Archive through February 23, 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 23, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion: Policemen... What did they know?: Policemen: What did they know? Part 3: Archive through February 23, 1999

Author: Rotter Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 07:14 pm
If we want to post lengthy documents rather than contribute our own thoughts, why not just put the documents on a webpage (free pages are available after all) and just post the URL here? After all Casebook bandwidth is expensive and I know I have eaten up more than my share.
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 05:04 am
Don't you lot ever dare to accuse women of talking hind legs off donkeys, do you hear me? Or I will personally come and give you all a damned good thrashing a la Basil Fawlty! I thought poor Stephen was trying to save space. Didn't you lot ever learn the art of a good precis? Love you loads, Caz
Author: Rotter Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 05:17 am
But we were talking about serious and weighty matters while you were talking about Sooty (I do read the other boards)! (insert smiley here)
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 06:00 am
Hi all, How dare you claim that this vicious Sooty character be not serious and weighty! I will come in force with Caroline to do justice! A board is also the place to put lengthy posts, when it serves the interests of the users. I do not want to have to glean ideas of the arguments of posters from a giant load of short, pr�cis-type entries of just thoughts. Evidence, sources, all are needed. When something needs length, it needs it. I don't have to agree with it, but I don't have to read it either, if I don't want to. Of course, when a nasty Anonymous, or Anonmii, starts his/her/their nonsense then critic is needed. Although Stephen has decided for good reasons to stop the IP address display, he has the possibility of displaying those IPs of certain idiots who try to disrupt the board, or he can at least warn to do so at continued bad behaviour. I am sure none of us would worry about this/these individual/s getting damaged by another of their sort messing around with his/her/their IP. I have no thoughts about asking Stephen to do so in my name, do others? He is fully qualified to decide what merits such actions. When censorship is unavoidable, so be it, for the good of others. Regards Bob
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 07:24 am
Hey, All! I'd write more precisely (i.e., briefly) if I knew how to encompass all the points that could be made for and against an issue so I'm not forced to answer a dozen "What about..." posts, and also if I didn't have to emphasize (i.e., belabor) points that refuse to sink in. Sorry for my verbosity. I'd like to amend my final list of "useful facts" that can be drawn from strictly from Anderson's article/book, pertainling strictly to the suspect: 1) We have an unnamed Polish Jewish suspect 2) We have his family "protecting" him (not a population group or subset of that group) by not bringing him to the police -- Anderson's reasoning behind why they did this is highly questionable only if we are forced to consider his theories on "low-class (Polish) Jews" instead of the nuclear family 3) We have him residing in an asylum 4) We have an unnamed Jewish witness 5) Some sort of "identification" was made 6) The witness did not testify or swear to the suspect -- but Anderson's reasons for the witness' not testifying/swearing are questionable Looks like people are tired of this subject, so, unless someone else wants to continue with it... Th-th-th-that's all, folks! Yaz
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 07:34 am
Hi Yaz, Don't let yourself be influenced by others, pal. I want to read not only what others think, but why they think it based on what information etc. I change my ideas on one bit or another almost daily, and good so. If there is no one to whom I can put these ideas or claims for critic, why do it at all. But to be able to offer critic, we must know what the person thinks and WHY s/he thinks it. Keep yer pen flow'n, Yaz Regards, Bob
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 07:48 am
Hi All Er, Yaz, I'm a little concerned by your comment about not belittling or castigating Paul Begg and I was very concerned until I read 'castigate' correctly. Debating the interpretation of source material belittles no one. Looking at the source material in different ways is one of the few ways we have of better understanding what the source actually says. Disagreement is not and never should be interpreted as belittling or castigating someone, be that someone me, you, or some other poor soul who'se plucked up the courage to air their thoughts on these pages. Yaz, I am not being coy, simply trying to make what is, to me, a very clear distinction between being uncooperative and being reluctant to hand a family member over to the police. Kosminski's family may have sought to protect him and in so doing they may not have been cooperating with the police, but that doesn't mean that the whole East End Jewish population was uncooperative. However, that is the interpretation you are drawing from Anderson's words. All Anderson actually saying is that because the immigrant population tended to be self-policing that the Ripper, if being protected by his family, was probably an immigrant. Now, I don't have any real difficulty reconciling this with his statement that the local population cooperated with the police. And I don't think anything Anderson said in this passage reveals prejudice. All Anderson actually does is note a characteristic of a group of people. That does not make him prejudiced any more than observing that Italians like pasta or that Greeks like olive oil. You say that whether Anderson was right or not is an issue. With respect, it is {only} an issue if Anderson knew his statement about the immigrants not handing their own over to Gentile justice was untrue. But if Anderson believed that what he said was true, then he did no more and no less than base a conclusion on it. And you can't really say that Anderson couldn't prove the claim because for all we know he might have had a dossier full of examples of the immigrant community being self-policing - in fact, look at the case of Pizer, whse family advised him to lay low even though he had a cast-iron alibi!. And Anderson didn't have to prove he was right and he wasn't required to either. I don't understand why his minute of 24th October is thought to be incompatible with what he says in his memoirs. In the latter Anderson is saying no more than that if an immigrant Jew committed a crime against a Gentile then the Jews, fearing Gentile reprisals, dealt with the matter themselves rather than hand the miscreant over to Gentile Justice. Whereas the Gentiles, not fearing reprisals from anyone, would hand the offender over to the authorities for the legal process to take its course. Anderson's statement is worlds away from saying that the immigrant Jews were uncooperative or otherwise hindered police investigations. And if Anderson's comment in his memoirs wasn't intended to suggest that the immigrant population hindered the police investigation, then his opinion didn't change or need clarification. I think Anderson's deductions were elementary and I think the Sherlock Holmes remark shows that Anderson thought so too. And Anderson was not required to spell out how or why those deductions had been reached. Anderson was the Assistant Commissioner, C.I.D., the man in overall charge of the Ripper investigation, and in speaking from such a position of authority he would expect his comments to be accepted without detailed explanations. When he said that "Jinks" was a British informer he was stating what he knew to be the truth. He didn't feel obliged to provide twenty pages of minutely detailed supportive argument. I think you are expecting a lot more from this source than he was required or wanted to give, especially when Anderson's real point was not 'hey guys, we did get the Ripper you know', but rather his old hobby-horse of don't criticise the London Police for their failures because undetected crimes in London are actually very rare. You write: To me, it is clear that Anderson is setting up his readers of his article/book all the relevent little details that would support his mention of the "low-class Polish Jew" suspect. I fully accept someone might characterize this all differently. Sadly, this isn't clear to me at all. As far as I read it, Anderson is saying no more than that certain deductions were made and a conclusion reached after a house-to-house inquiry and that in the event they proved to be true. And as for the suggestion that he was looking for reasons or excuses for the failure of the search, with the very greatest of respect I think that is a massive leap of interpretation for which I don't think there are any grounds whatever. All Anderson is saying is that a conclusion reached following house-to-house inquiries ultimately proved to be correct. I don't think any greater significance than that should be attached to his words. As regards the comments about Anderson not providing substantiation for what he said, he didn't have to. No autobiographer is required to substantiate every opinion or belief he offers. It would have been great if Anderson had gone into minute detail, but he didn't. It didn't interest him or, if it did, it wasn't a subject he wanted to discuss in detail, just like he didn't discuss other incidents in detail. If there was a fire and years later the fire chief wrote in his memoirs that after probing through the debris he concluded the fire was a case of arson, he would simply have been offering his diagnosis. He wouldn't have been obliged or even felt inclined to provide a point by point breakdown of the evidence on which that diagnosis was based. A hundred years later, when that fire has assumed an historical magnitude barely imagined by the fire chief, we may bemoan his brevity but it hardly seems fair or justified to criticise him for it. Finally, I have searched without success for the full details of why we thought Phil Sugden was wrong about the house-to-house search being after Anderson's return from abroad. However, Swanson wrote to the Home Office on 19th October detailing the results of the house-to-house inquiry in which some 8,000 handbills had been delivered. Those handbills were dated 30th September. According to a letter from Henry Matthews to Ruggles-Brise, Anderson's return from abroad was expected to be 6th October. The printing of the handbills marks at least the conception of the house-to-house as pre-dating 30th September, from which we may safely assume it was initiated before 6th October. Therefore it was conceived and begun when Anderson was abroad. Sorry to have taken so long, but I think this is an important matter, After all, we have two very senior and very well informed police sources telling us that Jack the Ripper's idenity was known. Anderson's character therefore does matter. If he was a proven fabricator, then that would weigh in the balance of how much credence we should attach to his words. Likewise, if Anderson was prejudiced against the Jews then that prejudice may have made him predisposed to overlook weaknesses in the evidence and accept a Jew's guilt. And on the subject of his supposed anti-Semitism, for what it is worth he was a friend of Dr. Adler, the Chief Rabbi. When Anderson was awarded the K.C.B. in 1901, Dr Adler wrote: "The honour must be greatly enhanced by the consciousness that it has been earned by dilligent labour." Kind words which the Chief Rabbi probably wouldn't have bestowed on a rabit anti-Semite.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 07:51 am
And that should read 'rabid' anti-Semite, not 'rabit'!
