Archive through February 15, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through February 15, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion: Policemen... What did they know?: Policemen: What did they know? Part 2: Archive through February 15, 1999

Author: Caroline Monday, 08 February 1999 - 10:49 am
Dear All, I think it was Yaz who said recently, words to the effect that, because the police decided not to pursue the �obvious� candidates for, say, Mary Kelly�s killer, they must have had good reason. It is echoed on these boards many times that most murderers are caught quickly due to association with the victim, and in most cases this is spot on. But our Jack, or even �Son of Jack� were not �most murderers�! What if poor Mary had found herself killed in our lifetime? I can picture the 6 o�clock news bulletin quite clearly, as the likes of Barnett or Hutchinson is bundled into the back of the black maria and driven off to a public display of abuse and raised fists. The stoning scene in Monty Python�s Life of Brian also springs to mind (and is making me think fondly of bearded ladies!). Why, then, did the police in 1888 think they knew better? Did they know better? Did they work on instinct, or the signatures/MO, or was it something more tangible which made them decide which murder was committed by which villain? Are we missing some clues that the police may have had which gave them more insight into the identity of the killer or killers? If so, they still had a hellishly difficult job trying to tie the swine down! For all those original letters and other documents that have �gone missing� over the years, to which the public have had access to copies or the information therein, isn�t it just possible that others existed which did not even survive into officialdom after the Autumn of Terror? In 1888, I like to think that the JtR crimes remained unsolved despite the best efforts of some very good and well-informed coppers. In other words, our Jack was just too clever for the best of �em. The police could have easily tried to fit up the likes of a poor Polish Jew for instance. To their credit, they did not. Or, if some tried, they were prevented from succeeding. In my lifetime, sadly, the same cannot be said with as much confidence! My last question for today is: Has a �Jack� ever had his �series� interrupted by good police work alone? And, if not (sorry, my very last question!), is there a way this can be rectified in the future? Sadly, Jack�s example may be that serial killing is still the best way of getting away with murder. Love, Caroline
Author: Yazoo Monday, 08 February 1999 - 03:54 pm
Hey, Caroline! Let me be more careful in the wording of your first statement. I believe the 1888 police knew, found, and investigated all the "usual suspects" in the murders -- including everything we could think of to ask these suspects. Our brains have not grown larger, we are not better police officers or investigators, etc. etc. Their conclusions from these investigations led them to exonerate the "usual suspects." The Barnett and Kidney and Curious George accusers may find loopholes, but I'm trying to close them. When we start from a premise that a suspect who was known to the 1888 police, but was not seriously pursued (that must include Tumblety -- he died in America; what do we have extradition for?), is not a viable suspect for us today. Otherwise, you got a lotta 'splaining to do about "conspiracies" or "incompetence" or, in a kinder/gentler mood, "mistakes" involving the 1888 police. Crime statistics vary from place to place, and between timeframes. The kind of stranger-murder (where the killer has no known association with the victim) is NOT the highest type of unsolved crime. Rape has a higher amount of unsolved cases. Maybe assault as well. Experts on the subject never agree with each other or from one publication to the next! In the U.S., I have heard that 65% of murder cases are closed (solved) per year. Beware of stats, though. None of this means the contemporary police are incompetent or doing a bad job or covering mistakes. Stranger-to-stranger crimes, high mobility, and other factors make solving these crimes as difficult today as in 1888. An example of good police work? I always like to think of 'Son of Sam' and that poor police officer who waded through parking tickets until he/she found Berkowitz's car at one or more of the murder areas. It led to his being a suspect and eventual arrest and conviction. Most serial crimes -- at least anecdotally; experts can't seem to agree on stats -- are solved through "accident" or "chance" -- usually related to the perpetrator being incredibly stupid (as the majority of them are!). Yaz
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 07:45 am
Hey, Caroline! Now that I've been more careful, let me qualify what I said yesterday. There are two modern cases of serial killers that might shed light on what you've asked, Caroline. I'm only familiar with one of them so somebody else would have to supply info on the other. The two cases are Ted Bundy and Peter Sutcliffe. Bundy initially killed in Washington state. He was listed in a computer analysis of possible suspects in murders and rapes, but he was one of many on the list. By the time investigators got near his name (Bundy had no idea this list was compiled, his flight was pure "chance"), Bundy had moved to another state. He killed in Utah and other states, was caught, escaped, until a routine stop for a traffic violation in Florida and a call to the police HQ resulted in Bundy being arrested. He eventually confessed to a number of killings. The point is that Bundy was a suspect on the Washington print-out but hadn't been interviewed before he fled. After killings occured across the States, Bundy was arrested, for the final time, by "chance" and then confessed. Were the 1888 police in or anywhere near that initial Washington police phase where the "right" suspect was named but not yet investigated? And then, using Tumblety as the best known example, if the suspect fled the region, did the 1888 police satisfy themselves through an investigation (without questioning the suspect, of course) that the suspect who fled their jurisdiction was NOT their JtR? If, again using Tumblety as the best known case, they DID satisfy themselves that they had or might have had the "right" man, why didn't they pursue their suspect through extradition treaties? So, I guess the answers to your questions, Caroline, are not as clear cut as I made it sound yesterday. Maybe somebody else has a better take on all this. Work calls, gotta go! Yaz
Author: Caroline Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 10:21 am
Hi Yaz, Thanks for all that, hope the others are tuned in. Peter Sutcliffe was caught by chance because he drew attention to himself for something minor like a traffic offense, I forget exactly. He panicked, and the police found his murder weapon, a ball-pane hammer, hidden in a lavatory cystern I think. He had apparently been questioned on a number of occasions but seemed such a nice ordinary chap that the police had no reason to doubt him. I agree the police still have the devil's own job today with stranger-murder, even with the advent of DNA testing, which I may raise my own doubts about if asked. I was just making the point about the British 'fashion' of making the 'criminal' fit the crime again, which, judging by these boards, is not inappropriate! Love, Caroline
Author: Jeff D Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 02:36 pm
Hi Caroline ! Peter Sutcliffe was actually arrested for soliciting the attentions of a local prostitute. When the policeman suggested he accompany him down to the station, Sutcliffe politely asked if he could relieve himself in the bushes. After the fact, and later on that evening, the sharp-minded policeman, went back to the place where they had picked up Sutcliffe, checked the bushes and found the hammer, and screwdriver. When you consider the evidence that the police had, yet were still unable to trace the Yorkshire Ripper, you have a lot less critisism for the police of 1888. In the Yorkshire Ripper case, they had a traceable �5-note, which belonged to just one of 3-Companys' payroll, they had a boot-print, which they asked Sutcliffe during a stop search, did he recognise? "while he was wearing the very boots" Then when summarising all the data, had recorded Sutcliffes' car license plate number 40+ times, as being in the vicinity on the nights of the murders ! As mentioned, only the actions of a very dedicated policeman, caused the capture, and end to the bloody reign of the Yorkshire Ripper. Such storylines lend me to believe that our "Jack" was very likely interviewed by the police in 1888, so I do believe his name will crop up for something, somewhere. The police then, as their modern day counterparts, just didn't realise what they were looking at. Cheers All ! Jeff D
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 07:54 pm
