PDA

View Full Version : Is Kosminski the man really viable?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

miakaal4
10-16-2012, 02:21 PM
Having read up (some) of the information on Kosminski, I have to admit I find it very difficult to view him as a viable suspect. It seems that most, if not all the evidence against him comes from some comments by senoir detectives which do not quite tally.
The description of the man is one of a lone, mumbling, imbecile who was lucky enough to have close relatives who looked out for him, but who behaved in such strange ways, he caused enough anxiety to have him removed from the streets. His time spent in asylums have no mention of him threatening to rip anyone up, in fact only one violent incident occurs and that is with a chair.
Apart from the story that he threatened a female relative with a knife, (which lets face it could mean anything from a verbal threat to holding the knife under her throat) there is no record of "homicidal mania" or "hatred of women" as Macnaghten asserts in his Memoranda. Then Anderson say's that a "witness" identified (Kosminski) as the murderer, but would not give evidence as the mans' hanging would be on his mind.
He has got to be joking hasn't he? The most reknown killer in history since Caligula is out there on his patch and he lets him off because some toerag doesn't want it on his conscience? I know the Police had him watched but that could be because they knew he was insane and therefore could perhaps be their man.
Or am I missing something?:reading:

lynn cates
10-16-2012, 02:38 PM
Hello Miakaal. Just to set the record straight, you refer to Aaron Kosminski?

To be fair, neither MacNaughten nor Swanson give his first name. So we cannot be absolutely certain that Aaron is even THEIR Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

miakaal4
10-16-2012, 03:22 PM
Yep that's your man. I know there is confusion around this chap, although I think it may be more about changing his name to something more Anglo that caused the confusion. But I thought there was only one Kos/zminski on record as being in the asylums? Surely that is Aaron??

Phil H
10-16-2012, 03:55 PM
So far research has only indicated AARON Kosminski as the likely suspect, miakaal. He fits the bill closely but not precisely.

As with Ostrog and Druitt there seem to have been deliberate or accidental errors in describing Kosminski by Macnaghten, Anderson and Druitt.

But take the following:

* AK is a Polish Jew as specifically stated by Anderson;
* he lived at the heart of the area, residing with his own people;
* he was sent to a workhouse and then incarcerated in a mental institution at about the right time;
* his mental problems seem to fit with some of those described by the police.

Added to that, recent research (current issue of Ripperologist) has placed him potentially close to the Berners St murder (Stride) with good reason to know the area - that murder has sometimes in the past seemed aberrant given that it was on the other side of Whitechapel Rd to the others.

The problems over Aaron Kosminski centre on the fact that Swanson has him dying much earlier than he did (1919), although MM appears to have known he was still alive in the 1890s. There is also an issue about Anderson and Swanson's statement that AK was identified by a witness who refused to testify. The confusion is over the place (why?) the timing and the witness - it all seems contrary to usual police procedure - but then Swanson should have known that backwards!! Also why did City Police watch a Met Police suspect on Met Police territory.

One day some of this may become clearer - there is perhaps an explanation which might clarify what happened. We are for the moment left with enigmas.

Martin Fido who, I think first identified Aaron Kosminski in the Colney Hatch and other records, was puzzled by the information and considered other candidates, a Nathan Kaminski and a David Cohen, and considered a solution in which the police became confused between suspects. But this did not attract much support.

So we await developments.

As with Druitt and Ostrog, AK cannot simply be dismissed from consideration as he is mentioned by senior officials of the day, and AK has perhaps a stronger case against him given that Anderson and Swanson both refer to him with specific detail.

That said, unlike Druitt and Ostrog, AK can be closely tied to the area of the East End in which the murders took place; he was put away as insane; he can potentially be associated with at least one murder scene quite tightly by residence and local knowledge; there is one record of violence against a woman (albeit not severe).

None of this is sufficient to convict him, or even build a case against AK; but it is MORE than can be done for Druitt or Ostrog (named with him) and probably any other serious suspect.

For me he remains a more likely "type" to be Jack than a "toff" like Druitt or an extrovert like Tumblety. But my mind remains open. the latest research is VERY interesting though.

Phil H

jason_c
10-16-2012, 04:06 PM
Having read up (some) of the information on Kosminski, I have to admit I find it very difficult to view him as a viable suspect. It seems that most, if not all the evidence against him comes from some comments by senoir detectives which do not quite tally.
The description of the man is one of a lone, mumbling, imbecile who was lucky enough to have close relatives who looked out for him, but who behaved in such strange ways, he caused enough anxiety to have him removed from the streets. His time spent in asylums have no mention of him threatening to rip anyone up, in fact only one violent incident occurs and that is with a chair.
Apart from the story that he threatened a female relative with a knife, (which lets face it could mean anything from a verbal threat to holding the knife under her throat) there is no record of "homicidal mania" or "hatred of women" as Macnaghten asserts in his Memoranda. Then Anderson say's that a "witness" identified (Kosminski) as the murderer, but would not give evidence as the mans' hanging would be on his mind.
He has got to be joking hasn't he? The most reknown killer in history since Caligula is out there on his patch and he lets him off because some toerag doesn't want it on his conscience? I know the Police had him watched but that could be because they knew he was insane and therefore could perhaps be their man.
Or am I missing something?:reading:

The first hand accounts we have of him in 1889 do not suggest a mumbling imbecile. In fact they suggest a man who could think on his feet(being less than forthcoming with the PC) and was willing to stand up to authority. Of course none of this makes him a killer.

lynn cates
10-16-2012, 04:20 PM
Hello Miakaal. Thanks.

"But I thought there was only one Kos/zminski on record as being in the asylums?"

Correct.

"Surely that is Aaron??"

Agreed. But is Aaron the chap named by Swanson and Mac? And is ANY Kosminski Sir Robert's low class Polish Jew? Can't be sure.

Cheers.
LC

miakaal4
10-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Hi all and thanks.
I have quickly looked at the latest on Kozmi, but had to agree with an opinion that living nearby doesn't prove a thing. One quick, (the quickest) kill ?
That said it does not hurt the case against the man, and I shall keep an eye on future developments. At this time though I just feel he was not violent enough, the two violent outbursts are tame compared to Stride, let alone Eddows. And besides he would have had to kill Stride and then continue on to kill Eddows. Would he have not just turned around and gone home?

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 04:34 PM
Also why did City Police watch a Met Police suspect on Met Police territory.



I was reading Cutbush's Sun articles last night and two things struck me:

1) How similar Cutbush and Kosminski appear to be. Similar habits, and according to the Sun report both attacked a family member with a knife, possibly even same build, height, hair and eye colour.

2) More in tune with this thread, according to The Sun the City Police issued a circular on the man they were looking for post Eddowes murder: 28ish, 5'8, respectable appearance, dark hair, carrying a parcel. In fact, pretty much PC Smith's character. Does this suggest that the City Police and the Met Police suspect was one and the same? Why wouldn't they watch a man whom they believed to be JTR (Met territory or otherwise)?

DVV
10-16-2012, 04:34 PM
Problem is that the theory precedes the suspect in the case of Kosminski.
A serious flaw, if you ask me.
Some officials had a gut feeling that the murderer had to be a Jew, and, oh ! here is a mad Polish Jew...

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 04:42 PM
Problem is that the theory precedes the suspect in the case of Kosminski.
A serious flaw, if you ask me.
Some officials had a gut feeling that the murderer had to be a Jew, and, oh ! here is a mad Polish Jew...

I think Anderson started from the position that either he was protected or he lived alone/had premises that he could retire to alone.

So, in October they searched every house in the vicinity, checking out people who lived alone.

They came up with nothing.

And so, he concluded that he was being protected, otherwise someone would have known of his guilt and contacted the police - and that must mean Jews.

And, according to Anderson the diagnosis was proven correct 'on every count'.

So yes, you have a point. He had a preconceived idea of the lifestyle of this person. Could this have helped cement his views on Kosminski as murderer? Absolutely. But then, a successful ID is strong stuff regardless of preconceived ideas.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 04:50 PM
miakaal

I have quickly looked at the latest on Kozmi, but had to agree with an opinion that living nearby doesn't prove a thing.

I agree entirely, but at least there is a demonstrable East End connection for Kosminski which does not exist for MJD or ostrog.

In simplistic terms are not opportunity, motive etc usually given as the basis of a case. Well, AK clearly did have "opportunity" in local knowledge, somewhere to go, etc. that is more than we have for any other suspect. If you add that the ID was of Aaron Kosminski (which I recognise is not proven) you begin to see a lot of ticks in boxes.

NOTE please, I am not pushing the candidature of AK as JtR. I am just pointing out why he remains a more viable suspect than many others.

Phil H

DVV
10-16-2012, 04:51 PM
Thanks, Fleetwood.
But I'm not aware of any successful ID in the Ripper case. Even not that of Grainger. :rolleyes2:

Sally
10-16-2012, 04:54 PM
It seems to me that:

Kosminski (most likely Aaron on current knowledge) was considered a suspect and possibly the perpetrator in the Ripper case by senior police officials.

Given the connection that Kosminski had with Berner St and envrions, he could have been identified by Schwartz.

Neither of the above necessarily implies guilt.

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 04:54 PM
Thanks, Fleetwood.
But I'm not aware of any successful ID in the Ripper case. Even not that of Grainger. :rolleyes2:

Well, I think: ''suspect knew he was identified" and "murderer would have hanged" - is certainly egding toward a successful outing.

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 04:57 PM
It seems to me that:

Kosminski (most likely Aaron on current knowledge) was considered a suspect and possibly the perpetrator in the Ripper case by senior police officials.