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 08:19 am
Sorry all, for my previous over-hasty post. Glad you didn't take much notice. I do miss the point sometimes. Can you put it down to stressy-itis or something? Ta. Carry on regardless. Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:01 pm
Sorry Bob and Caroline, I didn't mean to slight Sooty, I even miss the little fella. And what's all this talk about seeing him in color? I don't remember color being one of the splendors of Sooty... As far as the Kosminskis go, if they were the ones who put Aaron into the asylum and if he was the Ripper, I would say they did the right thing. It was responsible and humane. They were not "shielding him from justice" and letting him wander the streets killing again. They got him off the streets and out of the noose. But if Aaron was the Ripper why did the killings stop? Was he degenerating so quickly that he was not longer capable of it, or his "instinct" gave him another mission? And for a wild speculation, maybe the long period before the Kelly murder was because he was being held by his family (tied to a chair for all we knew) and then escaped?
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:23 pm
Hi all, I though Aaron was off the hook because he was in jug as Kelly got killed. Or have I got it mixed up? Regards, Bob
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:35 pm
You've got it mixed up, Bob. And Rotter, if one were to subscribe to the view that suspicion would never have fallen n Aaron Kosminski if he was merely the 'harmless lunatic' some people have supposed from his medical record. And if you were also to subscribe to the belief that a drooling idiot plucking food from the gutters wouldn't have got his evil way with even the most desperate East End prostitute, then it would seem that in 1888 he was quite a different person to the one of 1891. And one explanation I have heard advanced to explain this is that serial killers often stay 'sane' by killing and that once they are prevented from killing their mental state can deteriorate very quickly.
Author: Rotter Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:35 pm
I'm not sure that anyone knows what Kosminski was up to between his arrival in England and going to the Workhouse in 1890.
Author: Kieran Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 01:57 pm
Greetings from Hove,nr Brighton the seaside home (are we still talking about this?) is i believe situated at Clarendon Villas,Hove which is about a mile or so from my house,if anyone requires photos,more info etc I would be happy to oblige,just e-mail me!
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:02 pm
Hi Paul, Thanks. Yes, I did. I was thinking of the mad pork butcher. I'm having trouble getting your book here in Germany. It's on order but still not there. When do you think the update could be ready, or is that a secret? Best regards, Bob
Author: Rotter Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:24 pm
Mr.B, I am very much in favor of the Kosminski theory, but don't know if it can be proved. On the other hand, I'm sure there are historical events we accept every day on less proof. I've seen first hand that schizophrenics can go along normally, or at most eccentric, in everyday life and then suddenly deteriorate very rapidly. During the period before they suddenly fall to pieces a lot of strange things happen that you only find out about later. Although I haven't had the acquaintance of any killers. On the other hand (and I just say this to be argumentative) maybe the women felt sorry for the "poor simple thing" and didn't think he was a danger.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:54 pm
Keiran - The Police Seaside Home and Southern Police Orphanage, to give the establishment its full and proper title, was indeed located at 51, Clarendon Villas, West Brighton. It was officially opened on 17th March, 1890, by the Countess of Chichester. It was the brainchild of Catherine Gurney and Mary Griffin, the former having got the idea when she met a policeman who only recently she knew to have been admitted to a convalescent home. Asking why he was out of the home, Mrs Gurney was told that the policeman had found himself in a bed next to 'a man whom he had unfortunately had to arrest some little time previously, and this proximity had not been condusive to sleep...' Miss Gurney thereupon set about the task of establishing a convalescent home for the exclusive use of policemen. The home moved to a new site in 1892-3 and moved again in 1966 to its present site at 205 Kingsway, Hove, Sussex, BN3 4FD. It's name officially today is The Convalescent Police Seaside Home. There are two books of interest. The Making of the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, Hove, Sussex by Miss M.P. Griffin and A Beloved Lady, being the life of Miss Gurney. There is quite a lot of extant material, including the "Minute Book" (held, I think, by the Public Record Office) and various annual reports, including the first report, which records: "From its opening, until March 1st, 1891, the Home has received 102 visitors - 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants, and 74 constables, 5 ex-police officers, and 2 other visitors admitted by special request. Bob - I only wrote to Robson Books suggesting a substantial revision about a month ago and I haven't received a reply. The book should be availble from Robson, otherwise may I suggest Amazon or one of the second-hand people on the Net. Try ABE or Bibliofind.
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 04:21 pm
Hi Paul, I've ordered by Amazon.de and that's the firm that's letting me wait, probably while they can't get the book either. Otherwise WILCO. Thanks and best regards, Bob
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 05:59 pm
Hey, All! First, thanks for your support! And patience. One and all. To Paul (but others jump in if you want): I think at least you and I need to just agree to disagree on how Anderson words his story and the reasons behind it. Otherwise, we'll be going around in circles. Can you accept the summarized points I wrote up about Anderson's article/book? I think those points are all that really matters in order to proceed into a kind of Evidence-Discovery phase concerning Kosminski. Here's the six points again: 1) We have an unnamed Polish Jewish suspect 2) We have his family "protecting" him (not a population group or subset of that group) by not bringing him to the police -- Anderson's reasoning behind why they did this is highly questionable only if we are forced to consider his theories on "low-class (Polish) Jews" instead of the nuclear family 3) We have him residing in an asylum 4) We have an unnamed Jewish witness 5) Some sort of "identification" was made 6) The witness did not testify or swear to the suspect -- but Anderson's reasons for the witness' not testifying/swearing are questionable To say any more, we need to speculate. Do we need to interject speculation at this phase of a case against Kosminski that we -- or at least I -- am trying to understand? I can't assume anything. And the reason I label some of Anderson's observations/conclusions as "questionable" is because b{he} is asking us to assume, and in a criminal case he assumes we should accept too much that is unsubstatiated, that is patently unfair...to Kosminski most of all, but also to ourselves. So, to anticipate your possible objections, I am not assuming Anderson is wrong; I am saying that some of his statements, reasoning, and conclusions cannot be substantiated -- even Anderson does not try to persuade us with any evidence for some of his rationale. Therefore, we cannot include them \|b{at this [point} unless we can find the evidence or proof Anderson simply assumes. (However, I could and will comment on your post if you really think it would be productive. I'd prefer not to since we've been over this ground at least twice already. I just don't think it's necessary to do it again to get to the point of Anderson's information, and to move us on -- to what, Swanson? I don't know.) On castigation: I perceived that some posts were -- as they too often are -- aimed first to make a wound to your reputation/credibility/feelings (and please don't tell me AGAIN what a "tough old bird" Paul Begg is or I'll gag -- his "toughness" ain't the point) and only second to make a point about the ideas/issues we are ALL discussing. This time it was your turn to be a target that diverts the topic...tomorrow it could be Caroline, or Bob, or Rotter, etc. Let's stick to ideas and forget who brings them up. All responses should be directed toward the issues/ideas under discussion. Ten posts quoting Anderson or "piling" -- not giving the recipient a chance to respond -- ________________ (insert favorite explitive...mine starts with a "b"). Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 02:41 am
Hi Yaz I am more than happy to agree to disagree, although assessing the reliability of a source is far more important than what the source actually says. The latter is always judged on the former, therefore if you think Anderson was prejudiced, that prejudice will colour your interpretation of whatever Anderson says. In other words, the worth of the source will return to haunt us! This said, I think it might be best if all contentious issues about why Anderson might have said what he said be removed from the list. Which leaves us with the following: 1) We have a suspect. 2) We have a witness. 3) We have a positive eye-witness identification 4) Anderson clearly came to believe that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. The suspect was (1) male, (2) Polish (3) a Jew (4) he lived in the district where the murders took place (5) he had 'people' who looked after him (6) he indulged in 'utterly unmentionable vices, and (7) he was committed to an asylum by his family. The witness was a (1) Jew and (2) 'the only person who ever to have had a good view of the murderer (the italics are mine, emphasising the word 'murderer' in case it distinguishes the witness from someone who merely saw someone behaving suspiciously). The identification took place when the suspect was in the asylum and the witness was unhesitating in his identification. However, the witness refused to swear (or testify) against the suspect, which fact appears to have angered Anderson (which in itself is odd because a person certified as insane probably couldn't have stood trial anyway). All this assumes that Anderson is actually telling us a true story and I think it is probably fair to say that with the possible exception of Melvin Harris, this assumption has been reached by all commentators. Most commentators have nevertheless dismissed Kosminski as a valid suspect because he is perceived as a 'harmless lunatic'. This conclusion is expressed in various guises. Bob Hinton, for example, argues that Kosminski couldn't have been the Ripper because none of the victims would have gone off with an moneyless, unwashed, garbage-eating loony. A valid point, but one which doesn't seriously address the question of why Anderson or anyone else would have ever so much as suspected that a moneyless, unwashed, garbage-eating loony was the Ripper in the first place. Those who have addressed this question (or perhaps avoided it) have questioned when Anderson came to believe that the suspect was Jack the Ripper - Sugden thinks it was wishful thinking in old age - or why Anderson came to believe that the suspect was Jack the Ripper - Martin Fido thinks he confused him with 'David Cohen'. This basically sums up the state of things. Swanson, of course, adds further information, all of which could apply to Aaron Kosminski, with the exception of his statement that 'Kosminski' died soon after admission to a mental asylum, and none of which contradicts Anderson, except that Swanson had the identification taking place before committal, not after as Anderson says. And now....