Hey, Caroline and Jeff! Your points are good ones. I think we need to know more about police procedures from that era and, if at all possible, everything we can about what went on during the 1888-on investigation. I'd feel better about formulating a position on the 1888 police if I knew more. You can see from my posts that I'm willing to give the nod to the 1888 investigation...but I'm not totally comfortable with it because of examples like Bundy and Sutcliffe. I don't think Berkowitz was ever suspected until the parking ticket issue was raised. Using modern analogies, it's difficult to make a hard-and-fast rule about the 1888 police investigation. I'd also like to go back to the point I raised under the "What Can We Prove?" topic. If we can't all agree on a minimum set of requirements that an 1888 contemporary must fulfill to be 1) suspected, 2) arrested and put on trial, and finally 3) convicted...we'll always have troubles. If all we ever focus on is #1 -- by finding anything and everything to cast suspicion on a person -- I don't think we'll satisfy many people or get very far...certainly not into the qualifications for numbers 2 and 3. Just my opinion. Yaz
Author: Caroline Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 06:11 am
Hi Jeff and Yaz, God knows where I conjured up that stuff about lavatories, I even spelled cistern wrong, so I must have either heard it or read it in The Sun! Only kidding, it probably just shows where my theories belong! Oh and, before I forget to mention it again, the false trail left by the 'Geordie' tape in the Yorkshire Ripper case may be leading some people to the wrong conclusions about the JtR letters. Each case is as different as each human, surely. just a thought. See you in a couple of weeks. Love, Caroline
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 01:07 pm
Hello Caroline (& All) ! I just thought I would post a few sentences on the Yorksire Ripper case, simply to illustrate how even modern day police forces struggle to capture serial killers. The reason Serials' are so hard to nail down is simply the lack of motive. I was not trying to highlight any of your mistakes, I assure you Caroline, so please don't think I was. I enjoy your posts here, you are a very kind, understanding person, who shows great insight into discussions here, and your input is highly valued by myself, and (I'm sure) by all. I have begun to wonder recently, about the reference to the City police constable in Mitre Square, the night of Eddowes' murder. There is a reference, with regard to Andersons' witness, that a City PC was the only one to have a good view of the murderer. Reports then go on to indicate that the witness was actually Lawende, or Schwartz. Then we have the story of the confrontation at the Seaside convalescent home, where the witness, without hesitation, identified the murderer. This witness pointed out the suspect, and had no doubt that this was the person he had seen in Mitre Sq., just prior to finding the victims mutilated body. He then refused to testify against the suspect. In this account, it is stated that the suspect was sent to the Seaside Convalescent Home, with considerable difficulty, plus many other points and vague references are made, which I am sure most Ripper efficienados are aware of. The thing is, the seaside home was for police people, wasn't it ? Most people understand this episode as being a confrontation between Lawende/Schwartz, and Kosminski, but why would Kosminski be held at the Seaside home ? It makes more sense to me, that the witness was actually a policeman, sent possibly to recouperate at the home, possibly after having to deal with personal guilt, or other issues (maybe he cracked up), after not having apprehended the villain. The police then, brought Kosminski (or whoever ?) to the home, (with difficulty) where the confrontation took place. If the police officer was so disturbed, it would explain why he (or the authorities) felt he could not testify against the suspect. Maybe the officer was so shaken up at the whole thing, he cracked up, and they knew he could not stand up in court, and be a credible witness to something that would hang someone. Kosminski is then kept under close surveilance, then gets sent away to another asylum, or is looked after by his own immediate family until completely unmanageable. The whole episode then gets lost and forgotten, or for some reason swept under the carpet (more intrigue eh ? he he!). The police believing that they will hear no more of the Ripper, yet not wishing to make all of the facts public because of the disturbed officer, and possible police problems, inefficiency, or neglect in apprehending the killer. Do any of the people here have a better understanding of the Seaside home episode ? Am I possibly adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 ? Or do I have my facts totally wrong ? I'm writing this sort-of on the fly, and I don't have all of my facts to hand, but I'd really appreciate the opinions of any of the learned people here. Thanks everyone !! As ever ... Jeff D
Author: D. radka Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 02:48 pm
Jeff, Thanks for another bazooka post by a true Rip! We love Anderson-Swanson discussions best of all, and hope that Mr. Begg will be drawn into this one as soon as he feels better. If we could deduce the relationship between these two men, we'd betcha that would go a long way toward solving the case. Now we hope this doesn't offend some of our friends--we know there are Swansonophiles here and don't want to rile them--but we suspicion Swanson may have been basically used as a gopher by Anderson. You know about gophers--you ask them to fetch your coffee, change your flat tire, or sharpen your pencil, and they "go for" you and do it. Now, now let's keep our heart rates down, we mean no disrespect, we only want to solve the case here. Swanson, if it be recalled, doodled that the reason normal police work couldn't proceed concerning Kosminski was because the witness was Jewish, and wouldn't testify against another Jew, so as not to have the hanging of the man on his mind for the rest of his life. We think the sense that Jeff is on the trail of important issues above is that this information concerning the refusal to testify on the part of the witness may have really been disinformation given to Swanson by Anderson. Swanson being a good employee cheerfully accepted this responsibility in trust from his "master" forever, and even faithfully regurgitated it into his most personal mementoes decades later at the end of his own life. Everybody's hands remained clean. The reality might have been quite different, perhaps a police issue as discussed by Jeff was indeed at the root of it and needed shussing-up; so Anderson set up Swanson, whom he knew to be 100% faithful to him, as alternatively a dead-end or a washing machine for a deception. See what we mean? We'd be delighted to hear what everyone thinks of Anderson and his trusty aide Swanson here--it is the key term and very cutting edge of Ripperology as we imagine it. David
Author: Caroline Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:24 am
Wonderful posts, Jeff and David. I see this theme running and running. Jeff, I know you were not trying to highlight my mistakes! Blimey, you could have typed them in red (I wish I had the time to do all that stuff!) and I would have taken it in good part. I am the least easy person in the world to offend. Got that? You two are awful taking me away from other pressing engagements, but the girl just can't help herself these days! I'll be listening, Love, Caroline
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 09:39 am
Hello Everyone ! Wow ! There have been some very interesting posts recently, and some very heavy-duty opinions, especially in relation to suspects. Some good stuff though, certainly giving me cause to be apprehensive, if/when ever putting forth a name to consider. I would like to know if anyone has any further thoughts on the "Seaside Home" episode if possible. I've always been interested in this confrontation, but other than a few vague references, can find no real substance to the supposed confrontation and identification. My mind wanders on to the PC Ernest Thompson story. Here we have a rookie policeman, walking his beat, the first such time he was on a beat on his own. He hears the retreating footsteps, I've read elsewhere that he actually saw the figure of a man running away. He then turns his light around the corner to see the body of Francis Coles, her throat cut, bleeding profusely, but possibly not yet dead, so he stays with the body. Having to remain with Coles until help arrived, Thompson is haunted for the rest of his days by the fact that he just "might" have been seconds away from capturing "Jack the Ripper". Now this, of course, took place in February 1891, nearly 3-years after the reign of the Ripper. The officer still had very strong feelings that this just might have been the Ripper, so it does appear that the police, although having scaled down police presence in Whitechapel, by this time, felt that Jack the Ripper was still out there somewhere. This