Given the connection that Kosminski had with Berner St and envrions, he could have been identified by Schwartz.

Neither of the above necessarily implies guilt.

They were absolutely convinced they had their man.

Anderson claimed the diagnosis was proven right on every count.

Swanson's notes make it clear that suspect would have hanged and his name was Kosminski.

Strong stuff. Difficult to see how they could have been any more convinced outside of catching him red handed.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 05:00 PM
But the circumstances and timing of the putative ID of AK (alleged by Anderson & have been long debatedSwanson).

Who was the witness? How long after the sighting was the ID? How seriously can we take it that a witness would not testify even if compelled?

We cannot rule out that AK was identified by someone, but as yet we have no proof he was or how good the ID was.

Just my view.

Phil H

DVV
10-16-2012, 05:01 PM
They were absolutely convinced they had their man.


Yes, Fleetwood.
But "they" seems to refer to a vast community of two people.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 05:03 PM
They were absolutely convinced they had their man.

Anderson claimed the diagnosis was proven right on every count.

Swanson's notes make it clear that suspect would have hanged and his name was Kosminski.

Strong stuff. Difficult to see how they could have been any more convinced outside of catching him red handed.

But we have no PROOF of any of that, and parts of Swanson's account don't seem to add up.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 05:06 PM
It seems to me that:

Kosminski (most likely Aaron on current knowledge) was considered a suspect and possibly the perpetrator in the Ripper case by senior police officials.

Given the connection that Kosminski had with Berner St and envrions, he could have been identified by Schwartz.



Ok, here's a wild stab in the dark.

Pipeman was a club man who had gone for a wander and was on his way back to the club.

Pipeman knew the fella attacking Stride.

What he actually shouted was: "Kosminski!".

Club members knew Kosminski reasonably well and didn't want him handed over to the police.

What they couldn't know was whether or not anyone heard the cry of 'Kosminski', and so they concocted a story where the cry became 'Lipski!' as that was the only thing they could come up with that would be believable in the circumstances.

Dah dah!

Believe it? Me neither.

According to the Sun, the City Police weren't looking for a man who's most distinguishing feature was being broad shouldered. So, perhaps Schwartz didn't hold court in this matter.

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 05:11 PM
but as yet we have no proof he was or how good the ID was.

Phil H

We do have proof regarding the success of the ID. We have 2 senior policemen stating that they had "proof" and "murderer would have hanged".

Outside of finding an old betamax recording of the ID, you couldn't wish for anything more convincing than that.

It's pretty solid, and questions over where the ID took place, and the identity of the witness, should not in any way detract from the statements of senior policemen to the effect that they were convinced that the man who was ID'd was ID'd beyond doubt and was the man known as JTR.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 05:29 PM
No FM, sorry to contradict you, but we do not have PROOF "regarding the success of the ID".

We may indeed have "2 senior policemen stating that they had "proof" and "murderer would have hanged". But that is only their view. we hve none of the official reports or records of the ID that would constitute actual evidence. Moreover the marginalia are somewhat curious in regard to the location of the identification and how it was conducted.

Who was the witness (a Jew it seems - but Lawende, Schwartz? or someone else?) How long after the sighting was the ID? How reliable? Why did the suspect have to be taken (apparently) to Brighton? If he was seen to identify but refused to testify - why did the police react as they did?

One can speculate on all these things, but we do not KNOW.

If, as some would argue, Swanson recorded details given to him by Anderson and hitherto unknown to him, why was that? (There is nothing in the phrasing of the marginalia to oppose that view - though I am personally uncommitted.) If DSS knew, why are the procedural issues so strange?

Outside of finding an old betamax recording of the ID, you couldn't wish for anything more convincing than that.

I'd settle for an official file. old men writing in retirement are under no requirement to be as accurate as possible, a serving officer is.

It's pretty solid, and questions over where the ID took place, and the identity of the witness, should not in any way detract from the statements of senior policemen to the effect that they were convinced that the man who was ID'd was ID'd beyond doubt and was the man known as JTR.

I agree, we have powerful material which cannot be ignored. But it does not, as yet, constitute PROOF.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 05:42 PM
I agree, we have powerful material which cannot be ignored. But it does not, as yet, constitute PROOF.

Phil H

Which begs the question, Phil, what exactly would constitute proof in your eyes?

You say an official file.

Not quite sure how the views of two senior policemen are reduced to lesser status because they are not in an official file. Presumably, we don't doubt that Swanson and Anderson penned those words, so what's the difference?

As a lapsed historian, doing other things these days, I would count the words written around the ID to be excellent source material. The fact that we don't know where it took place nor the identity of the witness, does not negate the fact that two senior policeman had no doubts that this man was identified and this was their man.

They could have been wide of the mark, of course, but it certainly appears to the be the case that they were convinced.

robhouse
10-16-2012, 05:42 PM
The description of the man is one of a lone, mumbling, imbecile who was lucky enough to have close relatives who looked out for him, but who behaved in such strange ways, he caused enough anxiety to have him removed from the streets.

Aaron Kozminski was not an imbecile, and that IS a fact. No matter how many times I have repeated this, it still turns up time and time again.

RH

Phil H
10-16-2012, 05:54 PM
FM - my answer was in my previous post.

Old men reminiscing in retirement are not on oath, and memory can be problematic. In particular, we do not, cannot know, quite how DSS's marginalia relate to Anderson's views. the lack of a forename for Kosminski is also in my view a snag.

It might be different if there was circumstantial support from other senior officials, but there is not. MM apparently was not convinced by what he had heard of the "Kosminski" case.

On an official file one could - perhaps - relate the events and comments to other material. The way we can trace some of the logic on the official files. It is also, per se, THE record.

I know how frustrating it is not simply to be able to accept Sir RA's and DSS's views and move on. But we cannot. To build any theory on that basis would be to construct something very unstable and capable of collapse at any point.

I would be more ready to accept the ID if there was more (even circumstantial) material to suggest AK was a real suspect - but there isn't. And Sir RA and DSS are wrong about his death date so could be in error about other things as well.

So sorry, no - if I was writing an academic paper, I would not do more than promote this ID material as a possibility. That shouldn't be a problem as it is not dissimilar to the state of affairs say in pre-history where the evidence is fragmentary. Conclusions have to be interim ones for the moment.

Phil H

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 05:55 PM
I agree, we have powerful material which cannot be ignored. But it does not, as yet, constitute PROOF.

Phil H

Just as Stewart Evans and others have stated, we will never get conclusive proof. No one saw the murders and we are only guessing that any particular witness witnessed the actual killer.

Sincerely,

Mike

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 06:06 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"They were absolutely convinced they had their man.

Anderson claimed the diagnosis was proven right on every count.

Swanson's notes make it clear that suspect would have hanged and his name was Kosminski."

Yes, and MacNaghten, who placed his behind on the throne AFTER them, and who would have been privy to the material as such, including whatever it was Anderson and Swanson had on Kosminsky, was equally sure that HE had HIS man.
Curiously, though, it was not the same man...?

The best,
Fisherman

Dr. John Watson
10-16-2012, 06:10 PM
Which begs the question, Phil, what exactly would constitute proof in your eyes?

You say an official file.

Not quite sure how the views of two senior policemen are reduced to lesser status because they are not in an official file. Presumably, we don't doubt that Swanson and Anderson penned those words, so what's the difference?

As a lapsed historian, doing other things these days, I would count the words written around the ID to be excellent source material . . . .

The Swanson marginalia may be "excellent source material," but it is not a document of record, such as a police report, witness statement, etc. It is rather the type of material usually referred to as "anecdotal" which has come to mean a statement or narrative of interest but of no conclusive or evidentuary value.

John

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 06:15 PM
Phil:

"at least there is a demonstrable East End connection for Kosminski which does not exist for MJD or ostrog."

Partycrasher that I am, I could not resist this. An East End connection, no less. Two addresses where Aaron Kosminski may have stayed at some stage, and that are not far away from the killing fields.
Champagne on ice, bring out the caviar! And very deservedly so!

But it would have been nice to see somebody realize that there is something very much resembling an East End connection when it comes to Lechmere too. For some reson though, having dug up the adresses and workroutes that place him in extremely close connection to each and every one of the murder sites have not earned Edward much acclaim...?

Strange, is it not?

But before anybody tells me not to contaminate a thread as pure as this, I will take the advide ad notam in advance and leave the thread, taking Lechmere with me!

The best,
Fisherman

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 06:21 PM
Phil:

"at least there is a demonstrable East End connection for Kosminski which does not exist for MJD or ostrog."

Partycrasher that I am, I could not resist this. An East End connection, no less. Two addresses where Aaron Kosminski may have stayed at some stage, and that are not far away from the killing fields.
Champagne on ice, bring out the caviar! And very deservedly so!

But it would have been nice to see somebody realize that there is something very much resembling an East End connection when it comes to Lechmere too. For some reson though, having dug up the adresses and workroutes that place him in extremely close connection to each and every one of the murder sites have not earned Edward much acclaim...?

Strange, is it not?

But before anybody tells me not to contaminate a thread as pure as this, I will take the advide ad notam in advance and leave the thread, taking Lechmere with me!

The best,
Fisherman

So, you're saying there's a 'lech' on the Fish, which is why you took him with you :scratchchin:

Phil H
10-16-2012, 06:31 PM
An East End connection, no less. Two addresses where Aaron Kosminski may have stayed at some stage, and that are not far away from the killing fields.

Fisherman - you can READ. I had wondered.

But it would have been nice to see somebody realize that there is something very much resembling an East End connection when it comes to Lechmere too.