Author: Rotter Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 03:03 am
Mr.Begg, is there any surviving information that gives us the streets covered by the house-to-house searches? At that time did the police need warrants for each house searched, or just for the area? And if that information exists, were there any Kosminskis on one of those streets? Shouldn't there have been voluminous paperwork on such a large operation?
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 07:13 am
Hey, Paul and Rotter! Rotter has been asking several questions about any surviving -- possibly unedited (i.e, perhaps the article/book were edited so that "important" info to us was stripped away) -- manuscripts of the article/book. He's asked several other good questions that I think got lost in the shuffle. I don't know, maybe his questions are answered by the summation of the state of all things Kosminski in Paul's last note? Paul, I would have liked to proceed as if we don't know who the suspect is, trying to determine how we arrived at Kosminski by looking at the evidence -- and assessing the counter-arguments for any other possible identifications. It goes without saying that Anderson believes his suspect is JtR. But that's only evidence of Anderson's beliefs. It's irrelevent to the suspect's guilt because we have to produce, as best we can, the evidence that supports such a belief. Anderson would have to do the same thing if his suspect ever came to trial in the 1890s. My interpretation of what Anderson says does indeed color my views of Anderson -- but it does not color my opinion of those facts I listed. Now if we and everybody else suddenly stop in this phase of Discovery and issue blanket proclamations that Anderson was right or wrong, jump to an immediate correlation between Anderson's unnamed suspect and Kosminski (or whoever someone prefers instead), or that whoever wins that battle of identification is JtR because Anderson says he is (without us having the requisite proofs and evidence to support the claim), I think we have missed many vital steps in making a case. Identifying the suspect in itself seems to be a slightly contentious point, no? Going on the step-by-step procedure, I would think we'd want to identify Anderson's suspect next. At that time, bring in Anderson's criteria that he was a Polish Jewish male who lived in the vicinity. There might be other points raised, by other contemporary witnesses, that we should review. But if I read what the rest of your note says correctly, all the evidence we can bring against Kosminski or anybody else is the for the most part contained in Anderson's note. Somebody, I presume Swanson, adds the suspect's name -- Aaron Kosminski. Additionally, both men believed that this suspect was the murderer (JtR). In the past, the discussion moves immediately away from gathering further evidence around the precious few "facts" in Anderson's writing to a debate on 1) the credibility of Anderson or Swanson, 2) the condition of Kosminski at the time of the murders (I assume this is adduced from later accounts of his condition), and 3) any other "facts" or assumptions made in the 1890s or today. I suppose I'll bow out now. That's not the way I'd choose to proceed. Let's find the evidence first; decide where we need to make assumptions or speculations to cover gaps in the records -- doing so NOT to manufacture points to argue in favor of our opinion, but to bridge those gaps that we all agree would be there if all the records survived. That's a tricky enough assignment on its own. But enough is enough. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 10:10 am
Yaz - Sorry, Yaz. You set the course and proceed ahead! A very great deal of work has been done on Kosminski, so fire away with the questions. Rotter - There are no documents in the police files concerning the search, except for the Home Office memo by Swanson that I mentioned. I'll dig it out. Anderson's book was published by Hoddern and Stoughton, who were absorbed by my own publisher, so I'll drop them a line re their archives. I have also e-mailed today somebody who may be able to tell me what happened to the archives of Blackwoods Magazine, which ceased publishing in 1980.
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 11:00 am
Hey, Paul! If you're sure you don't mind doing this, let's try it. I'd like to see if we could create a template or a model for how we handle all suspects. First, some ground rules. If I may, I'd like to moderate the discussion. That means, I won't present any evidence for or against anything. I'll ask a question to get started; others join in with their questions. Let's try to keep them in a logical sequence, if we can. People who have an opinion and/or evidence, jump in. Although I will closely question the sources of info and the conclusions drawn...do NOT take that as my being for or against YOU or your evidence/opinion. I think everything should be questioned...and in a public forum where all opinions can be expressed -- and where you can all challenge me for any bias I display. I'll try to follow the (twice-modified) six points from Anderson as our starting position. We can add more later if needed. I won't leave a question until everyone is satisfied that they've been heard, at which point I'll provide a summary of what's been "decided" (yeah, right, I know!). Starting Points from Anderson 1) We have an unnamed male Polish Jewish suspect 2) We have his family "protecting" him by not bringing him to the police 3) We have him residing in an unnamed asylum 4) We have an unnamed Jewish witness 5) Some sort of "identification" was made 6) The witness did not testify or swear to the suspect As we get to each item, Paul, I think that's the time to include your other points in your previous note today. Sound fair? If yes, my first question concerns Anderson's unnamed suspect. Who is the unnamed suspect and who identifies him (and I don't mean the unnamed witness -- there is no suspect's name associated with the witness in Anderson's account)? We have at least two possible, named candidates for this suspect, as I understand it -- though you all tell me if Cohen is one man, two, or three different men (and why). I'll add a third as a catch-all. 1) Aaron Kosminski 2) David Cohen (aka Aaron David Cohen, aka Aaron Kaminski) 3) Other -- anyone you all might think is the man If this gets too painfully slow, tedious, and/or boring...tell me, and I'll quit. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 11:58 am
Okay... I'll let somebody else go first and will be annoyingly nit-picky in that David Cohen was aka Aaron Davis Cohen and possibly aka Nathan Kaminsky. I'll also add that Anderson's suspect could be anyone who fits the given criteria (which, by the way, Cohen does not or is not known to - indeed, if Martin Fido's suggestion that Cohen's address was the Poor Jews Temporary Shelter in Leman Street, then it is possible that Cohen wasn't even in the country at the time of the Nichols murder). This said, the finger was pointed at 'Kosminski' because he was a Polish Jew suspect named in the Macnaghten Memoranda. That he was indeed Anderson's suspect was confirmed by the Swanson Marginalia, which expressly states that 'Kosminski' was Anderson's suspect.