is something (I believe) to keep in mind when considering suspects like Druitt. The story of PC Ernest Thompson, is a very sad, tragic one. He is eventually stabbed to death in a brawl in 1900 (?). What we have learned of this officer however, does indicate that he felt very stongly that he was close to capturing the Rippper. (I believe Coles' murderer was never caught) It does transpire, that the PC was affected very deeply by this incident, and it haunted him throughout the rest of his days. I tend to relate these issues, with the night of the Eddowes murder, and if for example,there was a PC, who just might have actually seen the villain and Eddowes together, yet maybe didn't give them a second thought he would have been very troubled later, after hearing of the murder. He then virtually cracked up over the incident, being sent to recover at the Policemans' Seaside convalescent home. This would make a great deal of sense to the identification and swearing to the suspect, without any follow-up inquiry. The thing is, there is a single mention of a city PC in Mitre Sq., who actually saw the villain, yet no other mention is made. Every thread then leads to Lawende, or some other citizen, and then the Jewish element is brought in. Everyone tends to dismiss the city PC claim, as a simple mistake, as there was no city policeman in or around Mitre Sq., at that time. We also do know that police presence was considerable during this period, so maybe, just maybe, there was a PC witness, and the authorities decided to keep this information top-secret, hush-hush, not to release to the press, and all that. Maybe the policeman saw a Polish jew, maybe he saw someone he recognised. If he felt the man was a Jew, or foreigner, it may tie-in someway to the Ghoulston Street Graffiti, which was found a considerable time later, by another policeman on his beat. Any thoughts ? Cheers All ! Jeff D
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 11:45 am
Hi Jeff, and All. This topic has taken my attention more than once, ie: the PC in Mitre Sq. I have come to the conclusion that it is a statement made in error. The best candidate I thought on one occasion was PC Harvey, and I obtained the Eddowes inquest testimony with a hope of finding his statement incomplete, giving room for further conjecture. But alas it appears to be complete, and he can be ruled out as the illusive PC. If there was another PC in the vacinity who could be considered as a likely candidate I would have expected there to be some reference to him in the inquest testimony. As there is not, then I am under the impression that this 'statement of a PC in Mitre Sq' is in error. However, knowing Harvey's beat and how long it appeared to take him, I have questions about the time he guessed at, when he made his statement regarding, no-one seen in the Duke St./Church Passage area. The issue of the Seaside Home has been a source of contension with me for some time, having only once been refered to by Swanson, and no-one else, and knowing his track record on those statements in the marginalia, I feel sure he is once again in error. But where was the I.D. done?, if not the Seaside Home, then where ? and what was on his mind in mentioning the Seaside Home, confusion with another case ?, wouldn't be the first time. An amusing sideline to this is that on the very remote outside chance that Colney Hatch was meant, it would pose some interesting questions, and bring one suspect back into the limelight. But Colney Hatch is North of Central London and can hardly be confused with a place in Brighton. Unless there was a euphemism for Colney Hatch or some other place, that confused Swanson into thinking of a Convalescent Home. After all, the term Seaside Home was a euphemism for that same Police Convalescent Home. Unfortunatly, I don't think the accuracy of any of the memoirs or Police statements made years after the fact, can be upheld. And using them as a foundation of a theory is unwise, those statements must be treated with extreme caution. And questioned, whenever contrary evidence is available.
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 12:50 pm
Hello Jon ! .... and thank-you most sincerely for the considerable, and thoughtful information in your post. The Seaside home, and certainly the notes such as Swansons' "marginalia". do present more questions than answers. Statements such as the identity of the miscreant Jack the Ripper was a definitly ascertained fact, that the suspect when confronted was identified without hesitation , and that the ID took place at the Seaside home, are great, and probable unfathomable mysteries. It would make sense though, that if a PC was a witness, that this information was witheld at the inquest. The police were being ever more secretive as each murder occurred, and as the press became more hungry for details to publish. As today, a certain part of a signature or some other detail is always witheld, as evidence to determine the real culprit, the one who would be the only person to know such a detail. I think the police in 1888 did act in such a way. They certainly did not want the papers to alert a suspect, if they had a good description, and certainly would not release to the public, the fact that the Ripper could have simply slipped through their grasp, the night Eddowes was murdered. She had only just been released from being locked up, walking straight into the hands of the Ripper, as if that wasn't bad enough. We have always got to keep in mind that the police were under such extreme pressure at the time from the public, the press, and the Government, and if their inefficiency led to another murder, and the escape of the murderer, there would be an excellent, absolute monumental reason to cover this up as much as possible. I don't want to go down the road of conspiracies and cover-ups at the highest level in the land and such,... but the thoughts of D Radka, and Swanson simply repeating things he had been told from up-on-high, can make a great deal of sense. You Jon, seam to know or have given as much thought as anyone on the Seaside home thing...... does anyone at all know the actual location, are their any further records that can be obtained from or about the home, that may shed some light on who the ID was with, who the witness was, or simply who the patient at the home may have been ? Are there presently any current investigations going on into the Seaside home story ? Thanks very much for your input Jon, I would love to hear from anyone, who may have any further insight into the policemans' convalescent home matter. As ever .... Jeff D
Author: Anonymous Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 04:58 pm
For the info of Jeff D, and just to straighten out the story of the finding of Coles body, Pc Thompson did not see anyone. He heard footsteps only going off towards Mansell Street and then he turned into Swallow Gardens and found the body.
Author: Rotter Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 05:07 pm
Does anyone know the actual procedure for identification in those days, ie was the suspect pointed out sitting in a room full of people, was he dragged in by a pair of uniformed officers? Line-ups are still controversial today and must be carefully done,as this has a great bearing on the validity of the ID. I have a sinking feeling that nobody knows with any certainty--the standard "Ripper Case Reply!"
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 05:19 pm
Jeff, To answer your question on the location of 'The Seaside Home' Several boarding houses had been used for the purpose of convalescing since 1887, but the one in Brighton was located at 51 Clarendon Villas, West Brighton and opened in March 1890. But it wasn't until 1893 that they built a Home for that specific use. (ref: JtR, A-Z)
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 05:54 pm
Rotter, If Swanson was correct and an Identification took place in Brighton, this was not normal procedure.(Stewart Evans might be of help here) What actualy took place will remain a mystery to us all. It is reasonable to assume that the suspect was brought before someone who was convalescing, which has raised the question of who could have been sent to this Home in the months following the murders. Also, If this location for identification was correct it took place more than 16 months after Kelly's murder. And what good that would be is hard to imagine. Swanson: And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London. That entry in the margin tends to suggest that the I.D. took place fairly recently following the last murder, it would be hard to make sense of such a statement if he was refering to suspect being I.d.'d over 16 months later. And in the endpapers Swanson wrote that suspect had been 'sent by us with great difficulty' this could be applied to any detained suspect, but one known a 'Cohen' was actualy sent to Colney Hatch Assylum on December 21st 1888 and 'under restraint'. I for one do not beleive 'Cohen' to have been 'Jack' but it is possible that Swanson was getting details confused.