But this thread is about Kosminski, Fish. Maybe you cannot read, after all.

For some reson though, having dug up the adresses and workroutes that place him in extremely close connection to each and every one of the murder sites have not earned Edward much acclaim...?

I have in fact expressed my interest in Cross/Lechmere as a candidate for Nichols and Chapman, maybe Eddowes several times - but I cannot take the case further than possible. He escaped notice at the time it seems, AK did not.

Edited to add: Hundreds of people each day must have passed along Hanbury St, rather less down Buck's Row (at that time of day). So the same could be said to apply to others.

Strange, is it not?

No because there is no evidence at all against Cross/Lechmere - merely supposition. Someone called Kosminski was named AT THE TIME (big difference) and is thus now being evaluated in this thread. We don't mention, Tumblety or Maybrick either save in passing.

Phil H

robhouse
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Yes, and MacNaghten, who placed his behind on the throne AFTER them, and who would have been privy to the material as such, including whatever it was Anderson and Swanson had on Kosminsky, was equally sure that HE had HIS man.

It is an assumption, on your part, that Macnaghten "would have been privy to the material as such." In my opinion, it is possible that Macnaghten was not privy to the information Anderson and Swanson had on Kozminski.

RH

Sally
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Strange, is it not?

Not so much, Fisherman. The possible significance in Kosminski's connection to Berner St lies not in his proximity - the same could be said for hundreds of people at that time; but in the documented fact that he was considered a suspect by senior police officials at the time. It is because of that fact that his connection with Berner St becomes interesting. One follows the other, as night follows day.

Perhaps Lechmere ought to stay on Lechmere threads.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 06:37 PM
Rob - he should have had access to the suspects file on kosminski - given his position.

Are you suggesting there was a confidential dossier on Kosminski known only to Sir RA and DSS? If so - what do you think happened to it after their retirement? Who else would have known? If it was an official file then someone must have taken charge of it.

Or do you believe that sir RA and DSS were conducting their own personal investigation into AK - off the record.

That surely would be highly improper and given away at once even by the neutered details provided by Sir RA in his published works.

Phil H

robhouse
10-16-2012, 06:39 PM
Are you suggesting there was a confidential dossier on Kosminski known only to Sir RA and DSS?

That is basically what I am suggesting... as a possibility.

Rob

Sally
10-16-2012, 06:42 PM
Might that make more sense of the curious identification at the 'Seaside Home' which doesn't seem to tally with routine police procedure?

But if they were conducting an unofficial investigation, for what possible reason? Why not an official investigation?

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 06:43 PM
Hi Rob,

But I thought that Swanson kept it secret from everyone ACCEPT fellow Scotland Yard officials? ...or are you talking about Special Branch?

Sincerely,

Mike

Phil H
10-16-2012, 06:45 PM
But MM knew of Kosminski - so some sort of official record was kept.

The details published by Sir RA even without names would be enough for someone on the inside to recognise he had material - the ID etc - that was not official.

Would he not have been taking a huge risk of prosecution?

we know he was nearly ruined in reputation and pension by his irish doings, but he expected those to remain secret. With AK he was almost asking for someone to look into what he and DSS had been doing.

Why should two such senior men take such a career risk?

I think you do them an injustice, unless you have grounds for thinking that something deeper was involved.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 06:46 PM
John/Phil,

Yes, granted, an official report would have afforded the opportunity of cross-examination among their peers.

But, there are other compelling factors associated with the ID:

Authoritative and unwavering.

Phil, I'm not at all convinced with the failing memory view. All we're discussing is this: a) there was an ID b) they were convinced it was successful. Difficult to see how they could have been misled by the mind re these two simple propositions. The small details perhaps.

Moving on from there, whether or not it was Aaron is open to debate, as is whether or not they were right to be so convinced that this was their man.

DVV
10-16-2012, 06:50 PM
Might that make more sense of the curious identification at the 'Seaside Home' which doesn't seem to tally with routine police procedure?

But if they were conducting an unofficial investigation, for what possible reason? Why not an official investigation?

Yes, Sally.
And why trying to ID Grainger in 1895 ? ....:scratchchin:

Phil H
10-16-2012, 06:51 PM
I'm not at all convinced with the failing memory view.

That is your right.

But at this remove none of us can be sure, can we?

I am not arguing that it was the case, it is JUST ONE option that makes the marginalia somewhat unquantifiable and thus evidential perhaps, but not EVIDENCE = PROOF.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 06:51 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"They were absolutely convinced they had their man.

Anderson claimed the diagnosis was proven right on every count.

Swanson's notes make it clear that suspect would have hanged and his name was Kosminski."

Yes, and MacNaghten, who placed his behind on the throne AFTER them, and who would have been privy to the material as such, including whatever it was Anderson and Swanson had on Kosminsky, was equally sure that HE had HIS man.
Curiously, though, it was not the same man...?

The best,
Fisherman

Immaterial I think, Fisherman.

MacNaghten didn't challenge the ID event.

All I'm saying is that there was an ID, the suspect was Kosminski, and they believed they had their man.

From this point, there are various possibilities.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 06:54 PM
One possibility that has always interested me was whether there was ANOTHER witness of whom we have today seen no mention - a witness other than Lawende, Schwartz, Mrs Long etc.

There was Mr Hyams (?) who was with Lawende and of whom one account said, he appeared as if he knew more than he was saying.

What about Hutchinson? Abberline thought him credible.

There is so much that we do not know.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 06:55 PM
I'm not at all convinced with the failing memory view.

That is your right.

But at this remove none of us can be sure, can we?

I am not arguing that it was the case, it is JUST ONE option that makes the marginalia somewhat unquantifiable and thus evidential perhaps, but not EVIDENCE = PROOF.

Phil H

Phil,

Couldn't disagree more.

There may be outside possibilities, such as Kosminski was a code name for someone whom they knew to not be called Kosminski.

But, you'd get something like 33/1 down the bookies for that.

It's odds on that an ID took place and Kosminski was the suspect - for reasons given.

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 06:55 PM
Immaterial I think, Fisherman.

MacNaghten didn't challenge the ID event.

All I'm saying is that there was an ID, the suspect was Kosminski, and they believed they had their man.

From this point, there are various possibilities.

It's interesting that they didn't convince Abberline.

Sincerely,

Mike

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 06:59 PM
One possibility that has always interested me was whether there was ANOTHER witness of whom we have today seen no mention - a witness other than Lawende, Schwartz, Mrs Long etc.

There was Mr Hyams (?) who was with Lawende and of whom one account said, he appeared as if he knew more than he was saying.

What about Hutchinson? Abberline thought him credible.

There is so much that we do not know.

Phil H

Me too, Phil.

One of the most interesting aspects for me is who exactly was this witness.

Lawende has his plus points in that he was backed up by two other people. There are the obvious problems in that by his own admission he didn't get a good look at her and he identified her by her dress. And, most importantly, he only saw two people having a chat. I for one wouldn't hang someone on that basis.

Schwartz doesn't even appear at the inquest. And, according to The Sun, the City Police were focusing on the respectably dressed fella carrying the parcel.

What we don't know is whether or not they had something else on the man, and Lawende's evidence was the tip of the iceberg.

Still feel there is room for someone else.

Sally
10-16-2012, 07:04 PM
What about Hutchinson? Abberline thought him credible.

He probably wasn't Jewish though, which would seem to rule him out.

Phil H
10-16-2012, 07:09 PM
There's a "probably" in there, Sally!!

I was just looking for names really - I think the police MIGHT have had someone of whom we have never heard, kept away from the press. And someone reliable and who got a good look.

Could it be a member of the Kosminski family? That might explain the reluctance to testify and police reluctance to compell - the family would never have forgiven a member who maybe followed Kosminski and saw him commit one of the murders.

It might explain, if true, why it was all so hush hush and against procedure.

Just an idea.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-16-2012, 07:16 PM
Could it be a member of the Kosminski family? That might explain the reluctance to testify and police reluctance to compell - the family would never have forgiven a member who maybe followed Kosminski and saw him commit one of the murders.

It might explain, if true, why it was all so hush hush and against procedure.

Just an idea.

Phil H

Don't think so. "On learning he was also a Jew....."

Seems to me witness and suspect weren't acquainted.

May tell us whether or not suspect was clearly Jewish by virtue of appearance, though.

Sally
10-16-2012, 07:16 PM
There's a "probably" in there, Sally!!

I know :) Well, nothing's impossible, but it seems intrinsically unlikely.

Could it be a member of the Kosminski family? That might explain the reluctance to testify and police reluctance to compell - the family would never have forgiven a member who maybe followed Kosminski and saw him commit one of the murders.

It might explain, if true, why it was all so hush hush and against procedure.

Just an idea.

Or somebody who knew him, even.

DVV
10-16-2012, 07:17 PM
He probably wasn't Jewish though, which would seem to rule him out.

Or was it Mr Astrakhan that ruled out everybody ?

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 08:08 PM
Rob House:

"It is an assumption, on your part, that Macnaghten "would have been privy to the material as such." In my opinion, it is possible that Macnaghten was not privy to the information Anderson and Swanson had on Kozminski."

True. It IS an assumption. But I find it very hard to believe that Anderson, if he had the knowledge and confirmation that Kosminski was the Ripper, would not pass that knowledge on to a man who may otherwise spend tons of efforts to catch a man that had already been secured. That, if anything, would have the traditions of Andersonīs old department suffering!

Therefore, to my mind, the possibility that MacNaghten was kept in the dark on this matter defies belief.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 08:12 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"All I'm saying is that there was an ID, the suspect was Kosminski, and they believed they had their man."

