possession) and much of the for the case relevant material has been produced in The Ultimate Companion (although I would think not all).
Yes, Abberline did communicate with Superintendent T. Arnold, and yes, James Monro was also very much involved in the whole affair - as a consultant. That is not the issue. The fact that Anderson left Swanson (not Swansen, Kitty) completely in charge in September-October is totally evident in a letter, written by Anderson. There is no question about it. Anderson himself also admits that this is impossible for him to handle all the information, and therefore felt that the Ripper case should have one person in charge who exclusively delt with handling this case and nothing else (and for this he chose Swanson).
I really don't understand what you're getting at. The initial question concerned how much Abberline really knew about the case in comparison to Swanson! And it is quite clear that Swanson had a better over-all view of the case than Abberline had; Abberline were in charge of his constables on the ground in Whitechapel but he had not access to all information. This is what the discussion is all about. That Monro and Anderson, as well as Thomas Arnold, had a great deal to do with the case as well, and communicated with Abberline, is self-written for anyone who have studied the case, so that is not the issue. I have never said that Abberline ONLY communicated with Swanson. Superintendent Arnold was head of the H Whitechapel Division at the time of the murders and appeared often in the papers as spokesman for the police during the murders and a lot of reprots were sent to him (naturally since he over-ranked the Inspectors), but his job was NOT to collect the over-all info of the case. I have never said that Abberline never reported to or communicating with him.
James Monro were consulted to a large degree by the offiers of the Ripper case, but he resigned from his post as Ass. Commissioner at the Met in August 1888, when he was replaced by Anderson, and didn't enter a post in the force until he became Chief Commissioner on the resignation of Warren in November the same year, at the time of Mary Kelly's murder. So between August and November he had no offical authority, although he WAS widely consulted by the officers of the case throughout, and this was encouraged by the Home Office. So he WAS involved in the case. But Swanson was the one who Abberline and other officers officially should report to in the Ripper case from September-October onwards. That doesen't exclude that they also reported to others but that is not the issue here.
My discussion with Adam concerned who had the best view of the case; Abberline or Swanson.
(Regardless of Monro, Anderson and Arnold.). You are totally confusing the issue here!
However, just because he gave Swanson authority to handle the case, doesne't mean that he himself didn't want to be informed directly as well, and there are strong indications on that he in fact was. He might even have called Swanson "confused" (one wonder why, if this was the case) but Chief Inspector Swanson was officially still in charge of the case throughout and still knew more than Detective Inspector Abberline about the case as a whole.
We have several summarised reports penned by Swanson containing collected info regarding the murders, where he directly reports to the Home Office, and we also have numerous reports from the Detective Inspectors (among others Abberline) where they report directly to Swanson, information that Swanson then collects and delivers to the Home Office.
As far as conspiracies are concerned, these were one of your own suggestion: "From the file itself it's in fact very difficult to say whether certain Police were in conspiracy or whether the organisational upheavals related to international embarassment caused by a serial murderer!"
I believe in the latter alternative, since this would be rater fair to assume, considering the media storm the murders created and the fact that the force had no experience whatsoever in dealing with motiveless, serial murders. What kind of "conspiracy" they should be involved with is not clear to that many (if you refer to attempts to silence the notions about Jewish being involved -- yes -- but otherwise...), but as I said, that is not the issue here.
If you could listen to what people say instead of throwing out aggressive statements and knocking yourself on the chest, with narcisstistic statements about how excellent you are compared to others, you would probably be taken more seriously.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 31, 2004)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2598
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
RJ,
"The "suspects game" is fun to play, it's probably the high-point of any book on the subject. But as a way to solve the case it seems a very, very poor way to proceed."
I completely agree (although I usually think the parts containing the authors' personal suspect-hunts are the most boring passages in the books).
A good new year. RJ.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
I am not throwing agressive statements atall. Glenn, your statements on Police organisation are largely incorrect. I simply advise you to go and have a look at the microfilm file available to the public, which you say you haven't seen.
I can at times offer advice based on facts. What people do with it is entirley up to them. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2600
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
No I believe they are not incorrect, Kitty.
I admit I am not an expert, but I'd say that's pretty how things were, according to the documentation we have -- unless you want to dispute all existing known documentation or intend to totally put everything every other researcher has put forward completely upside down, that is...
What you have found in addition to those, is another matter and since you don't present it, it's impossible to argue against it.
But if you are willing to pay for my trip to the UK, I'll gladly spend a few weeks looking through the microfilms. Believe you me.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Adam
Abberline had his nose to the ground. Swanson had perspective. it is likely that Swanson and later MM would have access to a wider range of information (political, private, Fenian, intelligence) than Abberline. That's what he was employed for.