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 02:53 am
The matter of the identification is a very complex one and the arguments can rage on forever and get bogged down in points of minutea which we'll probably never be able to resolve. It rests, of course, on Swanson and if you choose to disbelieve him, attribute him with a faulty memory, or think his comments self-delusional, then there is no point in further discussion. If you accept what he says as true, at least in substance, then you accept that there was as suspect, was a witness, and was an identification. Nobody suggested that PC Thompson was the witness, but in case this idea does strike someone, Aaron Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch on 7 February 1891 (and the identification must therefore have taken place), and Coles was murdered on 13 February 1891. (One should note that Anderson indicates that the idenification took place after the suspect had been committed, which, is true, and if Thompson had seen somebody, could possibly make Thompson the witness.) However, we are expressly told that the witness would not swear to the suspect because both were Jews, thus the witness, if a policeman, would have to have been a Jewish policeman (which presumably rules out Thompson). It also probably rules out a policeman as the witness altogether. There must have been some Jewish policemen, but I am not aware of any. And a policeman is unlikely to have refused to testify in any case. So, prima facie anyway, farethewell Mr City PC. Jon, you incline to dismiss Swanson because of his 'track record on those statements in the marginalia'. The only thing in the marginalia which can be shown to be wrong is Swanson's statement that the suspect died soon after committal to Colney Hatch. (Also, I suppose, his statement that the Ripper murders ceased after his committal, though it should be noted that the case papers do seem to have been closed in 1892). So I would submit that as far as it goes, Swanson's track record is pretty good thus far. What makes you think otherwise? Although various establishments were used for convalescent policemen, by the time Swanson wrote the words 'Seaside Home' then, as now, meant one place and one place only, the Police Convalescent Home in Brighton. That this was indeed the establishment meant is further indicated by the capitalisation of the 'P' and 'H' and the word 'the' rather than 'a'. I did quite a lot of research into the Seaside Home and there is nothing in the extant records that I have examined to shed any further light on the matter beyond a possible reference I referred to in The Uncensored Facts. The first annual report of the Home (in March 1891) recorded that two guests had been accepted by 'special request'. Since all policeman had the right to stay at the home, these guests presumably weren't policemen. Who were they? Kosminski and the witness? I don't think the identification was very carefully done. More a case of the witness being confronted with the suspect and being asked: "was this this chap you saw, sir?" What really matters, though, is that there must have been 'evidence' against the suspect for the police to have arranged the identification in the first place. Also, we are told that the witness unhesitatingly identified the suspect. We don't know precisely what this means, but it certainly looks as if the witness's reaction at the confrontation was persuasive. Thus, there must have been a strongish case against the suspect - strong enough for the addition of the witness testimony to have hung him! And I am not inclined to think that the police at the time were so extraordinarilly dense as to be unaware that an ID over a year after the event was questionable.
Author: Anonymous Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 05:41 am
I think that the comments by Swanson are 'dubious' for several reasons. He says - 1. 'The only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.' Now this must be dubious because, according to all the surviving evidence, no-one had an actual confirmed sighting of the killer. Amongst the best would have been Mrs Long (and it can't be her as the witness is referred to as 'he'), Israel Schwartz (and Stride may not have been a Ripper victim), and Joseph Lawende (and contemporary police evidence proves that Lawende was not a good witness, his identification of Eddowes was by her clothing only, anyway). 2. Swanson went on, '...but he refused to give evidence against him.' This of course doesn't make any sense as any witness in such a serious case as murder could be subpoenaed to give evidence. Also if such an event had occurred then more than just Swanson's scribblings in confirmation would have leaked over the years. There is no way that just he and Anderson would have been privy to it, and with no official record surviving! 3. Swanson says, '...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect...' Such eye-witness evidence of identification, so long after the event, would not have been accepted by any court in the land as sufficient to condemn anyone to the gallows. In any case we know the murderer was not seen at work, and all other sightings amount to circumstantial evidence only as they merely put the suspect near the scene of the murder, possibly with the victim. 4. Swanson said '...and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he did not wish to be left on his mind.' This also makes no sense, the suspect b{if} he was convicted would not have hanged anyway. As a 'lunatic' or 'imbecile' (with mental problems anyway such as Kosminski) he would have been locked away for his own, and others', good anyway and not hanged. The police would surely have explained this to the witness to compel him to give evidence and ease his conscience. 5. 'And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.' This, again, is incorrect, for the 'identification' was made before the murder of Frances Coles. 6. Swanson also says, 'After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified.' Again here Swanson says 'where he had been sent by us' b{not} 'where we had taken him,' indicating that others had conducted the identification, not himself. It is impossible to believe that no other hint of all this would have leaked out had it been true. 7. 'On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day and night.' Another amazing statement as it would have us believe that after a 'failed' identification, which the police believed to be positive, a suspected multiple killer was released, or perhaps not even under arrest in the first place. And that no other information on this has survived! For the City CID to be involved it would seem that this suspect must have been a suspect for the Eddowes murder, the only investigation in which the City Police were involved. By this reasoning it would seem to indicate that the witness was Lawende, and in that case we know that his evidence was not good enough to convict anyone. 8. 'In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS.' Here Swanson makes more serious errors if Aaron Kosminski was the suspect. Kosminski was admitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse in February 1891, and after that to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum. Also he did not 'die shortly afterwards,' he lived until 1919! And would have been still very much alive when Swanson scribbled these notes. Thus those who would have us believe what Swanson and Anderson (and don't forget that Anderson claimed that the suspect's guilt was a definitely ascertained fact, which of course must be impossible as there was no trial and no guilty verdict) said want us to also believe that this lunatic stopped killing in November 1888 for two years, and that in case of such great import to Swanson, he did not even bother to ascertain what happened to the man afterwards. This, truly, is unbelievable. How can Mr Begg say 'I don't think the identification was very carefully done.' What?! In a case of this great importance with the serious offense of multiple murder??? Mr Begg says '...there must have been 'evidence' against the suspect for the police to have arranged the identification in the first place.' Well it couldn't have amounted to much, could it? He was released afterwards! How can Mr Begg say 'Thus, there must have been a strongish case against the suspect - strong enough for the addition of the witness testimony to have hung [sic] him!' Well, again I say, it couldn't have been too strong if they released him afterwards - released someone they believed was a multiple killer and had embarrassed the whole of the London Police! No the whole thing is questionable. It would have been a bit more credible if something by the way of an official record had survived (and the existing records did not indicate to the contrary) as to these incredible events. All we have are the scribbled notes of an at least 62 years old retired police officer, written at least 7 years after he retired, and backed by nothing more than the words in the book which he was annotating. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 05:57 am
Somewhere, as we speak, someone is writing a "Kosminski Diary" that will answer all these questions...
Author: Anonymous Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 06:21 am
:-)
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 08:04 am
All Anonymouses points are perfectly reasonable points, but what do they add up to? That Swanson is a liar, addled in old age, confused, senile, self-deluded? All these things have been suggested at one time or another and any one of them could be true. Ditto Anderson. But they are also very easy ways of getting rid of awkward testimony. The fact is that we don't have any reason to suppose that Swanson would have lied (especially in marginalia written for his own entertainment and which only survived through good fortune). Such evidence as we possess suggests that he remained in full possession of his faculties until his death. He was an intelligent and experienced policeman, unlikely to have accidentally made wild statements about police proceedure. And he was uniquely well-informd about this case. He is also on record in 1895 as saying that he believed the Ripper to be a man 'who is now dead'. If this was a reference to 'Kosminski' , a possibility acknowledged even by Phil Sugden (ch.21, nt.20), no lover of the Kosminski case, then Swanson believed Kosminski was guilty within seven years of the cessation of the crimes, four years after the identification, and when Swanson was about forty-five, not an age noted for senility. Anonymous asks: "How can Mr Begg say 'I don't think the identification was very carefully done.' What?! In a case of this great importance with the serious offense of multiple murder???" I can say it because that was the way identifications were conducted in those days. Read up on the Lipski case for examples. Anonymous says: Mr Begg says '...there must have been 'evidence' against the suspect for the police to have arranged the identification in the first place.' Well it couldn't have amounted to much, could it? He was released afterwards!" I say, we don't know what the evidence amounted to. Nor do we know what factors caused the Met to release the suspect. Many actions don't make sense when only half the facts are known. What we are told, if we choose to believe it, is that the eye-witness testimony would have hanged the suspect. Unless one thinks that even in 1891 someone would have been hanged on the eye-witness testimony alone, one must surely deduce that other fairly strong evidence existed. "How can Mr Begg say 'Thus, there must have been a strongish case against the suspect - strong enough for the addition of the witness testimony to have hung [sic] him!' Well, again I say, it couldn't have been too strong if they released him fterwards - released someone they believed was a multiple killer and had embarrassed the whole of the London Police!" I can say it because there must have been evidence against the suspect for him to have become a suspect in the first place, because this was 1891 and the suspect would not have become a suspect just because he acted strangely, because the police were sufficiently concerned to arrange an eye-witness identification, because according to Swanson they did this 'with difficulty', and because they seem to have conducted it at the Seaside Home in Brighton. Okay, so the source isn't an official source file. It is nevertheless a source written by Swanson and, unless it can be shown to be otherwise, it is presumably an accurate record of what happened or what he believed happened.
Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 10:00 am
Paul, (hope your feeling better, BTW) No-one is suggesting that Swanson is lying, mistaken yes, but not lying. And of course he must have beleived what he wrote to be true, does THAT make it true ? Anon beat me to covering Swansons track record, well done Anon. But your last sentence Paul, is what this thing is about. It has been 'presumed' to be true because it was wrote by Swanson, just like Anderson's fine examples of 'poor' recollections. And MacNaughten fair's no better. All these eminent individuals have been shot full of holes by many an astute observer. In fact the only ones who appear to cling to their recollections are those readers who's personal suspect appears to benefit from such confused recollections. Typically the proposers of Druitt (MacNaughten) or Kosminski (Anderson/Swanson) try to uphold these memorandums in an attempt to help support their suspect. But for those of us who have no specific suspect in mind, and who are able to compare the known facts with such confused statements, it is not difficult to clear the wood from the chaf. And accept these memoirs for what they are. Not lies, but confused recollections, written too long after the fact, based on truth for sure, but distorted by faulty memories.
Author: Anonymous Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 11:07 am
You must carefully examine what Anderson said, followed by a careful examination of what Swanson said, compare each with the other, and then decide yourself what they add up to. It must also be borne in mind that whatever information Anderson had was Swanson-derived in the first place, so it should be expected to more or less agree. Neither, I venture to suggest, should it be described as 'testimony.' We don't have any reason to suppose that anyone lied, that is not the point, what is the point is that some of what Swanson says is demonstrably wrong, therefore making the validity of the whole suspect. The reasons for that could be many. Now, whilst not suggesting that the 'marginalia' is forged or false, it certainly does not approach anything that would be admissable in a legal sense. It could not be proven to be in his hand for a start, even if it apparently is. Again, I stress, I am not suggesting it is forged but it did serendipitously appear in the public forum exactly at the time Kosminski was emerging as the favoured suspect over Druitt who had reigned supreme until then. It is written in pencil and its owner introduced it by trying to sell it to the press. I appreciate all the arguments in its favor, I am just introducing those against. Mr Begg states that Swanson's comments which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7, 1895 (ie he believed the Ripper to be a man who was then dead) may refer to Kosminski, then goes on to conclude 'then Swanson believed Kosminski was guilty...' etc. This is simply not good enough, especially when such a description (at that time only a year after Macnaghten's report revealing Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski) fits Druitt better than Kosminski - Druitt was dead, Kosminski was still very much alive. Mr Begg confidently states, in relation to identifications, 'I can say it because that was the way identifications were conducted in those days,' stating in support of this the identification of Israel Lipski. In the Lipski case a witness, a shop manager, Charles Moore, who Lipski allegedly purchased the poison (nitric acid) from, gave evidence of identification. He was taken to the London Hospital to identify Lipski, who had also taken some nitric acid, which identification Moore duly did. Obviously the defence contested the identification on the grounds of fairness as they alleged that it was obvious who Lipski was as there was a plain-clothed officer sitting with him (Mr Moore stated that he did not know it was a plain-clothed officer). The defence persisted that it was the only bed by which anyone was sitting. It was nothing less than the defence's duty to cast doubt upon the identification. However, Mr Moore said that '...the prisoner is the man to the best of my belief.' Although not conclusive, such evidence is very persuasive to a jury. Especially when the memory of the witness was very fresh as in this case. The point of explaining this, though, is to show that it is not valid for Mr Begg to assess any identification regarding Kosminski in the light of the stated case of Lipski. The circumstances were totally different and if Mr Begg extends his research he will find that there were (and are) different types of identification (e.g. formal identity parades, crowd identification, confrontation). What little we know of the dubious identification of Kosminski (as a suspect, not as an offender indicates that it was probably by way of confrontation which is one of the least satisfactory methods). So I shall stick by my previous comments and say that no I do not think that any other 'evidence' they had could have amounted to much - the suspect was released! And yes, Mr Begg, eyewitness evidence was enough to hang a man, but it would have to have been direct eyewitness testimony (e.g. he saw the offender actually kill the deceased), and not circumstantial such as that of old eyewitness evidence of a mere suspect. So, ponder and ruminate all you wish Mr Begg on 'not knowing what the evidence amounted to' and 'what factors caused the Met to release the suspect.' That we will probably never know. But we do know that he was released and not detained, and we do know that whatever else they knew it was insufficient to hold, and this is a far cry from Anderson's bold definitely ascertained fact. Mr Begg says 'I can say it because there must have been evidence against the suspect for him to have become a suspect in the first place.' True Mr Begg, but surely this does not amount to much when you look at the dozens of suspects previously arrested and released, some on the thinnest of grounds! Swanson's comment about arranging the identification 'with difficulty' could amount to absolutely anything from tranportation difficulties, to escort difficulties, it doesn't add relevance, it is an unknown factor. There is much supposition in Mr Begg's arguments, although I feel that this cannot be held against him as he, like any other theorist, has to grapple with the thorny problem of the lack of surviving records. Mr Begg's concluding words 'it is presumably an accurate [we know its not that!] record of what happened or what he believed happened,' show both the weakness of his case and the grave doubt attached to any reasoning based on it.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 11:54 am
Hey, All! Here's a message I posted under another topic that I'd like you all to consider (Paul, you can beat my butt later, when you're completely recovered). And I do find this discussion fascinating because I never could separate all the issues involved. Anyway, here's what I said elsewhere: Hey, again! I'm getting the feeling that we're pressing too many buttons that mean something to Paul. Reading the other topic where the weird story (weird in the sense that I can't figure it out...which means little, as you all know) of the identified/not identified, released/not released "suspect" is being debated, I suppose this topic's discussion of Anderson may (have...ooops!) a little bearing on that. And I'm quite sure Paul can and will pound what I've said above into mincemeat...I just don't think he needs to do it right now, so soon after a heart operation. I have a suggestion that I'll also make on that topic (meaning this one): Let's table or put aside this discussion for a while. Paul just had an operation and should ought not to have to defend his ideas right at this moment. Aggravation isn't exactly what the doctor ordered for him. Of course, the final decision is Paul's...I just think we can all come back to these contentious issues when Paul's post-op recovery is complete. What do you all think? And forgive me, Paul, if I presume too much. Yaz
Author: Anonymous Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 12:30 pm
These are very kind, worthy and sympathetic words by Yazoo. And, I am sure, I wish nothing to Mr Begg more than a speedy and full recovery. However, this is a public forum for debate, and not something run solely for Mr Begg's entertainment and benefit. He may just as easily pick up a newspaper and read something that upsets him. He read and joined in the debate of his own free will. He may leave of his own free will. He may join or comment later of his own free will. But, no one individual should dictate what any other person discusses, or refrains from discussing. We are talking freedom of speech here, not censorship or putting things on hold. After all, some may not be in a position to contribute at a later date. Mr Begg is old and wise enough to decide what he should or should not read/become involved in. This said, I am sure he will appreciate Yaz's concern. I too am concerned for his health. But much of what has to be said needs saying straight away or it loses its immediacy, even, sometimes, relevance. So whilst I empathise, I do not agree. These boards are for the majority, not any one person. Please get well soon Mr Begg.