And all I am saying is that there alledgedly was an ID, the suspect alledgedly was someone named Kosminsky and the two CLAIMED that they believed they had their man.

Isnīt that, after all, where we stand?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Mike:

"It's interesting that they didn't convince Abberline."

Then again, who DID they convince...? it would seem most of that bunch are writing on these boards.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-16-2012, 08:25 PM
Phil H:

"there is no evidence at all against Cross/Lechmere - merely supposition. Someone called Kosminski was named AT THE TIME (big difference)"

There is no evidence against Kosminski either, Phil. He was named at the time, but so were Issenschmidt, Druitt, Le Grand, Pizer ...
Realistically there was no evidence against any of these men, save perhaps - PERHAPS - for one of them.

So you are dealing with two men against whom we have no evidence, as you put it. And one of them can be logically connected to all the murder spots, whereas the other can be placed in the East end together with hundreds of thousands of other men. Itīs a total mismatch in this respect, Lechmere outweighing Kosminski by a huge amount.

That was what I meant, Phil. Having once been a suspect is not having had conclusive evidence pointing against you.

Carry on, gentlemen and -women!

Fisherman

Phil H
10-16-2012, 08:54 PM
Fisherman, I think you have now entirely left the planet.

Issenschmidt as I recall, was exhonerated as was Pizer. Is not Le Grand (although a convicted criminal) a modern suspect as JtR? You are mixing your suspects in a very disorganised way.

Druitt is on a par with Kosminski and Ostrog - NAMED by a senior official at the time. PERIOD. FULL STOP. that's the difference.

Cross/Lechmere is nowhere, an interesting possibility with not a shred of evidence, not even being suspected at the time.

Such chaotic reasoning as you emply and such undiscriminating intellectual reasoning at least explains your strange posts and unfathomable conclusions, Fisherman.

Phil H

lynn cates
10-16-2012, 09:07 PM
Hello Phil. Can you show me where Isenschmid was exonerated? All I've seen is a story about his brother (In Switzerland) who was with him at the time and which said he was about to be released.

Cheers.
LC

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 09:30 PM
Fisherman, I think you have now entirely left the planet.

Issenschmidt as I recall, was exhonerated as was Pizer. Is not Le Grand (although a convicted criminal) a modern suspect as JtR? You are mixing your suspects in a very disorganised way.

Druitt is on a par with Kosminski and Ostrog - NAMED by a senior official at the time. PERIOD. FULL STOP. that's the difference.

Cross/Lechmere is nowhere, an interesting possibility with not a shred of evidence, not even being suspected at the time.

Such chaotic reasoning as you emply and such undiscriminating intellectual reasoning at least explains your strange posts and unfathomable conclusions, Fisherman.

Phil H

By the way, the suspect Anderson named at the peak of the murders was Francis Tumblety. It's embarrassing how you ignore his name all the time.

Mike

Sally
10-16-2012, 09:33 PM
I hope this thread isn't going to descend into a (yet another) argument about which (or whose) pet theory is the best. :shakehead:

Can't we discuss Kosminski instead?

Phil H
10-16-2012, 09:34 PM
I didn't and don't ignore Tumblety - but he didn't seem relevant to this thread. I cited other examples.

Do we now have to mention every contemporary suspect in every post in some sort of weird political correctness to those who back certain suspects?

Tumblety is certainly a contenporary suspect though I don't give him much credence personally - too tall, too extrovert, wrong sexually.

On Issenschmidt I might well be wrong - I didn't check with my notes/books and fired from the hip.

Phil H

mklhawley
10-16-2012, 09:47 PM
My apologies Phil and Sally. I was wrong to comment like this.

Sincerely,
Mike

Simon Wood
10-16-2012, 09:59 PM
Hi All,

The Whitechapel murders have not remained a carefully-guarded secret because a masturbating Polish Jew named Kosminski carved up five East End unfortunates.

Up until just prior to WWII various attempts were made to provide a "solution" to the Ripper mystery. Then Hitler came along and buggered everything.

In 1914 Melville Macnaghten published his memoirs containing references to a "sexual maniac" Ripper committing suicide just after his final murder. In 1923 William Le Queux claimed the Ripper was a mad Russian doctor sent to London by the Russian secret police "to annoy and baffle Scotland Yard." In 1929 Leonard Matters told of the Ripper being a Dr. Stanley, bent on avenging the death of his son. In 1935 Edwin T. Woodhall wrote of the Ripper being Olga Tchkersoff, a Russian immigrant out to avenge the death of her sister, and in 1938 William Stewart posited that Jack was once again Jill, but this time a midwife.

Interest in the Ripper mystery was kept alive during these years perhaps because nobody ever pointed out that it had been solved back in 1910, when Sir Robert Anderson, one of Scotland Yard's highest-ranking police officers at the time of the Whitechapel murders, identified the Ripper as an unnamed low-class Polish Jew, his ethnicity stated to be a "definitely ascertained fact."

If true, here was a revelation which should have put an end to matters once and for all. After all, who could have been better placed to know the truth than the authoritative figure of Sir Robert Anderson?

Yet somehow the mystery refused to die, persisting well after Anderson's death, rumbling on with the police and press insisting that the Whitechapel murders were unsolved whilst various authors seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum of public curiosity with increasingly extravagant "solutions".

One thing is certain. If Anderson had been telling the truth—or, if otherwise, the press had elected to put their faith in this pillar of moral rectitude—matters would have ended there and then.

The mystery endured because Sir Robert Anderson's revelation about a low-class Polish Jew was either ignored by the press as unlikely or dismissed as untrue.

Yet now, just over a century later, we are being encouraged to believe Anderson actually spoke the truth.

The Ripper wheel has turned full-circle, yet still the Whitechapel murders remain a carefully-guarded secret.

Regards,

Simon

Phil Carter
10-16-2012, 10:30 PM
Hi All,

The Whitechapel murders have not remained a carefully-guarded secret because a masturbating Polish Jew named Kosminski carved up five East End unfortunates.

Up until just prior to WWII various attempts were made to provide a "solution" to the Ripper mystery. Then Hitler came along and buggered everything.

In 1914 Melville Macnaghten published his memoirs containing references to a "sexual maniac" Ripper committing suicide just after his final murder. In 1923 William Le Queux claimed the Ripper was a mad Russian doctor sent to London by the Russian secret police "to annoy and baffle Scotland Yard." In 1929 Leonard Matters told of the Ripper being a Dr. Stanley, bent on avenging the death of his son. In 1935 Edwin T. Woodhall wrote of the Ripper being Olga Tchkersoff, a Russian immigrant out to avenge the death of her sister, and in 1938 William Stewart posited that Jack was once again Jill, but this time a midwife.

Interest in the Ripper mystery was kept alive during these years perhaps because nobody ever pointed out that it had been solved back in 1910, when Sir Robert Anderson, one of Scotland Yard's highest-ranking police officers at the time of the Whitechapel murders, identified the Ripper as an unnamed low-class Polish Jew, his ethnicity stated to be a "definitely ascertained fact."

If true, here was a revelation which should have put an end to matters once and for all. After all, who could have been better placed to know the truth than the authoritative figure of Sir Robert Anderson?

Yet somehow the mystery refused to die, persisting well after Anderson's death, rumbling on with the police and press insisting that the Whitechapel murders were unsolved whilst various authors seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum of public curiosity with increasingly extravagant "solutions".

One thing is certain. If Anderson had been telling the truth—or, if otherwise, the press had elected to put their faith in this pillar of moral rectitude—matters would have ended there and then.

The mystery endured because Sir Robert Anderson's revelation about a low-class Polish Jew was either ignored by the press as unlikely or dismissed as untrue.

Yet now, just over a century later, we are being encouraged to believe Anderson actually spoke the truth.

The Ripper wheel has turned full-circle, and still the Whitechapel murders remain a carefully-guarded secret.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Indeed. And yet the wagon still has all four wheels still wobbling along (Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety and the refit of PAV/Sickert/)

If the Anderson statement from 1910 was so believable or even true.. then would someone PLEASE tell me what prompted other people involved at the time. including high ranking policemen and medical men, to DENOUNCE the Polish Jew story, amongst others?

Nobody have succesfully been able to explain to me why Anderson and possibly Swanson ONLY knew of this "guilty" man. TWO policemen..but all others don't agree. The story of JTR wobbles along with "the truth" already told? WHY?????

It seems totally obvious. Anderson's story is rubbish. There isn't a sliver of proof in it, and apart from Swanson noting a name alongside the story in Anderson's book, there isn't a scrap of contemporary evidence connecting Kosminski with ANY of the story.

Now the wheel has turned full circle, can somebody tell the people promoting this story as "truth" that we have had it for 100 years... and from 100 years ago it was ignored or treated as rubbish.

JACK THE RIPPER is the biggest single crime killing promotion story ever. To find the answer is the ultimate goal. It was in 1888. It was in 1898. It was in 1910, 1923, 1929, 1939, 1959, 1965,1970,1972,1974,1976,1978 1987,1988,19991,1992,1996,2000,2002,2006,2008,2010 and in 2012, it is STILL the one killer story screaming out "hunt the ripper".

Bloo*y strange then that all of us for 100 years have missed the truth that we have been told. How odd. Nobody screamed "Oi!, Anderson told us the truth in 1910!--not when Le Queux said what he said..not when Matters said what he said, not when Jill the Ripper was the run of the publishing department. Not when Farson, claimed Druitt, not when he was backed up in the mid 60's, not in 66 even when a Jewish knife was thought used.. nope.. nobody said..OI!..Anderson!..Jew!...Not when the biggest selling Ripper book ever came out even!. Stephen Knight had the run of the world with his story.. yet NOT ONE EXPERT said..OI!..Anderson has already told us!
And Anderson's "Jack the Ripper" just fizzled out without the merest hint of a bang when he first pronounced it..and was pooh poohed by his peers for it.