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 01:11 pm
Good catch. My error. It is Nathan Kaminsky (possibly David Cohen -- and there's a cross-reference in the A-Z to...aka Aaron Davis Cohen). I hope this guy's mama knew his name --- yeeeesh!!! Paul raises a point against the multi-named Cohen. Cohen/Kaminsky advocates should speak up in the next few days or I'll assume Paul's point is carried and the Cohen/Kaminsky identification is a false one. (Martin Fido's book is on my list of future purchases...some slight consolation?) And yes, Anderson's suspect-criteria may fit any number of men alive in the East End at that time; that's a vital point. Now's the time to raise their names or voice an objection. Re: Paul's statement on the identification of Kosminski: 1) Did Macnaghten's memorandum make the connection to Kosminski independently -- or did he/could he have known of Anderson's suspicions regarding Kosminski at the time he wrote the memorandum? Yet another way of asking this is, can it be shown that the reason Kosminski is on Macnaghten's memorandum is simply because he was Anderson's personal suspect or a generally-recognized police suspect? 2) Does the memorandum imply or explicitly state Macnaghten agrees with Anderson? 3) Does Swanson show any knowledge of the Macnaghten memorandum? 4) Can we show where Swanson got the name, Aaron Kosminski? Since Swanson specifically links Kosminski with Anderson's supsect, the point I'm getting at is this: 4a) Did Swanson get Kosminski's name from 1) first-hand knowledge of the suspect, 2) second-hand from Anderson, or 3) does he make the connection between Macnaghten's naming Kosminski and Anderson's description of the suspect? And if we can't tell...we'll have to make our first, hopefully small, assumption. Tell me to slow down if we're going too fast. I just happen to have some free time today -- I know others as well as myself will not always have such free time. I'll let this post and any replies sit for a few days. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 02:10 pm
On point 4, Swanson does not name 'Aaron Kosminski'. He merely states that Anderson's suspect was 'Kosminski'. Martin Fido made the connection between Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew and the Police Jew suspect 'Kosminski' named by Macnaghten and assumed that they were one and the same. He then undertook an exhaustive search of asylum records, but did not extend his search to include 1891 and therefore failed to find any 'Kosminski' or K-anything-ski inmate. Believing that Anderson would not have lied and that the Polish Jew suspect must be in the records somewhere, Martin returned to his notes and concluded that 'David Cohen' was the most likely candidate. Martin had also found in the workhouse records a young Polish Jew called Nathan Kaminski, for whom he could find no death record, a fact to which Martin attached much significance. Martin then postulated that Nathan Kaminski and David Cohen were one and the same (the nasality of the East End Jewish accent making 'Nathan' sound like 'David' and the 'ski' of 'Kaminski' not being heard, 'Kamin' thus being transcribed as 'Cohen'. This argument later lost much of its force when records not initially seen by Martin showed the Cohen's name to be Aaron Davis Cohen). As Martin's book went to print, he found reference to an asylum inmate called Aaron Kosminski. Although the only 'Kosminski' incercerated in an asylum (as later research confirmed), Martin concluded from the medical records that Aaron Kosminski was a 'harmless lunatic' who could not have been Anderson's suspect. He accepted, however, that he was the 'Kosminski' of Macnaghten and postulated a scenario by which the two men, Cohen and Kosminski, were confused. By this time so were many of Martin's readers, as he oberved in the p/back edition of his book! However, Aaron Kosminski does fit all the criteria to be Anderson's suspect, most notably the 'utterly unmentionable vices', which seemingly corresponds with the 'solitary vices' ascribed to 'Kosminski in the Macnaghten Memoranda and the 'self-abuse' in Aaron Kosminski's medical records. Shortly after Martin's book was published, in 1987, the hitherto unknown Swanson Marginalia emerged in which Anderson's suspect was named as 'Kosminski'. Martin perceived errors in the marginalia (which in fact only amount to one, namely the real doozy that Swanson says the suspect died soon after admission to Colney Hatch, which, of course, does not apply to Aaron Kosminski, but does, perhaps coincidentally, apply to Cohen. Martin also noted that Anderson had the suspect identified in the asylum, which would have happened in the case of Cohen, whereas Swanson has the identification prior to committal. Martin saw these points as supporting (indeed, he saw it as confirming) his confusion hypothesis. Whether it does or not is up to you to decide. I don't think it does, but that's a whole different argument. So there you have the sequence of events. Boring isn't it.
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 04:01 pm
Very convoluted, but not boring. I'm pretty sure we'll come back to a lot of this info when we get to the point on the asylum. But Martin Fido continues to hold this opinion about the confusion between Macnaghten naming Kosminski but actually meaning Cohen, I take it? He's not withdrawing it? I'm not saying he should, but if he's not certain or has changed his mind about it, we can narrow the field to just the "real" Aaron Kosminski -- unless someone throws another name into the Other column. (And none of these points has to be settled until the end. New information or a new perspective might change your mind, so it is never too late to add or exclude a name. The only thing that can't go away is that there was a suspect as described by Anderson.) An important point has also been clarified regarding the name "Aaron Kosminski" as used in the relevant documents. Only the last name, "Kosminski," appears in both the Macnaghten Memoranda and in the Swanson Marginalia. Neither uses the first name, "Aaron." The issue at stake is whether each piece of documentation is independent confirmation of Anderson or whether one document is dependent upon the other -- thus minimizing its value as it does not independently confirm but merely repeats a story. Therefore: 1) Is it coincidence that both do not refer to the suspect's full name, Aaron Kosminski -- and thus each man is an independent confirmation of Kosminski? 2) Did one man's documentation or verbal communication act as the source for the other's reference? For example, was Swanson getting his information from Macnaghten's Memoranda which did not provide a first name, so he could not provide a first name either? If one source depends on the other, who is simply repeating what he's read or heard? 3) Is there another mechanism that explains the coincidence of a last-name-only citation -- that is: a) Was it common to refer to suspects only by last name? b) Did Swanson and Macnaghten share a story about the suspect, only using the last name? c) Is that the only name Anderson supplied to both Macnaghten and Swanson? d) other methods? 4) Can we even decide this question with the information we have before us right now? Yaz
Author: Rotter Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 04:23 pm
Thanks for your remarks, gents. Another nitpicking question. At Colney Hatch, was the "treatment" just to let the patients wander around in pajamas and just take care of their physical problems and break up fights? I know there wasn't much they could do, but were there "alienists" who examined them, and did any of those doctors have private papers that would have been filed at home rather than at the asylum. Would any doctors have been affiliated with other institutions or hospitals, or universities? In short, is there a prayer of any scrap of paper with Kosminskis name being extant anywhere?
Author: Ashling Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 06:36 pm
Hi PAUL, BOB, YAZ, ROTTER, et al. Help! ... It's no fun talking about you guys if you're too busy to notice. I'd appreciate your input on the new topic, WOULD JACK HANG? ... It ties in with some of the points made on your discussion here. Thanks, Ashling
Author: Jon Smyth Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 10:04 pm
We've had a go at Anderson and his apparent suspect Kosminski, and Fido's proposal, Cohen/Kaminski but when looking at 'low-class' Jew's there's no shortage of names to work with. Rumbelow had his own opinion on Anderson's suspect. And appeard almost as convinced as Paul Begg is, that his (Rumbelow's) suspect was non other than John Pizer. Using phrases like "From these facts it seems abundantly clear that Anderson was accusing John Pizer of being the Ripper......" and then "Lest there be any doubts as to whom Anderson was refering to, let the reader check back over the period of the first four murders and see who else it could be......". Paul, you authors all sound alike :-) how can you guy's convince yourselves so completely in opposing directions, when you all have the same facts/stories to go on. :-) Although I'm well aware of the alibie's that Pizer had for the night of Annie chapman's murder and of the fire at the docks story on the night of Nichols murder, it does seem that coincidences abound with what we know of John Pizer. Pizer was a Polish Jew, of poor disposition and lived at 22 Mulberry St. with his brother & others. In July 1887 he attacked a man with a knife, stabbing him in the hand. And in Aug. 1888 was charged with indecent assault. After suspicions had been raised against him, on Sept. 10th he was removed from his home and arrested, the Police took away a selection of knives also. He was taken to Leman St. Police station and put thru an 'identification parade' where he was 'positively identified' by a man who said he had seen Pizer attack a woman. The witness then refused or was unable to testify against him, probably under examination he failed to be convincing. Pizer was let go and returned to 'his brothers house'. Rumbelow saw enough parallels in the case of Pizer to Anderson's notes that he was convinced that Pizer was the man. As Paul is equally convinced that Kosminski is the man. It's all a matter of interpretation, and what weight you choose to give to vague and sometimes contradictory statements made years after the events. Unfortunatly, Paul (in my opinion) reduces this facinating study to a simple question of: - If you think the I.D. took place then you must give weight to Anderson's statements. - If you think it did not then you must consider Anderson a liar. It is not a clear picture of black v's white, there are many issues to consider here and to believe that Anderson was thinking of Kosminski as Jack, therefore Kosminski must be the Ripper is wrong. My original points still stand, and the issues for me are this: - When did the I.D. take place ? - Where did the I.D. take place ? - Who was involved ? Anderson is unclear & contradictory and as a result cannot be relied on as a reference in support of a theory.