Author: Yazoo (1cust70.tnt15.det3.da.uu.net - 208.255.12.70) Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 01:26 pm
Hey, Anonymous! It was just a thought. You raise excellent points to disregard what I say. One thing: since most of the opposing points are being raised by Paul...I just hope he'll take it easy (especially on poor, simple, innocent, impertinent little me!!!!) Grins, Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 01:49 pm
Hi Jon. No, believing something to be true doesn't make it true. And of course Swanson could have been mistaken. But a belief is usually based on some sort of evidence. What evidence was Swanson's belief based on? And if Swanson was mistaken, precisely what was he mistaken about? The core element of this story is that two years or so after the murders some chap was identified by an eye-witness who not only refused to testify, but whose testimony, had he given it, would have been of highly dubious value. Said suspect was then released by the police, presumably because they lacked any evidence on which to hold him, and his family quickly committed him to an asylum before the police could do any more mischief. On the face of it, it would be surprising if even the police station cat had though the suspect guilty. And that appears to be the essence of Anonymous's case. And, as I acknowleged, his arguments are perfectly reasonable. But Anderson and Swanson did attach significance to these events. Indeed, one concluded that the suspect's guilt was 'a definitly ascertained fact' and the oher tacitly supported that conclusion. And because they were not stupid or inexperienced or ill-informed or under-informed men, I think we are justified in asking why they placed credence in this 'evidence'. In fact, despite all the problems presented by Swanson's account, because they were not stupid or inexperienced or ill-informed or under-informed men, I think we are justified in supposing that those beliefs must have been based on more than the bare bones that Swanson's notes give us? And therein, I hazard, is where Anonymous's assessment of the marginalia and my own diverge. I think Anderson and Swanson must have based their cnclusion on something rather more substantial than is apparent. Anonymous seems to think otherwise. As for much of what Anonymous says, he basically echoes my own point of view and we would seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. For example, I am perfectly well aware that there were different types of identity parade, but the circumstances of the identification at the Seaside Home suggests an episode not dissimilar from that described of Lipski - i.e., the witness was confronted with the suspect and asked if he was the man he'd seen. And I am equally well aware that eye-witness identification could hang someone, but, as Annymous seems to agree, not the testimony of an eye-witness a year or more after the event. That is why I suggest that there must have been rather more solid evidence against the suspect. Mr Begg says 'I can say it because there must have been evidence against the suspect for him to have become a suspect in the first place.' True Mr Begg, but surely this does not amount to much when you look at the dozens of suspects previously arrested and released, some on the thinnest of grounds! I would agree, but we are talking about 1891. I accept that anyone behaving in he least bit oddly could have been - and often were - arrested in 1888. But in 1891? Well, maybe. On the other hand, to have become a suspect in 1891 maybe required more than just a flimsy suspicion. Mr Begg's concluding words 'it is presumably an accurate [we know its not that!] record of what happened or what he believed happened,' show both the weakness of his case and the grave doubt attached to any reasoning based on it. With respect, we do not know it isn't in substance an accurate account of what happened. Unless the story is a complete fabrication, which as I understand it isn't what anyone here is saying, then there was a suspect, there was a witness, and there was an identification. If all that happened, then the only question in dispute is why and when did Anderson and Swanson apparently accept that the suspect was Jack the Ripper? And thanks for your concern, Yaz, but I think I am saying no more here than I have said elsewhere, namely that if there was an eye-witness identification and if Anderson and Swanson did genuinely accept that the suspect was guilty, then the substance of what Swanson tells us, improbable though it may seem, is true. If it is true then we have to try to find out what evidence his belief was based on and then assess whether that evidence was good or not. On the other hand, if his story isn't true, it's a lie (or a serious mistake) and we must try to understand why that mistake was made.
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 01:52 pm
I posted on this topic last week, but nobody's had the gumption to respond to my comments directly. It seems to me the supervisor/employee dimension to the Anderson/Swanson matter must be taken into account here. A revaluation of Swanson's marginalia in terms of how it may be repeating misinformation received from Anderson is in order. Remember, Swanson was an Andersonophile; he adored his "old master" and therefore could have put himself in position to be used by Anderson at the time. In every big organization such as a police department, superiors contrive to protect their positions by structuring reality (how things are reported, what is said and what is left unsaid, who says what to whom and who has enough correct information to debunk it, etc.) in such a way as to require inferiors to unwittingly accept responsibility ahead of time if something later goes wrong. This is life, it must have been happening at the Met, and I'd expect it to be a pertinent concern considering the extraordinary nature of the Seaside matter. Jeff D.'s comment last week about the Ripper possibly being a police officer and Anderson/Swanson possibly covering it up is important when interpreting Seaside. If we let ourselves become Swansonophiles ourselves, we risk being duped by Anderson as well, now a century after. If, to protect his behind as well he might, Anderson split the secret responsibilities concerning Seaside between himself and his trusted employee Swanson, how would he have done so? Likely by making Swanson responsible for the lower end matter of the suspect, while retaining responsibility for the higher-end matter of the witness himself. Doctor Sir Robert Anderson wouldn't concern himself with some Whitechapelian wretch more than he had to, would he? This might be why Swanson speaks of the Seaside placement as having been done "with difficulty"--he's probably remembering the pick up, transportation and guarding of the suspect, registration and other functions, since he attended to them himself, directing low-level police employees who don't file detailed reports. I remember what was hard for me to do quite well, I don't usually remember what was hard for my supervisor to do. Anderson would likely have handled the witness. Anderson, but not Swanson would therefore likely have been present at the identification or be receiving a privy first-hand report of it, but what happened as reported in the marginalia would likely be what Anderson told Swanson had happened. David
Author: Yazoo (1cust241.tnt6.det3.da.uu.net - 208.254.53.241) Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:19 pm