No, Kosminski was not "Jack the Ripper". He may, just may, have been involved in a murder..but that really is stretching the imagination. Occam's razor...just because he was living in the area doesn't make him a killer. Just because he made a threat with a knife.. and we don't know what type of threat or how, doesn't make him a ripper up of bodies.

Would somebody please explain to me why only these TWO out of many who have commented on it all before and since, knew this "truth"??

Spot the contrived excuse. Cue more complete and utter hogwash.

I'll say one thing for the Press in 1910. Thew knew a load of old tosh when they saw it.

best wishes

Phil

Wickerman
10-17-2012, 01:06 AM
... the same could be said for hundreds of people at that time; but in the documented fact that he was considered a suspect by senior police officials at the time.

Hi Sally.
If you don't mind me asking, what 'document' would you be referring to?

I have understood that he was not a strong suspect because he was not named as a suspect at the time. All the suspicions were written years later. I'm assuming "at the time" means the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

robhouse
10-17-2012, 01:26 AM
Hi Sally.
If you don't mind me asking, what 'document' would you be referring to?

I have understood that he was not a strong suspect because he was not named as a suspect at the time. All the suspicions were written years later. I'm assuming "at the time" means the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

Presumably this means "by senior police officials [who investigated the case] at the time."

RH

Paddy
10-17-2012, 02:34 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Jacob Cohen and Joseph Hyam Levy were both involved in the identification....(just a hunch)
Pat

Phil H
10-17-2012, 05:49 AM
Good thoughts, Paddy.

It seems totally obvious. Anderson's story is rubbish. There isn't a sliver of proof in it, and apart from Swanson noting a name alongside the story in Anderson's book, there isn't a scrap of contemporary evidence connecting Kosminski with ANY of the story.

Not quite true.

Swanson noting a name in Anderson's memoirs IS EVIDENCE, thoughas i have said before, not so good as an official file IMHO.

It certainly equates to the Macnaghten version which also mentions Kosminski. So we have pretty strong evidence that his name was being bandied about.

My position is quite clear. there seems to be no reason to dount that in the immediate aftermath of the murders (if you insist on being pedantic) two senior officers involved in the case suspected a man named Kosminski of being the killer. I have no reason to doubt that an ID took place as I do not think men like Sir RA or DSS would lie.

Further, there is material to link Aaron Kosminski with those statements, as modern research appears to fit most if not all the details given - resinding with family, only Kosminski in an asylum etc. AK lived in the area, knew the locations, threatened at least one woman. Now, all I am saying is that that puts him closer to the ground as a suspect than Druitt or Ostrog or even Tumblety who are all mentioned by senior police officials. To me that is as far as we can go.

It is JUST possible in my mind that ALL the suspects named are red-herrings, put there as a diversion. But if so, why was there division between senior officials? They should all have sung from the same song-sheet.

I take your point about the responsible officers wanting to cover-up their failure, but I think we know enough to say that Kosminski was probably a clear suspect at the time and thought to be the "one that got away" - at least by Sir RA and DSS. MM's LATER names (which include Kosminski) being someone who came to the case later having a divergent view - for whatever reason. I thus do conclude that there was some deep 1888 interest in Kosminski which continued for some years.

Phil H

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 06:19 AM
Phil H:

"Such chaotic reasoning as you emply and such undiscriminating intellectual reasoning at least explains your strange posts and unfathomable conclusions, Fisherman."

...aaand a few posts further down you have to admit that you did not check on one of the issues and "fired from the hip".

Well, well Mr Eastwood ...!

And yes, I can see that it IS unfathomable for you to recognize the very simple fact that we have no evidence at all against Issenschmidt, Le Grand (who WAS a contemporary suspect, by the looks of thing - maybe you forgot to check that one too...?), Kosminski etcetera.

To me, it is a lot more unfathomable why these men, against we have no evidence, should all be regarded as much more viable than Lechmere, who we know we can logically place at all murder sites, who used a false name and who seemingly lied his way past the police. Plus, just as we have a bunch of police officials saying that each and everybody of them had the answer to the Ripper riddle, we ALSO have men like Abberline, who told the press adamantly in 1903 that the police had gotten absolutely nowhere in fifteen yearsī search for the Ripper.

If this is as strange and unfathomable as my other posts to you, Phil, then you can take solace in the fact that I will not post anything about Lechmere on this thread anymore. Iīve made my point, and as such, I think the comparison needed to be made here.

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
10-17-2012, 06:54 AM
Presumably this means "by senior police officials [who investigated the case] at the time."

RH

That's right, yes.

Jon, sorry if that wasn't clear. We could argue about the degree of validity that identification has because it was recorded retrospectively - but I'm not sure there's very much point. Its not as if that identification occurred outside of living memory, so there's no immediate reason to suspect that it wasn't correct to the best of belief.

It was the space of a few years, not centuries. :)

Phil H
10-17-2012, 06:55 AM
Le Grand (who WAS a contemporary suspect, by the looks of thing

Source? I am aware of some of the new research, but not of that.

We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it.

To me, it is a lot more unfathomable why these men, against we have no evidence, should all be regarded as much more viable than Lechmere, who we know we can logically place at all murder sites, who used a false name and who seemingly lied his way past the police.

As I have said before, you have no need to remind me that Lechmere/Cross is interesting. But other than the fact that he was found close to the first (or an early) victim, I see everything else as speculation at present.

Plus, just as we have a bunch of police officials saying that each and everybody of them had the answer to the Ripper riddle, we ALSO have men like Abberline, who told the press adamantly in 1903 that the police had gotten absolutely nowhere in fifteen yearsī search for the Ripper.

It is, to my mind, quite possible that Abberline was not up to speed on some aspects of the case. As co-ordinator, DSS could well have had access to reports and information not available to Abberline. If Kosminski was being handled in any way sensitively (outside normal procedures, involving City/Met liaison), then it might well not have involved Abberline, though for obvious reasons I would assume he knew the name.

So I don't think you should build too much on that.

Phil H

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 07:17 AM
Phil H:

Source?

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TC18920402.2.10

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=IT18920331.2.5

"We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it."

Source?

The best,
Fisherman

Debra A
10-17-2012, 07:30 AM
Phil H:

Source?

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TC18920402.2.10

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=IT18920331.2.5

"We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it."

Source?

The best,
Fisherman

The source for Le Grand as a contemporary suspect is well documented in the article 'Le Grand The new Prime Suspect' by Tom Wescott, which appeared in Casebook Examiner issue two,June 2010.

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 08:02 AM
Thank you kindly, Debra!

The best,
Fisherman

Fleetwood Mac
10-17-2012, 09:33 AM
Fleetwood Mac:

"All I'm saying is that there was an ID, the suspect was Kosminski, and they believed they had their man."

And all I am saying is that there alledgedly was an ID, the suspect alledgedly was someone named Kosminsky and the two CLAIMED that they believed they had their man.

Isnīt that, after all, where we stand?

The best,
Fisherman

Not at all, Fisherman.

In the event the ID claim had been made by The Star newspaper and rubbished by the police, as opposed to being claimed by two authoritative figures within the police force, then we would stand in an altogether different place.

You can claim that it cannot be proven, which is true enough, but to then reduce police statements on events they witnessed to that of mere 'alleged', without qualifying 'alleged' in this context; with the inference being that Anderson's and Swanson's words are of no more use than a plethora of witness statements often hazy and fuelled by alcohol, is disingenuous.

miakaal4
10-17-2012, 09:42 AM
I think I agree with Fleetwood on this, it does seem as if there was some prejudice from the senior police against the Jews, their reasoning is amateur when you consider they only had those two options. The police on the beat must have been moaning their heads off! I don't really know why so much faith has been put in Macnaghten and Andersons work. Okay I know they had all the information that had been collected, but what was in it that we don't know about? Andersons career was a career wasn't it. He bounced around one government job after another, was downgraded, called a "second class detective", then for no apparent reason is given a good job in the Special Irish Department by Monroe with a large raise in salary! And Macnagten got his job in much the same way; the OLD BOY NETWORK. He gets beaten up in India, meets Monroe, (all masons no doubt) becomes a friend, returns to Britain and gets offered Assistant Chief Constable and adviser to Warren! His past experience was managing his fathers estates in India for the past 14 years! These two armchair experts have blighted ripperology for over 100 years. That is my armchair opinion.

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 10:01 AM
Fleetwood Mac:

"You can claim that it cannot be proven, which is true enough, but to then reduce police statements on events they witnessed to that of mere 'alleged', without qualifying 'alleged' in this context; with the inference being that Anderson's and Swanson's words are of no more use than a plethora of witness statements often hazy and fuelled by alcohol, is disingenuous."

Agreed. And I donīt put Anderson and Swanson on par with drunkards, Fleetwood.
However, and as I have said, they were succeeded by MacNaghten who offered certainty that another man was guilty. Monro thought one thing, Abberline something else, Reid was of another meaning, Littlechild had his ideas etcetera, etcetera. We could add more people, all in a position to have a good insight into the investigation and practically having added to it.
All of these people, in a somewhat varying degree, but nevertheless, I put on par with each other.
I can only call Anderson and Swanson the masters of detection if I dub Macnaghten ignorant and uninformed. I donīt want to do that. Nor do I wish to call any other of the people in charge in some respect, stupid. I therefore end up with an illustruous collection of worthy gentlemen who made a mess of coming to a unanimous decision about who the Ripper was - and whether he was caught or not.