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 19 February 1999 - 06:00 am
Hi Jon To be fair, Don was echoing Leonard Matters. Matters wrote in 1929, when the Macnaghten Memoranda naming 'Kosminski' was unknown. And when Don wrote he did not know that Pizer was never committed to an asylum, as is expressly stated by Anderson of his suspect ('caged in an asylum'), but lived the rest of his life at 22 Mulberry Street and died of gastro-enteritis in the London Hospital in 1897. So, Leonard Matter and Don had good reasons for thinking that Adderson's suspect was Pizer, but new information called that deduction into question. Now, I am not interpreting the source material and based a conclusion thereon, as they were. I am stating hard fact: the evidence before me is that Anderson refered to a Polish Jew suspect, the Macnaghten Memoranda named a Polish Jew suspect called 'Kosminski', and the Swanson Marginalia explicitly identified 'Kosminski' as Anderson's suspect. Fact. As far as who 'Kosminski' was is concerned, exhaustive searches of asylum records and the death registers indicate that only one person named 'Kosminski' has ever been committed to an asylum: Aaron Kosminski. Was he the suspect 'Kosminski'? Aaron Kosminski's 'self abuse' (a Victorian euphemism for masturbation)corresponds with the 'solitary vices' attributed to 'Kosminski' by Macnaghten, It also almost certainly corresponds with the 'utterly unmentionable vices' attributed by Anderson to his suspect. Aaron Kosminski also fits all the criteria to be Anderson's suspect and fits all but one point in Swanson's account. Macnaghten presents problems, of course, but one has to ask whether these justify concluding that 'Kosminski' was another Kosminski of whom we have no trace whatsoever. So far, apart from an little allowable theorising about the masturbation euphemisms, all is a statement of fact. Now, anyone and everyone is at complete liberty to dispute the argument that Aaron Kosminski was the Polish Jew referred to by all three sources. However, hardly anyone who has looked at the evidence has done so - not even Martin Fido, who accepts that Aaron Kosminski was the suspect 'Kosminski' and even accepts that some of the details given by Anderson apply to him, but has postulated confusion. So, as things stand, it seems generally accepted that Aaron Kosminski was Anderson's suspect. We can argue forever and a day about the respective weight we attach to the sources, the meaning of the discrepancies between them, and so on and so on. But the bottom line really is: did the core event (the identification) take place? So, yes, I do indeed reduce the whole Anderson suspect question down to the simple question of: - If you think the I.D. took place then you must give weight to Anderson's statements; if you think it did not then you must consider Anderson a liar (or someone who was lied to). But I do not and never have said or even suggested that acceptance of the first option also means that one must accept that Anderson's suspect was Jack the Ripper. So, to my mind the first question was: who was Anderson's suspect? I think the evidence strongly favours Aaron Kosminski. If the evidence doesn't favour him, why doesn't it? In other words, is there sufficient reason within the extant sources for us to postulate that Anderson's suspect was somebody else? If there is, state it. Then one can procedd (or not, as the case may be), to other questions.
Author: Jeff D Friday, 19 February 1999 - 12:41 pm
Hello All ! Not directly related to this discussion, but based on what we know of Kosminski, and especially his umnentionable vices, it does appear that the police had a very good handle on the type of person, who would have been the killer. The signature of the killer dictates a kind of person who was uncomfortable around women. He couldn't talk to them on their own level, and felt intimidated by women for some reason. This all shows in the attack, the mutilation, and then the display of the female body. The attack was sudden, and violent, showing that they did not spend a great deal of time in chat or foreplay. The murderer gained his satisfaction after the victim was dead, so it does indicate that the killing itself was not the primary source of enjoyment. Modern studies of Serial killers, indicate that these types do often carry away trophies, and indulge in their sexual fantasies, in private, on their own, after the event. The "hot potato" reference, upon reflection, could very well have referred to the difficulties between the two communities (Gentile/Jew), and possible public outcry that would be caused, from a mad jew who shouldn't even be in this country plundering our poor unfortunate British woman. This would result in extreme distrust, maybe rioting or a type of internal conflict or civil war against the Jewish community. This would explain very well the Ghoulston message, and Warrens insistence on immediate obliteration. In studying the subject of police involvement, many have tried to prove innefficiency, or even conspiracy at the highest level. If Kosminski were the actual killer, this would prove an incredible insight, and understanding by the police of the time, of the type of person who would perform such atrocities. The simple masturbation reference, something that wouldn't even cause a second thought today, was something that the police considered very significant to the type of maniac they were looking for. This was in 1888 ? We are only just getting to grips with profiling and the thought processes of Serial Killers today. The more I think, all references, clues, later quotations etc., can be explained by this Jewish person, inflicting the utmost atrocities upon English society, and if this turns out to be the actual case, an amazing amount of praise could be heaped upon the police of the time for recognising the type of killer, and the possible implications if this information should have ever been released to the public. It explains very neatly why the police felt no public good would come from the divulgance of this information, along with many other references and cryptic clues, made by people involved in the case at the time, or shortly after the event. Jeff D
Author: D. Radka Friday, 19 February 1999 - 02:46 pm
Thank you, Jeff. As usual, bazooka. David
Author: Jeff D Friday, 19 February 1999 - 05:37 pm
Thanks David ! ...... they solved it didn't they ?!??!? All those stupid Policemen, back in 1888 ! They actually did solve the crime didn't they ? ........ they just couldn't tell us ! The situation in the East end was so volatile.... it was an absolute powder-keg,.... so they just couldn't tell us...... they couldn't tell anybody! I have sooo enjoyed all the discussion on this subject board. I've read, and tried to take in all the incredible discussion, that has shown how deeply people have thought about Anderson's suspect........ I really do thank you all for contributing such intense dialogue. I couldn't have got such an insight into this incident, in any single book ! I thank all of you who have contributed so many facts, and interpretations this very important subject. Jeff D
Author: D. Radka Friday, 19 February 1999 - 08:51 pm
Jeff, Maybe they just sincerely THOUGHT they solved it, and that is why they did not speak. Especially Anderson. I believe Anderson was a prototypical penologist, working on the cutting edge of the development of what were to become twentieth-century systems. Anderson, more than any other policeman--and this is reflected in what Swanson wrote of him decades later--thought he knew. David
Author: Rotter Friday, 19 February 1999 - 10:38 pm
There is an excellent article at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/haggard1.html As far as Kosminski goes, I quote from the above: "The police rigorously attempted to clear east London of anyone who seemed unbalanced. Some suspects brought in for questioning were determined to be insane and were also placed into confinement." Isn't it safe to assume then, that Kosminski could not have been what has been called a "drooling idiot" in 1888? However, since he had already "refused work" for several years, could he have been completely fit? A question: did Kosminski come in through Tilbury, as most immigrants did? Have the records been searched, and also the records of the doctors who examined the immigrants (if they exist, of course)?
Author: Yazoo Friday, 19 February 1999 - 11:28 pm