It is important to understand the structure and organisation of the police operation, and argue consistently - not just grasp at straws to support a particular contention.
The latter shows desperation!!
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Glenn's information is completely incorrect.
Not in my book, he isn't!!
Referring to the Ultimate Sourcebook, on15 sept 1888, Warren appointed Swanson (spelling Kitty!!) to take "overall charge of the enquiry".
This is the one where EVERY PAPER has to go through Swanson.
Anderson needed the summaries of the case on his return from sick leave just to catch up!! naturally, as a senior officer, he would also read the papers passed up.
Anderson would naturally have seen anything going to the HO for "political" reasons. i don't mean anything sinsiter by that, just that these briefings would be the basis for the adminsitartors to amke policy decisions and perhaps to brief Mr Matthews for appearances in the Commons.
You really don't have an understanding of process do you? Your lunatic obsession with conspiracy also clearly colours your interpretation of the evidence. See your penultimate (second to last, in case you don't understand the word Kitty) sentence.
As the JtR crimes became a major public issue, it is hardly surprising that "the Home Office (Government) had a tight hold on matters during this period..."
What do you think the HO exists for? ministers have to be accountable to Parliament, they must be briefed for appearances in the House. there are policy questions - rewards etc, on which background information is required. Above all, Ministers are responsible for the conduct of their Departments - thus they need to satisfy themselves that what is being done meets what is required. There is nothing sinister here, it is simply what departments of state did then and do now!!
Add to that the fact that the Home Secretary is personally in overall political (ie public responsibility terms) charge of the Met Police, it would be a major shock to find he wasn't interested!! In addition, in 1888, there was a dispute between Matthews and Warren about their mutual authority and official relationship.
No need for stupid conspiracy theories to explain this. Just look at the detail and the process without jumping to conclusions.
A whole wad of reports was submitted to Home Office...Swansen's reasoning...calling him 'confused.'
That is exactly the sort of annotation one would expect to find, as differing perspectives are brought to bear. In 1888, the "political" imperative for the HO was to get the case solved. Matthews was vulnerable. Thus officials would bring a creative tension to bear on the police work. It wasn't producing the goods they wanted.
Natural priorities for the police were similar but they had other preoccupations, practical ones in dealing with detail; resources etc. there will always be tension in such cases, and should be. Kitty, you always go on anbout the importance of challenge - yet miss it when you see it in operation here.
I am sure Glenn will post his own strong rebuttal of your post, Kitty, but that's my sixpenn'th. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Kitty - Munro was an adviser to the HO at the time, NOT to Warren or Scotland Yard.
I have always thought that the memo suggesting that "Munro might help" has been misinterpreted and taken out of context. However, your comments show that you still don't understand the process or procedure or the organisation of Government in 1888 - yet you continue to pontificate!1
Secondly, it was Warren, NOT Anderson who appointed Swanson, as is now definitively proved. That is the minute I referred to in a previous post. Clearly your research is not up to date.
In cordial correction |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 4:20 am: | |
Rationalising things away, by saying that the police were confused or inept; that Swanson wrote for this or that reason, is IMHO a dangerous slope to get on.
If you look back over 30 years or so of Ripper studies, it is clear from what we now know that the police were MUCH better organised, and that their processes and views were much more solidly based than we previously thought. the files have taught us much and given us new insights into their way of working. Many of the accusations levelled against the police represent OUR frustration that the records or their words do not give us what we want (or would like to have); or seem mistaken. Yet there is a good chance that the apparent errors are simply the fact that (say) Swanson was summarising.
What is clear, however, is that two senior officers were aware of close interest in one suspect Kosminski.
Now they possessed MUCH more information than has come down to us, including the results of the house-to-house search; and the outcome of whatever happened at the Seaside Home. They were closer to events, possbly talked to people who knew Druitt, Barnett, Tumblety, Kosminski etc. they could evaluate a suspect by looking into his eyes - we cannot. We know, from the files we have, the lengths to which the police went in their investigations of suspects - extrapolating from that, I suspect that most if not all of their enquiries were VERY thorough.
Not that they would not have been falliable - who isn't - or that office "politics" might have entered into things. There seem to have been inner and outer circles for instance, perhaps associated with the munro/Warren/Matthews rivalries of which we are aware and which give context. Equally and realistically, who in their working lives has not experienced the tension that comes with having bosses and subordinates. Do all those who work for you always do everything exactly as you wish it, or do their own preoccupations, preferences and perceptions colour their approach. If their priorities, for whatever reason, differ from your view of what is required, they have to be brought back into line.
Similarly, in what organisation do the "troops" always know what the "officers" are doing, or why? Higher levels of management may have a valid agenda unknown to their workers - confidential takeovers going on; a need to protect sensitive commercial information; plans for re-organisation or redundancies. It is not even necessary for the lower levels to know what the bosses are thinking to do their job - they have different responsibilities.