If we add to this that Anderson became somewhat foggy in his recollections and apparently was anything but accurate in his statements and writings in later years, then we may need to open up for the very real possibility that Kosminski was nothing more than a man with a diagnosis that fit the bill.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 12:47 PM
On the notion that what Anderson and Swanson purportedly had on Kosminski was somehow kept from Macnaghten, I think that the Memoranda, saying about Kosminski that "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'" seems to be pointing at Macnaghten having shared in the information.

My own personal belief is that these "circumstances" were all psychological traits and strange habits, box-tickers for a police force looking for what one paper described as half man, half beast.

The be(a)st,
Fisherman

Phil Carter
10-17-2012, 01:03 PM
Hello all,

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/h-division-personnel.html

courtesy of Simon Wood. (thank you Simon)


1 Superintendent
1 Chief Inspector
11 1st class Inspectors
14 2nd class Inspectors
2 Sub Inspectors
and on CID - 1 Local Inspector

including:-

Ch. Inspr. Frederick G. Abberline

Superintendent Thomas Arnold
Chief Inspector John West
Local Inspector Edmund Reid
Divisional Inspector Ernest Ellisdon
Inspector Walter Beck
Inspector Joseph Chandler
Inspector Charles Pinhorn (J. Pinhorn—Times Dec 10th 1889)
Inspector Nairn (Scotland Yard)
H DIVISION PLAIN CLOTHES DUTY - as from October 1st 1888-Divisional Inspector Pimley

and possibly..

Inspector Dixon/Dickson
Inspector A. Thresher
Inspector Babbington
Inspector Holland
Inspector Wildey
Inspector Quinn
Inspector Pride
Inspector Bullock
Inspector Rowland
Inspector Flannigan
Inspector W. Causby
Detective Cumner

PLUS

Insp. Walter Andrews
DC Walter Dew
DS George Godley
Insp Helson
John Littlechild
James Monro
Major Henry Smith
Insp John Spratling
Ch Constable Adolphus Williamson

Guess what all these people had in common? (Rank more or less from Inspector upwards)


They all didn't either know or weren't told about Kosminski, or if they did or were, they never spoke of it. Those who spoke out against the Polish Jew theory are known in this list.

Amazing isn' it?

Only three men know of "Kosminski".. Macnagthen, Anderson and Swanson. Anderson didnt' name him, note. Swanson may be naming Anderson's Polish Jew, but not his own suspect as he adamantly refused to reveal a name to his family, yet calmly jotted down the name Kosminski when commenting on Anderson's Polish Jew story. Macnagthen dismissed Kosminski in preference to Druitt. So the only TWO people that MAY have known about the Kosminski suspect, by name, are Swanson and Anderson. Anderson as said didnt name his suspect.

And all those other people, above, were kept in the dark about it.

EVEN John Littlechild.. who worked in Special Branch, explicitly states that the suspect was a Dr T.. Tumblety. Kosminski is not even in his horse race....and thats Special Branch ladies and gents. Even Littlechild didn't know about Kosminski it seems.

It is not comprehensible, with all these people either dismissing the Polish Jew Story, ignoring it, naming another suspect, or having been told to keep quiet about it, that only 2...TWO policemen .. were seemingly in the know.

So why was Anderson's story completely looked over and fell like a damp squid in 1910?

There can only be one conclusion.

The weight of official opinion, from differing departments, either ignored, pooh pooh it or rubbished it. The Press didn't rate it m,uch either.. youknow, Anderson names Ripper suspect at last!.. no headline..it all went as quiet as the grave...and know it is obvious why.

It simply isn't true.

best wishes

Phil

robhouse
10-17-2012, 01:53 PM
On the notion that what Anderson and Swanson purportedly had on Kosminski was somehow kept from Macnaghten, I think that the Memoranda, saying about Kosminski that "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'" seems to be pointing at Macnaghten having shared in the information.

My own personal belief is that these "circumstances" were all psychological traits and strange habits, box-tickers for a police force looking for what one paper described as half man, half beast.

The be(a)st,
Fisherman

And what, if anything, do you base this belief on? How do you presume to know what evidence the police that connected Kozminski with the murders? This statement reveals your strong prejudice on the matter, as it is clear that you base such a statement on nothing at all.

RH

robhouse
10-17-2012, 02:04 PM
Amazing isn' it?

Only three men know of "Kosminski".. Macnagthen, Anderson and Swanson.

I have posted this before and it received little comment. But in my opinion, this note in the Swanson marginalia (which is rarely commented on) is very interesting. Swanson wrote "known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID" underlining "head" twice. Why underline it twice?

It has generally been assumed that this refers to the previous sentence about the Jack the Ripper letter --- which I think is almost certainly an incorrect assumption.

Note that in the previous paragraph, Anderson writes "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service." [This clearly implies that Anderson means it would "violate the unwritten rule of the service" to reveal the name of the killer.

Swanson highlighted this entire sentence with a vertical line to the left, and by underlining the last half of the sentence. In my opinion, it is clear that Swanson's marginalia "known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID" refers to this sentence... not to the following sentence. The reason is that the underlining of "head" (twice) refers to Anderson's statement about "subordinate officers of the department." Swanson was, in other words saying, that subordinate officers did not know about Kozminski, but only that the head officers of CID knew about him.

That is my opinion.

RH

Phil H
10-17-2012, 03:02 PM
I have been giving some thought to this. Without saying I believe what follows and in an attempt to reconcile M abnd Sir AS and DSS, how about this:

Speculation

An off duty CITY policeman (Robert Sagar) sees a man near Mitre Square on 30/9 1888.

Some months later he sees the same man in a CITY court in 1889 and puts a name to him - Aaron Kosminski. (Sagar was already suspicious of this man.)

Sagar rarely works in uniform and is interested in criminology. He goes either to his own superiors or directly to Scotland Yard giving them a name.

Kosminski then becomes a suspect putting house-to-house info together with Sagar's information.

Sagar has a connection with Brighton (he later retires there). Hence a confrontation in the Seaside Home there. Kosminski's reaction to Sagar confirms SY's view of the suspect.

Anderson asks Sagar to stake out the Kosminski home - he follows Aaron Kosminski and either stops him in the immediate prelude to a murder or watches him (Mckenzie?). After that he is put away.

If not Sagar insert "AN Other City cop".

Could Sagar (name doesn't sound English) have been of Jewish descent?

This wopuld bring together Sagar's suspect, Brighton as location for ID, City watch on Kosminski home and other elements, reconciling MM and Sir RA/DSS memoirs.

But (at this stage) it is pure speculation offered for discussion only.

Phil H

Sally
10-17-2012, 03:56 PM
Phil - I have a feeling that Sagar was from Lancashire originally.

miakaal4
10-17-2012, 04:00 PM
According to young mister Schwartz, he saw this little drama at about 12.45 ish.
Then at 01.00 ish Diemshutz turns up and finds the dead Liz. Now we all know that to cut a throat will not take a determined attacker very long. You sit and stare at the wall for 15 minutes and think how many slices of toast you could have sliced. (Sorry, terrible example). My point is that Schwartz could have indeed seen Kosminski attack Liz Stride, and could have also seen the man, with the pipe, just before the latter intervened and Kosminski ran home. Pipe man helps liz up then returns to building. Still a possible long ten minutes before Liz is killed. Anyone could have shown up and done the deed. Perhaps that is what all the reluctance was about when it came to prosecuting? It would be very easy for someone not on the scene, to make the assumption that Kosminski (if it was him) attacking Stride at 12.45 then went on to kill her, with hindsight wouldn't it? During the vital minutes of the actual attack, there were NO witnesses. That cannot be ignored.:hiya: cheers, Miakaal4

Monty
10-17-2012, 04:01 PM
Sagar was a Lincolnshire man Sally....I think.

Monty
:)

Chris
10-17-2012, 04:04 PM
Could Sagar (name doesn't sound English) have been of Jewish descent?

I think Sagar does sometimes occur as a Jewish surname, but Robert Sagar wasn't Jewish - he came from a family which had lived in Simonstone, Lancashire, since at least the 16th century [Victoria County History, Lancashire, vol. 6, pp. 496-503].

Chris
10-17-2012, 04:05 PM
Sagar was a Lincolnshire man Sally....I think.


Unfortunately the A to Z got that slightly wrong.

Debra A
10-17-2012, 04:07 PM
Thank you kindly, Debra!

The best,
Fisherman

You're welcome.

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 04:41 PM
Rob House:

"And what, if anything, do you base this belief on? How do you presume to know what evidence the police that connected Kozminski with the murders?"

Split that into two, Rob! Just as you say in sentence one, I BELIEVE something. In sentence two, you claim I presume to KNOW that self same something. Thatīs accusing me of something I have never said.

My whole point is that I DONīT know - and I BELIEVE that nobody else did either. Anderson and Swanson included.

"This statement reveals your strong prejudice on the matter, as it is clear that you base such a statement on nothing at all"

Actually no. It reveals that I am of the meaning that the police were prejudiced themselves, in their hunt for the Ripper, nothing else. I believe - BELIEVE - they put way too much stock in the perception that the killer was a madman, a maniac as Anderson put it, revelling in blood.

On adjacent threads, I have pointed out how phrenology was still very much an accepted "science" back in 1888 (and much longer than that; Elliot Ness used the "Bertillonage" when he hunted for the Kingsbury Run killer in the 1930:s), and I really think (or BELIEVE) that many factors that no police force would weigh in today, were commonly woven into the net with which the police tried to catch their killer back in ī88.