Who was Anderson's suspect? 1) The Nathan Kosminski/David Cohen/Aaron Davis Cohen theory: Despite valiant research efforts, why do we need to speculate on an uncertain set of events that transform one or two men into a third -- or whatever variations you prefer? Unless there are any objections, this suspect is excused. 2) The John Pizer theory: Two policemen mention the last name, Kosminski. One of those policemen directly links the last name to Anderson's suspect. A Pizer is not a Kosminski. Unless there are any objections, this suspect is excused -- but the police are advised to keep a close eye on him. 3) The Aaron Kosminski theory: This suspect has got the name that matches an exhaustive search of asylum records and is mentioned by two emminent contemporaries of Anderson. He also fits all of Anderson's criteria. Despite confusions surrounding the dates of his time spent in an asylum, which asylum he was commited to as noted by one policemen, and a discrepency in the date of his death, of all the names brought forth this one seems to fit the description of Anderson's suspect. Unless there are any objections, we should consider Anderson's suspect to be Aaron Kosminski. Motions (or apparent motions): Rotter has a query for more documentation on this Aaron Kosminski, and on Anderson's manuscripts. Paul is taking steps to see if anything exists. This is an ongoing issue -- any assistance that can be offered would be welcomed. The questions I asked have found no merit for discussion and are thus to be dismissed from further consideration. It may be that a conspiracy theory has been raised. Since the essentials of the "conspiracy" were written about twice, in public, by the supposed chief conspirator - Anderson; since no riots or other dire consequences followed as presumed by the conspiracy theorists; as Macnaghten prefers another suspect over Kosminski; and as Swanson has several key points regarding Kosminski confused or in error, I ask that the following conclusion be adopted regarding any alleged conspiracy: Since the purpose of a conspiracy includes, but is not limited to, the following components: 1) to hide something; 2) that the secret knowledge be shared between two or more people; 3) that there be a clear goal or gain behind creating a conspiracy -- and since none of this criteria is met in the case under our consideration, I rule that this issue is not proven and is not to be added for consideration during our proceedings. Note: Of course, continuing discussion can be made and is encouraged to continue if the theorist(s) have evidence or ideas to exchange; however, this allegation of conspiracy is outside the scope of the current continuing discussion concerning Aaron Kosminski. Having established Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect, we move on to the second point: What evidence do we have concerning Aaron Kosminski's family and their behavior concerning Aaron -- specifically, did they hide, shelter, or protect Aaron Kosminski, all the while knowing or suspecting Aaron was JtR? I also respectfully request that hot potatoes and other foodstuffs be consumed outside the trial area; and that firearms of any kind, including bazookas, be left in the owner's closet or current storage area and not be brought to the trial. Thank you, Yaz
Author: Rotter Friday, 19 February 1999 - 11:52 pm
Excellent post, Mr.Y, but as to your question about evidence-I'd say we have none. We have some inferences from some very incomplete statements by two policemen, inferences from some documents that put Kosminski in certain places at certain times, but no real evidence. I don't mean a videotape of Kosminski (or whoever) cutting up Eddowes kidney but at least some document that indicates that someone on the ground in 1888 saw something or heard something...this said, I still "like" Kosminski (as they say on NYPD Blue). This is why I keep asking if this document or that has been examined yet, I keep hoping that someone has overlooked something somewhere. And I don't know what else to say! Maybe Paul Begg knows and he is holding back until his revised book comes out?J
Author: Caroline Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 01:55 am
I think David summed it all up with the words that the police thought they had solved it. Jeff was spot on about the police in 1888 too. They did their utmost for everyone concerned and refused to light any powder kegs. Couldn't this teach us lessons about today's hot potatoes? This all reminds me a little about Marilyn Monroe's death. I think she killed herself accidentally, but the powers that be were so afraid it might have been more sinister, that they had to arrange some sort of cover-up just in case. Sorry to stray from this worthwhile topic, and apologies for my previous comments about verbosity! Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 02:18 am
A lot of people think they know, but this is the only theory that has something concrete underneath it, i.e. a witness. Druitt relies on "private information" (which I admit could have been available), Tumblety on the Littlechild letter which again has nothing to justify its suspicions (even if he was the Batty Street lodger, and he did come home with blood on him, as a known abortionist that would make him the Ripper), the others are even weaker. The only thing that bothers me about Kosminski is that I know nothing, not a thing about him or about what went on in his family.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 04:23 am
Sadly, I am holding back zilch! I have a lot (and I mean a lot) of research stuff on Kosminskis, but nothing that advances our knowledge about Aaron very far. On the question of knowing or only thinking you know, this gets us into very thorny areas because arguably nothing is known. Even if a suspect is tried, and found guilty, evidence can be wrong and the suspect be innocent. So when is 'known' really known? Would a trial and conviction have made Anderson any more right than he was without a trial and conviction? Not really, I suppose, other than that 12 men good and true would have known what Anderson knew and agreed with him (or not, of course, as the case may be). For Anderson's part, he knew he knew - it was 'a definitely ascertained fact' (Lighter Side...) and 'there was no doubt whatever to the identity of the criminal' (Police Encyclopedia). Swanson doesn't say anything, but by not disagreeing one may suppose that he agreed. It was Littlechild, in the letter about Tumblety, who said Anderson 'only thought he knew', but for reasons given elsewhere I think Littlechild made a mistake and meant Macnaughten (very, very briefly, as I read it, the Littlechild letter was in response to a query about a 'Dr. D' - Druitt, Macnaghten's suspect - and Littlechild seems to suggest that the source of the information was Major Griffiths, who in turn got it from Anderson, but Major Griffiths' source was almost unquestionably Macnaghten, whose suspect Druitt was. And Macnaghten freely admitted that his thoughts about Druitt were conjecture. In other words, by his wn admission, Macnaghten only thought he knew. Anderson, by contrast, knew he knew. He could still have been wrong, of course, but we can't make that judgement until we know the evidence on which his knowledge was based.)Er, right. Got all that. Written test papers will be issued forthwith.
Author: Rotter Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 05:50 am
Mr.Begg-I thought Macnaghten had some "secret evidence" that he burned (according to the A-Z), making his theory more than conjecture. Depending on what the "secret evidence" was, he had either certain knowledge or somebody elses conjecture. One can assume that the evidence could have been equal in value to eyewitness testimony but that can only be an assumption, whereas with Kosminski we have something definite. As far as knowing you know and thinking you and so on, hopefully at any arrest the police "know that they know," yet trials prove them wrong. I think the facts as we know them are with Anderson, but as you've said, we can only prove Kosminski was Anderson's suspect, not that he was the Ripper. But I think he's the best we have.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 08:14 am
We're jumping beyond the end of our enquiry here if we talk about evidence of guilt or innocence. I want to remind everyone that the issues we are talking about here will not reach the level of Anderson's suspect's guilt or innocence. We'd have to add that at the end, and Rotter's concern for evidence of guilt would have to be brought up. Kosminski is presumed innocent. We are only trying to corroborate Anderson's few facts in his article/book -- we're trying to avoid his summary judgements. By going through the evidence we have about Kosminski, can we support Anderson's claim that his suspect was JtR? I know I can't. They all thought they knew who was JtR. The surviving written records are often confusing and contradictory. If we leave the muddle as it stands, and form conclusions based upon a subset of this muddled picture, I think we end up still with a muddled picture -- no one is satisfied. We'll argue a month (years maybe?) about Anderson's character rather than trying to determine if Swanson and Macnaghten only thought they knew that Kosminski was Anderson's suspect. I don't think the approach I've tried here is workable. It's too slow, not everyone who should say something does, etc. etc. Ah well. If everyone feels the 6 points have already been established as "facts" -- and we all have the requisite information we all need to support those points -- then this exercise is closed. Day by day this loses a little more of its appeal for me, so I'm stopping. Yaz
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 08:41 am
Hello All ! Sorry to Yaz for straying just a little, from the precise thread, and for trying to make just a little light of what is obviously a very deep, extremely interesting, and possibly even contentious subject. I had been working out of town all week, and only just sat down on Friday night and tried to take in all the interesting posts in one sitting. It was some very heavy reading, I'll tell you, but I got a great deal out of it, I was certainly not being facetious and I do thank all those for their contributions so far. Mr. Begg is one of the very few to view this matter from a positive viewpoint regarding the police perspective. It does appear that everyone who has studied this case since 1888 has tried to do what the police in 1888 with some intelligent minds, and with all the resources they committed couldn't do, "name the Ripper". Yet there is obviously a great deal to be learned from study of the information that has been left down to us, from people like Anderson, and Swanson. Specifically on this thread, has it ever been confirmed by documentation, or whatever, that the Aaron Kosminski, who was in the asylum was actually a Polish Medical student ? Cheers all ! Jeff D
Author: Rotter Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 03:42 pm
I'm not sure that everything has been established as "facts" but Paul Begg has wrung just about every scrap of meaning out of what we know and come up with the best explanation for the textual evidence. If we have nothing left to talk about blame him for being so damned thorough!