Hey, All! Help me understand this. Perhaps I am wrong, but I took the comment about "swansonophilia" to be directed at my insistence on the primacy of the Swanson summary of Schwartz's testimony in Stride's murder. All we have officially of Schwartz's testimony is that summary -- and I repeatedly mentioned to CM and others that 1) the fact it came through an indirect source, Swanson, 2) was a summary, not a transcript, 3) that it was unclear who wrote the summary, although Swanson's name is attached to it, and 4) that selective memory or a different stress on what was "important" in Schwartz's testimony...all these things were against the summary. No one followed up on those points then or now. Officially, all we have of Schwartz's testimony to the police is that summary and a hasty commentary via Abberline. Hardly "swansonophilia." I don't know if Swanson was Anderson's lackey. I don't know if Anderson was Warren's or Monro's lackey. I don't know if Warren or Monro were Matthew's lackeys. I don't know if Matthews was...you get the idea! But how would saying "Yes" to any of that change the fundamentals of the story the post-ers here are trying to unravel? Does agreement with your boss automatically undermine your veracity or bring into question your intellectual capacities? Anderson states what he believes. Swanson states what he believes. Anonymous, Jon, Jeff, and Paul are trying to sort out what to believe and on what basis. As to the PC-as-witness angle, Paul's post of Sunday, February 14, 1999 - 02:53 am pretty much rules that out. I've heard no one offer proof or evidence against that claim...yet! Here's what I think is agreed-upon: 1) Kosminski was the Anderson/Swanson suspect. 2) No one is certain who the witness was. 3) No one is certain what other evidence, if any, besides the witness identification that Anderson/Swanson had on Kosminski. 4) No charges were ever brought against Kosminski related to the Whitechapel or Jack the Ripper murders. 5) Kosminski was a Polish Jew; Anderson and Swanson say the suspect was a Polish Jew. 6) The witness seems to have been at least a Jew also, possibly a Polish Jew. 7) Both sides of this issue agree there are errors in place and times and other details mentioned by Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, and just about everybody else (including me) who's ever mentioned this episode. 8) One of the biggest errors (for which we can find evidence) is that Kosminski died in 1919 while Swanson believes Kosminski died in 1894, or at least shortly after going to Colney Hatch. Here's what I think the issues are: 1) Who was the witness? 2) Where did the identification take place -- in The Seaside Home or Colney Hatch or some other convalescent home? A policemen's retirment home or a civilian rest home? 3) How firm or certain was the witness' identification? 4) Under what conditions did the identification take place -- meaning were these conditions "fair" or occur in a timely manner as to be useful in making a definitive identification? 5) Does Swanson's marginalia help Anderson's claims or just cloud the issue -- whether because Swanson is (and I'll list as many possibilities as I've read and remember...there's always room for more, none of them favorable to Swanson) a goof, senile, a lackey, frequently in error, mistaken this time only, confused with other cases, forgetful, etc? 6) Is there any other (non-Anderson, non-Swanson) evidence against Kosminski? All the assessment of Swanson and Anderson's claims, and all the answers to these questions bear on two things, and two things only: 1) Was Aaron Kosminski the man -- the suspect -- Anderson and Swanson believed to be Jack the Ripper? 2) Were Anderson and Swanson right and Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper? Is that a good summary of what Anonymous, Jeff, Jon, David on one side and Paul on the other are debating? I'm trying to understand, so be patient with me, please. Yaz
Author: Caroline (webcache02p.cache.pol.co.uk - 195.92.194.72) Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:30 pm
God, you men can't half talk! Why don't you chill out for a while and wait for my research to catch up? Or do you enjoy all this endless speculation? You don't seem to have much faith in the endeavours of this poor hard-working female, do you? Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:38 pm
The speculation is the best part! Think how empty our lives would be if the Ripper were finally identified!
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 04:50 pm
I keep picking up here a feeling of condescension towards the police of the day--they were not the lackeys, fools, simps and windbags it is claimed they were. They were serious men in a very complex situation and they didn't have the luxury of spending years doing research and making up their minds. Of course they had one big advantage over us--they were there! We scorn Anderson for saying he could unravel the mystery in a few days-but also scorn him for not doing so. (I'm not going after anyone in particular, just in a bad mood)
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 07:06 pm
The police COULD NOT have known what they were looking for, because they DID NOT have a thought in their noggins corresponding to "sexual serial murderer" and what it implies as we do today. Their work on the case is acceptable and honorable. No condescension or scorn is due them from us. So please let us cut short that thread right here and now. There seems no way to avoid being labeled concerning the Seaside question. People are going to read you politically as being in one camp or the other no matter what you say. The problem as I see it is that we come to two-dimensionally believe that either police were competent or they weren't. They either were good policemen or they were stinky-pants policemen. We either believe in them or we think them unreliable. In reality there is so much more to the matter than this kind of cartooning. We must consider these questions also in terms of the psychiatry issue--it didn't exist yet as of their day--the superior/subordinate issue, the extraordinariness of the whole Seaside matter (out of which for some reason no official police records apparently were made), the information/misinformation/disinformation issue, the Jewish justice/gentile justice issue, and whatever else we need to make an interpretation. We are now in the richest area of the case, and when the notion of richness is invoked wealth is not meant, rather a cluster, a junk drawer, complicated, dirty, many possibilities, lots of God knows what stuff in here, messy, that kind of thing. This cluster of richness radically resists resolution of itself. It is impossible to determine what is essential or accidental in it unless we were to use something else from the case to subsume it under a general rule, and then attempt to make sense out of what Anderson/Swanson say in terms of that. Any other way always devolves into a "can you trust A/S, should you not trust them" game, leading in circles. We must not fear the circle, we must master it. David
Author: Rotter Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 10:55 pm
I'm not sure how much of a help it is to have the concept of "sexual serial killer." This is another descriptive term for something we really don't understand. It is probably a byproduct of the modern obsession with sex. When people kill, we see the sex angle. Other times or societies would see a different emphasis. The Victorians threw around terms like "sexually insane" which fitted a type of behavior they thought they could pigeonhole. It got them nowhere. We probably couldn't even agree on a definition of what a sexual serial killer is in any specific way.