I have also exemplified with the Halse bit: he found two men in the street after the Eddows strike, found out that they could "account for themselves" - and let them go, no further questions asked. This should tell us that if you were a working man, roaming the streets at a point of time that tallied with your job, and at a place that seemed to tally with going to that job, then you were absolved of suspicions - a working man on his way to job would NOT be the Ripper.

Wrong type. Could account for himself. Brit, most probably.

Thigs like these need to be weighed in when we assess what - not who - the police looked for. And this is why I have no problems thinking that Issenschmidt, Kosminski, Puckridge, Piggott, Pizer, "The three medical students" etcetera were hot bids because they offered an answer to the question the police asked: "Any madmen out there? Preferably foreign?"

The rest of the Kosminski saga is fascinating, and there is every reason to search for the answers to the questions raised by the material left by Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. And I think only the fewest would be equally well equipped to do it as you are - I think your book is the best suspect book I have read so far, and I have learn a lot from it - and you.

But I still think you are on the wrong track, Rob. And I still think that Kosminskis psychological profile would be what lay behind the interest in him, perhaps coupled with tip-offs from different persons.

The best,
Fisherman

Phil H
10-17-2012, 04:42 PM
Whether born in Lincolnshire (my country of origin) or Lancashire, doesn't mean he could not have had Jewish ancestry, does it, especially maternal ancestry.

Phil H

Monty
10-17-2012, 04:51 PM
Unfortunately the A to Z got that slightly wrong.

To be fair Chris I'm going on memory. Can't recall where I saw it, maybe it was A-Z but I wouldn't like to point the finger there.

Suffice to say, I bow to your better knowledge mate.

Monty
:)

Chris
10-17-2012, 04:59 PM
Whether born in Lincolnshire (my country of origin) or Lancashire, doesn't mean he could not have had Jewish ancestry, does it, especially maternal ancestry.


No; in fact I would think most people would find some Jewish ancestry somewhere if they could trace back far enough.

But in Robert's case the surname Sagar wasn't a Jewish one.

Phil H
10-17-2012, 05:04 PM
Chris, I accept your view, but on what is it based?

Were there any Jewish constables in the City force in 1888 - I'm not obsessed with Sagar - he was simply an example.

Phil H

Chris
10-17-2012, 05:22 PM
Chris, I accept your view, but on what is it based?

That there weren't (officially) any Jews in England in the 16th century.

The Good Michael
10-17-2012, 05:54 PM
Were there any Jewish constables in the City force in 1888 - I'm not obsessed with Sagar - he was simply an example.



There was Thomas Brown, the constable who committed suicide just after Kelly's funeral and seems to have not reported to duty the night of Kelly's murder. I'm pretty sure he was metro, however.

Mike

Sally
10-17-2012, 06:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagar_(Anglo-Saxon_name)

Monty
10-17-2012, 06:36 PM
Chris, I accept your view, but on what is it based?

Were there any Jewish constables in the City force in 1888 - I'm not obsessed with Sagar - he was simply an example.

Phil H

Ive just gone through my City Police records for the closest date I have to 1888, 1890, and the only name I can find based at Bishopsgate, which in my view is a possible foreign/Jewish Jewish name (thats not to say were Jewish) is City PC 943 Immelhoff.

Of course we have Benelius apprehender Met PC Henry Imhoff 211H.

One interesting piece of info I have on my records is that in 1901, the Caretaker for the Hambro synagogue in Union Street is one John Thain. Ex Met PC 96 J and one of the PCs at the murder scene of Mary Ann Nichols in Bucks Row.

Monty
:)

Fisherman
10-17-2012, 06:41 PM
Wow - interesting stuff about Thain there, Monty! It beats the Buckīs Row Cutbush ...!

Thanks for sharing!

The best,
Fisherman

Wickerman
10-17-2012, 07:46 PM
Hi Rob.

I have posted this before and it received little comment. But in my opinion, this note in the Swanson marginalia (which is rarely commented on) is very interesting. Swanson wrote "known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID" underlining "head" twice. Why underline it twice?

It has generally been assumed that this refers to the previous sentence about the Jack the Ripper letter --- which I think is almost certainly an incorrect assumption.

That only Head Officers at Scotland Yard knew the name of the enterprising journalist.



Note that in the previous paragraph, Anderson writes "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service." [This clearly implies that Anderson means it would "violate the unwritten rule of the service" to reveal the name of the killer.

But it does not mean that even subordinate officers at SY knew the name of the killer. This is only a general comment by Anderson to point out that even those who are subordinate (and presumably more likely to gossip), do not tell tales out of class.

Regards, Jon S.

Phil Carter
10-17-2012, 08:16 PM
That only Head Officers at Scotland Yard knew the name of the enterprising journalist.




But it does not mean that even subordinate officers at SY knew the name of the killer. This is only a general comment by Anderson to point out that even those who are subordinate (and presumably more likely to gossip), do not tell tales out of class.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Point No.1..my thoughts exactly.

Point No.2..Again, exactly, which makes me ask the same question I am dying to get an answer to.. WHY only Anderson (who didn't name Kosminski), Swanson, (who may have just been regailing Anderson's story, and thereby Anderson's suspect, not his own information), and Macnagthen, (who joined the fray late in the day and preferred not Kosminski, but Druitt as his culprit) ??

Why not every Commissioner in Scotland Yard since?(many of whom have written their own "Days of my Years") Why not every Assistant Commissioner and Chief Constable with access to every known record through the ages? Why not Special Branch top Cops (such as Littlechild, Melville, etc..who had absolutely nowt to lose naming Kosminski)? Littlechild told tales out of school... with Tumblety. So why not any one of literally hundreds of policemen since 1888...just those three, possibly two, pøossibly one, who knew Kosminski was THE culprit?

It simply doesn't make sense. There is therefore, imho, only one logical answer.

Anderson told a load of rubbish..otherwise Jack the Ripper would have been a dead and buried theme for the last 100 years. His claims were ignored or pooh poohed at the time.

Cue the Magic Roundabout.

best wishes

Phil

robhouse
10-17-2012, 08:19 PM
Hi Rob.



That only Head Officers at Scotland Yard knew the name of the enterprising journalist.




But it does not mean that even subordinate officers at SY knew the name of the killer. This is only a general comment by Anderson to point out that even those who are subordinate (and presumably more likely to gossip), do not tell tales out of class.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,

I understand (well) what is the generally accepted interpretation of this, my point is that I have a different take on it.

RH

Phil H
10-17-2012, 08:28 PM
I think I agree with you, Rob.

And I think the reason it was known only to a few was that, with authority, Anderson and Swanson were going outside the book. Macnagten was not part of that and was kept out of it, I think - maybe he resented that and rejected a view in which he was not asked to share. On the other hand he seems to have been fed tidbits, or heard a few details.

I base this on the fact that the Met and City forces appear to have co-operated over Kosminski. the nature of the ID at Brighton and the other oddments that DSS provides.

If it was extra-curricular activity, that may be why DSS wanted to record it in his copy of Anderson's memoirs.

But pure speculation, so I don't ask anyone to agree.

Phil H

Bridewell
10-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Robert Sagar wasn't Jewish - he came from a family which had lived in Simonstone, Lancashire, since at least the 16th century [Victoria County History, Lancashire, vol. 6, pp. 496-503].

The place of birth is confirmed by the 1911 census entry which records him as living at 4, Surrenden Road, Preston Park, Preston, Brighton with his wife and two adult children.

Regards, Bridewell.

Cogidubnus
10-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Blimey Colin

An address I passed twice every day for seven years between 1965 and 1972!

All the best

Dave

robhouse
10-17-2012, 08:53 PM
I think I agree with you, Rob.

And I think the reason it was known only to a few was that, with authority, Anderson and Swanson were going outside the book. Macnagten was not part of that and was kept out of it, I think - maybe he resented that and rejected a view in which he was not asked to share. On the other hand he seems to have been fed tidbits, or heard a few details.

I base this on the fact that the Met and City forces appear to have co-operated over Kosminski. the nature of the ID at Brighton and the other oddments that DSS provides.

If it was extra-curricular activity, that may be why DSS wanted to record it in his copy of Anderson's memoirs.

But pure speculation, so I don't ask anyone to agree.

Phil H

No one seems to agree with much I say these days, so that's nothing new.

Cheers.

Rob H

Phil H
10-17-2012, 08:56 PM
Rob - you carry much authority in what you say. I (for one) always read your posts with interest.

Phil H

Bridewell
10-17-2012, 08:58 PM
Stewart's dissertation on the Seaside Home identification is well worth a read (or re-read). It's the most plausible explanation of the known facts to my mind.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridewell
10-17-2012, 09:29 PM
It's probably been posted many times before but, according to the 1891 census, the following are the police officers resident at 51, Clarendon Villas, Hove:

James Day Boarder 41 Police Inspector born Kent, Egerton
Henry R Hatch " Police Constable born Middlesex, Southall
Frederic Child " 20 Police onstable born Bucks Beaconsfield

Am I right with No.51 as (at that time) the Seaside Home?

Regards, Bridewell.

lynn cates
10-17-2012, 09:31 PM
Hello Colin.

"Stewart's dissertation on the Seaside Home identification is well worth a read (or re-read). It's the most plausible explanation of the known facts to my mind."

Absolutely!

Cheers.
LC

Jonathan H
10-17-2012, 09:58 PM
In my opinion it is more likely that Swanson's annotation refers to the top cops who knew the identity of the reporter who hoaxed the letter.