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 02:34 am
Hi Yaz - It is a little difficult to follow a precise line of inquiry step-by-step because the answer to one question often depends on how other questions are answered. And it is difficult in a forum of this sort to ask people to hold back on ideas because we haven't reached a proper point in the inquiry for their assessment. Now, as head of the C.I.D., Robert Anderson would have known the evidence against all the primary police suspects and it is clear that he personally believed that the evidence against the Polish Jew was better than the evidence against anyone else. Indeed, Anderson was convinced - 'there was no doubt whatever...' Of course Anderson could have been wrong. Of course Anderson could have been wishful thinking in a doddering old-age. Of course... But, equally, he may have had some rock solid reasons for thinking as he did. Arguably this question is therefore the single most important question in this study. A pity to therefore find it lacking in appeal. Rotter - Macnaghten was indeed reported in the press at the time of his retirment as saying that he had destroyed all his private papers, the information he'd received regarding Druitt being among them. But writing some years later in his autobiography, he stated that his belief regarding Druitt was conjecture. Thus, he only thought he knew. The argument is fairly complex and the Littlechild communication can be differently interpreted - see a piece by Stewart Evans on the Casebook under 'Dissertations' for an exposition. However, even allowing that others did not share Anderson's belief and thought that Anderson 'only thought he knew', Anderson clearly knew he knew ('there was no doubt'). Now, analysis of this takes us into very murky speculative waters. For example, Macnaghten wrote his memorands for a purpose and if it was going to be released officially then it would have to have received Anderson's sanction. Therefore, would Macnaghten have advanced his own beliefs about Druitt if he'd known of his superior's conviction about Kosminski's guilt? Now, Macnaghten knew about Kosminski, and knew that 'many circs.' made his a good suspect, but he doesn't mention the eye-witness I.D. on which Anderson places such emphasis. Therefore, did he know about it? If he didn't, then it is possible that Macnaghten, not knowing the evidence on which Anderson's beliefs were based, didn't know how strogly those beliefs were held. In other words, people may have thought that Anderson only thought he knew because they didn't know the full-extent of the evidence on which Anderson thought he knew he knew. If you see what I mean. All of which raises the question of what they didn't know about the eye-witness I.D.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 08:59 am
Hey, All! I agree this forum doesn't work too well to go through the evidence so minutely. It also isn't right to monopolize a topic in that way. I find it strange that a man in Anderson's position did not share enough detail of his case -- the detail that made him sure he knew he had JtR -- so that neither Macnaghten or Swanson at least provided Kosminski's first name. Macnaghten provides Druitt's first initials and Ostog first name, but nothing for Kosminski. Sounds like a common source for only the last name and nothing about the first -- otherwise Macnaghten doubtlessly would have written it as he did for the others. A nit -- but I think a tell-tale sign of something. Swanson's marginalia inserts the material from the Blackwood's article back into the book, uses the same convention of referring to Anderson's suspect by last name only, then gets some things right and some wrong about the asylum, the ID, and the death of the suspect. I don't think Swanson at age 62 -- if he annotated Anderson's book in the year it was published -- was getting senile, forgetful, slappy or whatever. It looks like he wasn't very well informed about the details of the case. Both Macnaghten and Swanson seem to know of an identification parade (or just an ID, whatever form it took) -- the Aberconway/Farson version of Macnaghten's memo, mentions "The man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square." This implies to me the City PC identified the suspect when he was in someone's care or custody. They know of the sexual vices; the homicidal urges -- all things related possibly to the assessment made by asylum physicians and private family information (given to the doctors or to the police, or both?). And then there's Littlechild with Tumblety, Abberline with Klosowski/Chapman, even Macnaghten with Druitt (he was inclined to exonerate Kosminski and Ostrog in his memo): Were they unaware of Anderson's suspect and the detail that made Anderson so certain? Or was Anderson's detail only convincing to Anderson? Even Swanson, though adding a bit of detail to Anderson's points, does not come out and say "I think this man was the murderer." All he says is that Kosminski was the suspect. Is it semantics or is there a difference between calling someone the suspect and the murderer? Littlechild's comment was: Now pardon me -- It is finished. Except that I knew Major Griffiths for many years. He got his information from Anderson who only "thought he knew.' Are we arguing for a special reading when we say that the "only thought he knew" applies to Griffiths when it clearly -- by syntax, "who" is linking Anderson to the "thought he knew", not to Griffiths (The sentence would have read "Griffiths, who thought he knew..." which makes no sense with the rest of the sentence)? I think we are being asked to put on special glasses, as it were, about everything to do with Anderson and his suspect and his certainties, when little contemporary or recent research would suggest we should do so. That Anderson knew he knew is irrelevant because 1) few others (maybe only Swanson) were as convinced as he was, or 2) no one knew what he found so absolutely convincing, and 3) Anderson's certainties are not evidence. Anderson's opinion (certain as he may have been), without corroboration or evidence, is not enough to hold Kosminski on charges of committing the murders. All-in-all, Anderson's contemporaries seem remarkably either uniformed or unimpressed about the case against the suspect, or maybe both. And that tells against Anderson, his case against Kosminski, and Kosminski as JtR. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 10:33 am
Hi Yaz Your assessment of Anderson could be right. That's why we research this subject, yes? On Swanson, what stuff did Swanson reinsert from Blackwoods' and what is he demonstably in error about except the suspect dying soon after admission to Colney Hatch? As for Swanson not being very well informed, he gives such a lot of detail that I'm a little surprised by that comment. I'd say that far from being under-informed, Swanson was tolerably well-informed. Turning to Major Griffiths, no special reading is being asked for and I wasn't saying that the "only thought he knew" observation should be applied to Griffiths rather than Anderson. I was suggesting that Littlechild mistakenly named Anderson as Griffiths' source, when he meant Macnaghten. Ask yourself this question: What information is Littlechild saying Major Griffiths got from Anderson? The price of potatoes? The best time to go ski-ing in the Swiss Alps? I'm not being facetious, just giving two silly examples. The point being that it is our assumptionthat it is Ripper information. Littlechildchild could have been referring to something wholly unconnected with the topic of his letter to Sims. But it is not an unreasonable assumption and it is probably even the right assumption, so what Ripper information is ittlechild seemingly saying that Anderson gave to Griffiths? Well, within the context of the letter it would appear to be the information about "Dr D", about whom Sims was inquiring. So Littlechild is saying that Anderson told Griffiths about "Dr D" Okay, he may have done. But an examination of Griffiths' writings makes it quite clear that Griffiths took his information from Macnaghten, whom he so closely parallels that it is difficult to conceive otherwise. "Dr D", if a reference to Druitt, was Macnaghten's suspect, not Anderson's. And Macnaghten stated in his autobiography that his theory based on conjecture (in other words, he 'only thought he knew'). A reasonable case can therefore be made for Littlechild having mistakenly written 'Anderson', who doen't fit the context, for Macnaghten, who does. It is in this context that Anderson knowing he knew is relevant. Macnaghten thought he knew. Anderson knew he knew. Both men could have been wrong, but one was stating what he recognised as conjecture and the other as stating what he believed to be fact. But maybe this subject has indeed run its course. I'll shut up.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 12:16 pm
Hey, Paul! Swanson reinserts that both suspect and witness were Jews. You mentioned one error of Swanson's -- the A-Z mentions the issue of the wrong workhouse. If all you want me to understand about Anderson's suspect/witness is that Anderson "knew he knew," that's fine. I accept that Anderson "knew he knew." This subject has indeed run its course. But are you trying to infer or state anything further than that simple statement? If you are, then I have to say that the Anderson mantra of "he knew he knew" doesn't mean anything legally or morally, though. It is legitimate for anyone other than Anderson to ask "How does he know what he says he knows?" This need not lead to philosophical discussions. It's another way of saying "What evidence does Anderson present to support his knowledge?" Anderson gives little substantial information, period -- no evidence; not even the name of the suspect. We therefore have to look elsewhere (beyond Anderson's claims in writing) for Anderson's evidence. Swanson and Macnaghten contradict. Macnaghten is not impressed by Anderson's suspect or, more importantly from what we're talking about, Anderson's "knowledge." Littlechild doesn't support Anderson's suspect. Abberline doesn't support Anderson's suspect. We're looking for everybody's evidence! All kinds of evidence. Anderson's evidence -- and his suspect -- doesn't rise to the top of the suspect list simply because we say Anderson "knew he knew" who the murderer was. Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 02:35 pm
Hi Yaz I have a feeling that this discussion has gone off course somewhere and that you are thinking that I am saying things which I'm not. My position is simple: we have a statement by Anderson that there was a suspect, a witness and an identification. We also know that for some reason Anderson was convinced beyond doubt of the suspect's guilt (it was 'a definitely ascertained fact' and 'there was not doubt whatever...'). I know of no good evidence or argument that this incident didn't take place. Therefore we are dealing with a reality. Anderson's beliefs were based on something real (or, as Sugden has argued, were the product of wishful thinking in old age). Sadly, we don't know and may never know what Anderson's reasons were for reaching the conclusions he did. That is ALL I am saying. A secondary issue is 'priority of research'. Does Anderson's suspect go to the top of the suspect heap? Well, Anderson was intelligent, experienced, well-informed and in 'a position to know'. His statements, repeated over a period of ten years, are particularly dogmatic. And he is supported by Swanson, who was also intelligent, experienced and informed, and who, writing for personal entertainment, was at liberty to write "tosh" next to Anderson's claims if he wanted to. I therefore think, on balance, that Anderson's suspect does take priority. Nobody need agree with my conclusion. That's all I'm really saying. The rest is simply offering interpretations or alternative interpretations of the source material. The point I was making about Anderson 'knowing he knew' specifically concerned Littlechild's comments. But it does have a slightly wider impact in that Macnaghten, Littlechild and Abberline all made it abundantly clear that they were offering conjecture, whereas Anderson stated that his suspect's guilt was fact. I am simply drawing attention to the distinction between a statement based on conjecture and a statement based on knowledge. Of course, this is not to say that the 'knowledge' on which Anderson based his statement was correct and I am not saying otherwise. What I do say, however, is that Anderson, as head of the C.I.D., would have known the evidence against every serious police suspect. That he favoured the Polish Jew presumably means that he thought the evidence against that suspect was stronger than the evidence against any other. That Anderson's conclusion appears to have been shared by Swanson, who, having overall charge of the investigation, was also likely to have been well-informed, in my view does put Anderson's suspect at the top of the suspect list. I obviously accept that Macnaghten and the rest didn't echo Anderson and that this could mean that his theories didn't get general acceptance, but, as I have said, Macnaghten worries me. Anderson would have had to sanction that report. Was Macnaughten so insensitive that he would produce a report in which he effectively dismissed the suspect favoured by his boss? And not only dismiss him, but advance a new suspect of his own whose guilt was based on 'private information' only recently received? Well, Macnaghten could have been that dumb or uncaring about office politics (though I don't imagine that he was), but it is also possible that he wrote as he did because he did not know the fell extent of the evidence on which Anderson's belief was based. And if that was the case, then ditto Littlechild and Abberline. Regarding the name of the workhouse. Swanson states that the suspect was taken to Stepney Workhouse. Aaron Kosminski was taken to Mile End Old Town Workhouse. Mile End was absorbed by Stepney in 1901, so when Swanson wrote nine years later Mile End was Stepney. Okay, some people might argue that this is making Swanson's statement work for Aaron Kosminski, and to an extent it is, but it does work for Aaron. It doesn't work for Cohen, for example. So, is Swanson really in error? I don't think so. Is anyone interested in pursuing this line of inquiry any further?