Author: Jeff D Monday, 15 February 1999 - 12:19 pm
Hello Guys ! In my own interpretation, I understand that the hunt for the Ripper was really closed and/or very much scaled down, sometime shortly after Francis Coles was murdered, and also, just to throw a wrench into the works, after Thomas Cutbush was encarcerated in an asylum. Up until this time, as evidenced by the PC Thompson incident, there are indications that police felt the Ripper was still out there in Whitechapel somewhere. Paul Begg has given me some excellent advice on Cutbush, who was the one person McNaughton virtually defended in his memoranda, by throwing names at us, such as Druitt, Ostrog, and Kosminski. McNaughton saying "anyone of these would be a more likely Ripper", than someone who simply poked and prodded lady's in the backside, with a knife. So, please understand me, I am not yet suggesting Cutbush is our man in any way, it's just that his uncle (I believe) Chief Superintendant Cutbush, committed suicide a few years later, and I wonder whether there could be any connection between the Policemans Convalescent home, and Superintendant Cutbush. Could it be determined whether Supt. Cutbush ever spent any time at the convalescent home, or would I be simply wasting my energies ? This is probably way, way out in left field, but from other things I have read, the police for some reason did scale their efforts down considerably, early in 1891. It does appear that even after Druitt's suicide the police weren't convinced the Ripper was dead, or in custody. Police presence lessened throughout 1889, and then there was a significant scale-down or closure in 1891. Cutbush, who (it appears) could have been more violent and disturbed than anyone, including the police at the time, were prepared to admit was actually re-captured, and sent to an asylum, shortly after the Coles' murder. I realise that I am clutching at straws, but we did have some interesting discussion on Cutbush in the past, who is the one other person mentioned in the Mcnaughton memoranda who consistently gets overlooked (as a harmless lunatic), when considering a suspect. Cheers All, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all the arguments on the ID, and it does appear there are many different interpretations on the memoranda, the marginalia, and the seaside home incident, besides Anderson and Swansons statements. I don't believe Swanson was senile, but I do believe he would have repeated the words of his superior, with utmost loyalty and dedication. The Jewish reference would have been a very easy target, and possible scapegoat also. These are significant discussions, and lie at the very root of our studies. Anyone who makes a claim such as "definitely ascertained fact" and such, must have had a solid foundation from which to base their claims. Combine this with other later statements like "hot potato", and you've got to wonder whether there was any police cover up, or what the police at the time actually had in way of any real evidence. Cheers all, sorry for such meandering thoughts, I wil try and be more explicit on my ideas on follow-up. I just don't rightly know how to word my argument, while making it sound sensible (LOL). As ever ..... Jeff D
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 15 February 1999 - 01:28 pm
The following poste was from the previous board posted by myself last year, but might help in stirring some thoughts here: Kosminski, a poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel, aged 23. - his insanity was said to be due to self abuse, eats from the gutter, drinks from taps (faucet), very dirty, has delusions, hallucinations, reticent & morose, unoccupied, incoherent, apathetic, noisey, demented, although he did threaten his sister with a knife, his overall demeanor was less than violent. - July 1890, sent to Mile End Infirmary for 3 days. - 4th Feb. 1891, returned to Mile End Inf. - 7th Feb. 1891, transfered to Colney Hatch Asylum. - Apr. 1894, transfered to Leavensden Asylum (for lunatics). - Mar. 1919, died of gangrene poisening. Cohen, a foreign Jew, no known address, aged 23. - determined to be insane, attempted suicide, violent, noisey, difficult to manage, threatening behavior, shouting and energetic, had to be force fed, becomes dangerous, restless, dirty, agressive, mischevious & destructive. - 7th Dec. 1888, arrested following a brothel raid and delivered to Whitechapel workhouse Infirmary. - 21st Dec. 1888, transfered to Colney Hatch Asylum, restrained (Swansons 'with difficulty'?), very violent. - 20th Oct. 1889, died of exhaustion of mania. Andersons description: - the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type. [fits Cohen rather than Kosminski] - lived in the immediate vicinity of the murders. [Cohen & Kosminski]. - he was a low-class Polish Jew. [Cohen & Kominski were both low-class Jews, Kosminski was Polish, Cohen may have been]. - he was caged in an Asylum. [Cohen & Kosminski]. So clearly Anderson could have been confused between the two. Swansons notes: - Suspect was also a Jew. [Cohen & Kosminski]. - Suspect sent to Seaside Home with difficulty, [Colney Hatch, restrained, - Cohen]. - suspect returned to his brothers house in Whitechapel, and watched by City CID. [Kosminski]. - Shortly sent to Stepney Workhouse (if Mile End is meant then this is Kosminski / if Whitechapel is meant, then this is Cohen) and then to Colney Hatch and died. [Cohen]. So possibly Swanson was confused between Cohen & Kosminski. MacNaghtens memoranda: - Kosminski, a Polish Jew & resident of Whitechapel, became insane due to many years of solitary vices. [Kosminski]. - strong homicidal tendencies. [sounds more like Cohen]. - sent to lunatic Asylum about Mar. 1889. [Cohen was in Colney Hatch in Mar. 1889, though he was actually committed the previous December, Kosminski was not in any Asylum, that we know of in 1889]. How can we be sure that these Policemen really knew who they were refering to ? when their notes were compiled so long after, and from memory. Fido's speculation that Nathan Kaminski, also aged 23, was the real name of David Cohen, if true, could help explain the confusion of names above ie: Kaminski or Kosminski Anderson also stated that the suspect was committed in an Asylum when the I.D. took place. Swanson said it took place at the Seaside Home. Anderson indicated that the witness was brought to face the suspect. Swanson said the suspect was brought before the witness. Anderson could very well have had Colney Hatch on his mind, depending whether he was thinking of Kaminski(Cohen) or Kosminski. And so it goes ......... My original point that the recollections of these men are unreliable, to say the least, still stands. And anyone using such statements to support a theory, must do so at their peril. Thanks, Jon
Author: Yazoo (1cust31.tnt28.det3.da.uu.net - 153.34.205.31) Monday, 15 February 1999 - 01:37 pm
Thanks, Jon! That summary helps me understand the issues better. Yaz
Author: Rotter Monday, 15 February 1999 - 04:34 pm
Why don't we do a little experiment--go and ask your friends or family to recollect something fairly important that happened 10 or 20 years ago, something that you all witnessed. All of their stories will differ. Does that mean you can't believe anything your husband/wife/mother/father/etc. ever says? Historians weigh the evidence of unreliable witnesses all the time. Histories still get written. I don't advocating making excuses for statements that are clearly wrong, but a little fuzziness doesn't invalidate a story.
Author: Yazoo (1cust175.tnt5.det3.da.uu.net - 208.254.50.175) Monday, 15 February 1999 - 05:18 pm
Hey, All! The initial passages on which Jon bases his summary do NOT refer to anyone specifically in Anderson's article and his book. Jon's summary is this: Andersons description: - the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type. [fits Cohen rather than Kosminski] - lived in the immediate vicinity of the murders. [Cohen & Kosminski]. - he was a low-class Polish Jew. [Cohen & Kominski were both low-class Jews, Kosminski was Polish, Cohen may have been]. - he was caged in an Asylum. [Cohen & Kosminski]. So clearly Anderson could have been confused between the two. Anderson's not confused. His passage is referring to a general description of the murderer...NOT to any specific suspect he had in custody or in an asylum at the time of the house-to-house search. His description is a brief profile, not a portrait of a real suspect. The specifics come later, and mostly in a footnote. Anderson never refers to any of this criteria, excepting one small subset of one of the characteristics, when he refers to the scene of the witness identifying the suspect. Incredibly, Anderson doesn't place much importance on the fact that he believes he's identified and got in some kind of custody Jack the Ripper! All in a day's work to him. He's more concerned to explain his police procedurals than in telling us "Who done it!" Anderson and the police clearly found no one in their house-to-house search, and Anderson simply is explaining a theory as to why that could be. He glosses over the whole business surrounding his JtR suspect -- simply expecting his readers to accept that the unnamed man is JtR. Yaz
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 15 February 1999 - 08:41 pm
In 'Blackwoods' magazine Anderson had stated 'During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district'....(and goes on to imply that his 'suspect' came from a result of those searches) (see also RIPPER SUSPECTS; GENERAL DISCUSSION; WHO WASN'T JACK THE RIPPER? - D. Radka, Feb. 15, 1:53pm) Home office file HO/144/220/A49301.C one letter dated Oct. 4 1888, from Sir J. W. Ellis (former Lord Mayor of London) suggesting that a cordon be thrown around suspicious area and all houses forcibly searched..... and one dated Oct. 5 1888, response from Matthews agreeing, with conditions..... Clearly the house-to-house had not commenced during Andersons absence, as Anderson returned to duty on Oct. 6 1888. Warren, on Oct. 18th thanked the citizens for their help and co-operation during the house-to-house search..... Oct. 24 1888, a letter with a minute enclosed from Anderson, which said 'That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal is unusual, but that 5 successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue is extraordinary, if not unique in the annals of crime' ....'and that the residents show a marked desire to assist in every way'.... The house-to-house being conducted sometime between the 5th and the 18th of Oct. had obviously produced no adequate results ..... Which is not what Anderson implied in his blackwoods article.......
Author: D. Radka Monday, 15 February 1999 - 09:34 pm
Right, Jon. The search was made in 1888 and produced no results. Kosminski was picked up years later, and the implication Anderson gave as to what generated the pick-up was the search. It doesn't make sense, does it? Implications, anyone?