All this would have been true of the met in 1888 and will be today.
So please, let's try to understand what the police were doing in 1888 and value their real achievements, rather than simply engaging in copper-bashing.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2609
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Exactly, Phil.
Couldn't agree more.
But you know, Kitty will probably ask you: "have you read the microfilms..."? 
A Happy New Year, Phil.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Natalie - certainly Littlechild believed that Anderson "only believed he knew". So you have support for your view there.
And I think that Anderson may have been the sort of man who could convince himself that something was so (theologically as well as criminalogically), even if all the evidence didn't add up. To put it simply he could deude himself and he was obstinate as well as clever.
But if you read his words carefully, in all their manifestations, he is remarkably consistent and i have the feeling that he is GENUINELY trying to hold back, rather than promote a theory for the sake of it.
But Anderson was also a master of duplicity, as his intelligence/anti-Fenian activities show. he was perfectly capable of not wanting to be seen as having not caught Jack, and tried to shine some retrospective glory on himself.
On the other hand, we have Swanson's corroboration and explanation of Anderson's careful words. And Swanson does not appear to me to be a "yes man" by any means. So were both deluded? I think not. And MM's reference to the same man. No something was certainly in the air in the late 1880s early 90s.
Swanson's flat explanation might just represent the fact that he knew what Robert Anderson referred to, but thought he was making more of it that the suspect merited. But that's not the only possible reading of his words...
And then we have the integrity of Victorian gentlemen, and his professional reputation. Not good to put totally on the line with people around looking to knock him down.
SO - it's a balancing act, but on the whole I think Anderson's writings do reflect a view current in Whitehall in 1888 and thereafter, and that 9with caution) they must be treated seriously.
There, an example of how phil's mind works!!
Regards,
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2615
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Phil,
"I am sure Glenn will post his own strong rebuttal of your post, Kitty, but that's my sixpenn'th."
Phil, after your hail storm of great posts, I don't have to! Believe me.
And your mind works just fine, as far as I am concerned!
Cheers to you, Phil. 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2616
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Phil,
"Secondly, it was Warren, NOT Anderson who appointed Swanson, as is now definitively proved. That is the minute I referred to in a previous post. Clearly your research is not up to date."
Not mine either, I am afraid. I was also stating somewhere, from confusion, that it was Anderson who appointed Swanson -- when it really in fact was Warren (according to his letter dated 15 September 1888). That is totally correct, my mistake (for the sake of accuracy).
It is interesting to note, that it among other things says:
"I therefore put in the hands of Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail. I look upon him for the time being as the eyes & ears of the commr. in this particular case. He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands. He must be consulted on every subject. [...] I give him the whole responsibility."
Well, one wonders, how more clearer can it get?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 461
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
It's not "rationalizing" to point out that the police statements that we know about that try to advance suspects are filled with errors in those details we can check and therefore it's likely that they were mistaken in those and other details. Other police departments investigating other cases can and did make mistakes, chase the wrong people, etc.
When you start assuming that they must be correct in the instances where we can't check the accuracy of what the police said you are very likely to get a distorted view of history. Worse than that, most people putting a lot of weight into what the police said are picking and choosing which police opinions to believe and which particular things they said to believe on a rather inconsistent basis.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2626
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:28 pm: | |
"SO - it's a balancing act, but on the whole I think Anderson's writings do reflect a view current in Whitehall in 1888 and thereafter, and that 9with caution) they must be treated seriously."
True, Phil.
Though I believe the factual errors regarding the Polish suspect -- if he really was Kosminski -- is a bit concerning. Macnaghten's, Anderson's and Swanson's statements were made quite a lot of years after the murders (with all that that goes with it, regarding faulting memory and disinformation etc.), not to mention the fact that other officials had other theories and favoured (in retrospect) completely different suspects (Macnaghten favoured Druitt, Littlechild suspecting Tumblety, Abberline and Godley set out for Klosowski etc.).
Looks like more or less a mess to me.
The latter point is what seems crucial to me, considering the possibility that there may have been some prestige involved.
I don't believe Swanson to be a yes-sayer either, but he worked closely with Anderson and therefore possibly was influenced by him.
It is also possible that Swanson only elaborated on the information about Anderson's Polish Jew, identifying him as Kosminski, but never really himself believed this Polish Jew suspect to be the Ripper.
The fact that the different officals had so different views upon the suspects, invites me to suspect that they really had no clue whatsoever but had different personal opinions on the matter and therefore contradicted each other.
Somehow it makes it rather hard to fully trust any of their judgements.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2628
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 12:30 am: | |
At least their judgements regarding this particular issue...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