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 03:10 pm
I'll take the umpteenth hint and say for myself, "No, I am not interested in pursuing this line of inquiry any further." Yaz
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 04:10 pm
You're sure about that are you? Just joking :-)
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 06:02 pm
Regarding Anderson knowing that he knew, one would have to ask oneself epistemological questions in the absence of any evidence being put forward. How does one know one knows? Ultimate test case: Plato portrays Socrates in the Dialogues as being the only man in history to have known what he knew and what he didn't know. Anderson must occupy a place on the epistemological ladder a rung below Socrates, wouldn't you think? So what have we got: Anderson knew that he knew in virtue of his penological science, of his world-class expertise in which he was justifiably proud. He had certain information about Kosminski, and it definitely ascertained guilt in Anderson's mind. That's why Anderson talks about "utterly unmentionable vices" and so on--this is in part the rationale he is going on to determine guilt. To the extent this rationale seems to us nowadays, with our more advanced sciences, to not be entirely reliable, we become dissatisfied. But we just don't know all the information that Anderson had available to him--we do know that the style in which he generated his epistemological position was the style of his now-outdated science. And that is why we are here. P.S. Mr. Begg, Don't you ever go to bed? It doesn't appear so, based on the hours of your posts. Please take care. David
Author: Caroline Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 06:55 pm
David, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, and a very goodnight to all. Love, Caroline
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 22 February 1999 - 02:32 am
Hi David I think the 'knew he knew' business is getting a little out of hand. All I am saying is that on the evidence before him Anderson concluded that the suspect's guilt was beyond question, whereas on the evidence before him, Macnaghten concluded that his suspect's guilt was probable. The one stated what he believed to be fact, the other stated what he believed was conjecture. I am not suggesting that Anderson's conclusion was subjectively based. For all I know Anderson accompanied the witness into a room at the Seaside Home and was standing next to him when the witness on seeing the suspect cried out: "Yes! Yes! That's the man!" And the suspect said: "Oh my God! You! How do you know it was me, it was dark!" In such circumstances I think Anderson would be justified in saying that the suspect was unquestionably the man seen by the witness. And something along these lines is exactly what may have happened - we are told that the witness unhesitatingly identified the suspect and that the suspect knew he'd been identified. Our problem, of course, is that we don't know that this is what happened, we don't know who the witness was or what the suspect was seen doing, we don't know what other evidence there was to link the suspect to the Ripper crimes.
Author: D. Radka Monday, 22 February 1999 - 08:47 am
Mr. Begg, I apologise for getting the issue out of hand. I absolutely do not mean to ever disrespect you or your views concerning Anderson. I think you are operating sometimes on warp drive, and I on impulse power. David
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 22 February 1999 - 10:35 am
David I am Paul, okay? I know you don't mean any disrespect and I am operating on two decades of assessing this stuff at a snails pace and lucky enough to know and have the patience of some very, very clever people like Martin Fido and Donald Rumbelow and Keith Skinner as my guides, not an abilioty to operate at warp drive. All the best Paul
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 22 February 1999 - 07:37 pm
We went thru this topic last year on the old board and now we've gone thru it again this year, who know's what next year will bring. :-) But for those who have not had enough of this subject and who would like to read two eminent individuals give there professional opinions on this matter. Go to 'Dissertations' on the 'more' menu and look up: Major Arthur Griffiths, Dr Robert Anderson and Jack the Ripper, by Stewart P. Evans. and also at the end of the article the 'Readers Reactions' an exchange between Paul Begg & Stewart Evans. All makes for very interesting reading. and not to forget, also in 'Dissertations': Anderson and the Swanson marginalia, by Scott Hannaford. One of the minutae that we touched on was Anderson's reference to a house to house being conducted before he returned from abroad. Paul mentioned the date of a handbill, do we know how often handbill's were printed?, especially during a high profile murder investigation. I am aware of a house to house being conducted within a half mile radius (?) of Chapman's murder site shortly following her murder, all the lodging houses were searched. and no doubt handbills were required for this also. It may be the case that handbills were continuously printed as they would use hundreds at a time in a large house to house search. It would surprise me if an ex-Lord Mayor of London would not be aware of a vast house to house, as he appears to suggest the Police conduct one in his Oct. 4th letter. And in reply Matthews suggests that searches be conducted of suspicious houses with owners permission; that warrants be applied for where permission is refused, etc,. We might be right in thinking that something big was in the air, which makes me wonder what was Anderson refering to in mentioning a house to house, 'before' he returned. I wonder if it was the Chapman incident, and not the early October, possibly 'larger' affair. Just looking for your input Paul, Thanks, jon
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 02:43 am
Hi Jon Although we are trying to assess Anderson's reliability and therefore the accuracy of all his utterings are placed under scrutiny, Anderson was looking back on events from a distance of two decades to an event which apparently held no greater significance for him than that it was not (in his view) an unsolved crime - his personal soapbox, as already stated, being what he judged as unfair comparisons between the British and Foreign Police Forces. Other than its possible addition to such evidence as there is that Anderson's memory for detail was in some respects faulty in his latter years, surely what matters here is simply that Anderson recalled that one of the conclusions of the house-to-house was that the newly arrived immigrant population didn't surrender one of their own to 'Gentile Justice' (a claim which I, at least, do not find unlikely). Now, whether that house-to-house physically began after Anderson's return, began while he was in the act of returning, began before he returned, was sanctioned before he returned but began after his return, or was simply seen by Anderson as an extension of inquiries begun before he returned, surely what really matters at the moment is that a conclusion was drawn from the house-to-house. However, if we need to get down to specifics, Anderson returned on or after 6th October. Thirteen days later, on 19th October, 1888, Swanson wrote to the Home Office: "80,000 pamphlets to occupiers were issued and a house to house enquiry made" and he goes on to say that "Common Lodging Houses were visited and over 2,000 lodgers were examined." Swanson is clearly describing a major police operation - and one which had been completed. How long would this house to house have taken? A day? Two days? A week? Two weeks? And how long before that to authorise and organise and get handbills printed? A couple of days? Okay, just maybe there was enough time for Anderson to have returned to work, been briefed about what had been done, ordered the house-to-house, had handbills printed... Against this is that the time scale is so exceedingly tight that it is unlikely, that we don't know of handbills other than the one printed at the end of September and headed "To The Occupier" (and Swanson wrote of "80,000 pamphlets to occupiers"(my italics). And, for whatever it is worth, the house-to-house referred to by Swanson excluded the area where Stride was murdered, perhaps suggesting that it had been organised and the lines of demarcation decided, before the Double Event. Overall, whether the house-to-house was organised before or immediately upon Anderson's return from abroad, I dare to suggest that it is such a tight run thing that no real criticism of Anderson's statement would be meaningful, even if it could be proved that it happened after his return. As it is, I think it is pretty likely that it was mooted and organised before his return.
Author: Rotter Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 05:31 am
I suppose it's only of academic interest, but what did these handbills say? If it just the one reproduced in the A-Z, why doesn't it mention searches? And did this massive operation ever get mentioned in the papers and if not, how could it possibly be kept quiet? Do we know which streets were covered? It seems to me that the whole Anderson business is pretty clear as far as his part is concerned; there was a witness, the witness made an ID. The weak link would seem to be the witness, who he was and whether what he saw was enough to nail the Ripper. I also don't understand why Littlechild makes the statement that nothing was known of Tumblety after he left Boulogne, when there was very noisy press coverage of the English detectives in New York. I know a coverup has been alleged due to police embarrassment, but then why bring up Tumblety at all? I can understand that they didn't know of his perambulations after New York, although I really don't know how he got away if he was that important a target. After all he wasn't spirited away in a steamer trunk, he left home one morning and got on a bus or train at the next corner! I don't know that the Littlechild letter shows more than Tumblety as a rather weak suspect.
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 01:25 pm
I would like to submit that we might best think of the house-to-house inquiries as developing rather spontaneously and organically at some point following the Chapman murder, and becoming an organized and regulated thing probably in early October. With Chapman the awareness first dawned on the police that they were dealing with a maniac on the loose, and one of their first instincts would have been to get back off the streets and into the houses to search, or at least to stop and talk with local residents on the streets to explain to them what was going on, and so to keep an eye peeled. Logically, this would be the origin of the house-to-house work, as I conceive of it: late September. May I have a take on this, please? Thanks! David