What he is doing there is pulling back from Anderson's typically egocentric comment. In his own memoirs, Macnaghten claimed that he had identified the journalist. Mac's only appearance in Anderson's book is the un-named senior policeman wgo turned to jelly over a threatening letter.

What a put-down of the 'action man'. No wonder Macnaghten airbrushed Anderson out of existence and, by implication, debunked his Ripper prognostications: not a Jew, not sectioned, no witness, and not known about until 'some years after' (by Mac).

How they must have hated each each other and this laothing has to be a factor in their Ripper rivalry (in the extant record Anderson never refers to Druitt or his semi-fictional variant: the 'drowned doctor').

Swanson identifies Macnaghten as the nervous nelly.

Now how did he know that?

Did Anderson tell him at the time, shafting Swanson's superior? Is this a glimpse into that healously and enmity?

Or, did Swanson ask him in retrirement when he read it?

Did he terefore also ask Anderson to clarify this witness identification about which Swanson was unfamiliar, and that that is why he wrote it down in his ex-chief's book -- because otherwise he would not recall something with which he was not involved, eg. the Seaside Home, etc.

The positive i.d. only appears in 1910. Swanson mya have believed that 'Kosminski' was the culprit from 1895 but there is nothing to suggest that he knew about this witness, or that Andersi did either until that much later date.

I am arguing that the Seaside Home identitifcation is a sincere addition. Swasnon knew about the Polish suspect -- whom he wrongly believed was deceased and sectioned after Kelly -- but not the witness who affirmed and then refused to testify.

I would direct people's attention to what Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow wrote in 'Scotland Yard Investigates', theorising that Swanson and/or Anderson is sincerely misremembering the Jewish witness, almost certainly Lawende, 'confronting' a Ripper suspect, Tom Sadler, and saying no -- only a few days after Aaron Kosminski was 'safely caged'.

Anderson muddled up the minister of state who was Home Sec during the murders, getting wrong the politician and the party and the government.

Why not Ripper suspects in early 1891?

The problem with the theory that Macnaghten was out of the loop when it comes to 'Kosminski' is that he knew more accurate information about that same suspect than either Anderson or Swanson put together. Writing only the suspect's surname originated with his Report(s) too.

On a side note, because of a comment by a previous poster, the idea that there is such a thing as a 'suspect' Ripper book as opposed to a general book on the same subject is, I think, wrong-footed -- if by the same author.

For example, if I write a biography of Franklin Roosevelt then that has a different focus to a book about all of World War II, of course.

But if I write in the biog. that FDR knew the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour was coming and did nothing about it, but then in the World War II book claim that he did not know, or do not adress this issue, then I will appear to have shifted ground; to have changed my opinion on this aspect -- or to have openly acknolwedged to have changed my mind.

Therefore a Ripper book which says it was likely to be Druitt and then another book by the same author which claims that none of the police 'knew' is not just a shuffle between sub-genres -- it's a major shift in opinion about that aspect of the case.

Tom_Wescott
10-17-2012, 11:41 PM
The source for Le Grand as a contemporary suspect is well documented in the article 'Le Grand The new Prime Suspect' by Tom Wescott, which appeared in Casebook Examiner issue two,June 2010.

Thanks for that, Debs. At least someone around here believes in credit where credit is due.

And to Phil H,

If you don't read the journals, you're NOT up on the research.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Wickerman
10-17-2012, 11:42 PM
That's right, yes.

Jon, sorry if that wasn't clear. We could argue about the degree of validity that identification has because it was recorded retrospectively - but I'm not sure there's very much point. Its not as if that identification occurred outside of living memory, so there's no immediate reason to suspect that it wasn't correct to the best of belief.

It was the space of a few years, not centuries. :)

Hi Sally, and thankyou Rob.

From surviving paperwork in this case we know that up to mid September the two principal suspects worthy of any note were Isenschmid and Piser (or Leather apron), both Abberline and Swanson wrote about them.
Indeed, by the 19th Sept. Charles Warren writes:

"No progress has yet been made in obtaining any definite clue to the Whitechapel murderers. A great number of clues have been examined and exhausted with out finding any thing suspicious."
CW, 19 Sept. 1888.

Robert Anderson, commenting on Swanson report dated 19th Oct. writes:

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime."
RA, 23 Oct. 1888.

Abberline writes a brief report, again making reference to Swanson's important summary (19th Oct.), where he still refers to Schwartz & the Lipski affair, and John Sanders, the last known insane medical student.
This is the state of affairs as of 1st Nov. 1888.

All the important figures in hierarchy from Warren, to Anderson, Swanson & down to Abberline, up until November 1st 1888, none of them had a clue about Kosminski.

This is contemporary reporting, this appears to be the true state of affairs in the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

Tom_Wescott
10-18-2012, 12:35 AM
All the important figures in hierarchy from Warren, to Anderson, Swanson & down to Abberline, up until November 1st 1888, none of them had a clue about Kosminski.

This is contemporary reporting, this appears to be the true state of affairs in the fall of 1888.

Is there a reason they should have known who Kosminski was prior to that date?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 01:43 AM
Is there a reason they should have known who Kosminski was prior to that date?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The surviving paperwork appears to suggest no police official suspected a member of the Kosminski family in this period. The question then becomes, at what point did they begin to suspect him and why?
There are hints, many of them covered in Rob's book, that suggest the police only suspected Kosminski long after the last murder, anything from months to years later.

The important point raised here is that there is no reason to believe (no evidence) that he was a suspect at the time. He may have been any one of the "300" suspects being looked into (Swanson), but that does not make him a principal suspect. These people were just being investigated.

This means that any suspicions they had about Kosminski in the 1890's were not based on criminal evidence because the murders were long done. At the very most all they can claim is that years later, "one man fingered another man" in a confidential identification parade which had no legal importance and may have even been viewed as dubious because no hint of it was leaked to the press.
This after-the-fact accusation is very weak from a legal perspective, Anderson & Swanson must have known this at the time of the I.D. which is why there is no official paperwork connected with it.

This of course is limited to the Met. Police. We have no idea whether the City Police suspected Kosminski in the fall of 1888, no paperwork has survived. We do see that the Met. Police did not, contrary to later claims by Anderson & Swanson.

Regards, Jon S.

Jonathan H
10-18-2012, 02:43 AM
To Wickerman

I think, and remember I'm always wrong, that Macnaghten, who knew 'Kosminski' was alive and not dead, that he was a chronic masturbator, that he had threatened a relation wih a knife, that he was not sectioned until a considerbale time after Kelly, informed Anderson in early 1895 of this suspect's possible culpability based on checking out his reasons for admission to an asylum.

Mac kept tabs on Ostrog in an asylum, why not Aaron Kosminski?

Macnaghten went rhough all the Ripper mail on his first day on the Force, and tracked down the reporter-hoaxer -- or so he claims -- so why not the originator of this suspect in terms of the police as he is with Druitt and Ostrog.

Though unlike Druitt, Ostrog was wanted in 1888 by the police as potentially dangerous and Aaron Kosminski's name may have appeared in the 1888 investigation as a local oddball -- a name among many.

In Anderson's fading memory by 1908 was the Liberal William Harcourt who was Opp. leader by 1895, and whom he mistakenly thinks was the Home Sec druing the murders (he was in that office two years previous, in a completely different government from the part Anderson loathed).

Chris
10-18-2012, 07:32 AM
This after-the-fact accusation is very weak from a legal perspective, Anderson & Swanson must have known this at the time of the I.D. which is why there is no official paperwork connected with it.

But is there any surviving official paperwork connected with any identification (or identification attempt)? Unless I'm missing something, we're reliant on press reports even for the identification of Pizer by Violenia/Violina.

harry
10-18-2012, 10:15 AM
To be a suspect,there must be reasonable suspicion that such suspect is connected in an incriminateng way,to a crime.That is why,in my opinion,so many officers deny the existence of any suspects.We have it said that Kosminski was take with difficulty to the seaside home.With difficulty, seems to imply that he strongly objected or resisted,and was compelled to go.Which raises another question.No one could be compelled to go anywhere unless under arrest.So was he at that time under arrest?

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 10:20 AM
Chris,
Talking of Newspapers, their rabid clawing for information and perhaps leading questions to the Whitechapel poplace surely couldn't help but throw suspicion on men like Kosminski. Foreign looking, Jewish looking, Mad man, fiend , etc would cause many to think about who was around that fitted in with that description. And yet in truth Abberline is on record as saying that witnesses he knew of only viewed the suspect from behind! I guess he didn't think much of Hutchingsons coments.

Sally
10-18-2012, 10:22 AM
Hi Harry - yes, 'with difficulty' might mean that Kosminski resisted physically; or perhaps alternatively it might mean that the identification was difficult to arrange - perhaps because it was a covert operation. It seems open to some interpretation - we just don't know the exact circumstances of the I.D. at present.

Sally
10-18-2012, 10:26 AM
Miakaal -

Talking of Newspapers, their rabid clawing for information and perhaps leading questions to the Whitechapel poplace surely couldn't help but throw suspicion on men like Kosminski. Foreign looking, Jewish looking, Mad man, fiend , etc would cause many to think about who was around that fitted in with that description.

Are you suggesting that Kosminski was only suspected because he was a good 'fit' for the prejudices of the local populace (including the police) at the time?

Surely it would have taken a little more than that?

Lechmere
10-18-2012, 10:33 AM
I think The police, or certain policemen, came to suspect kosminsky because he fitted their preconceived notions of who the culprit would be.
A single mad poor Jew.
His name may have been on file from the house to house search.
I think the police were kept informed about people being locked up in mad houses at this time.
However if he was the genuine no1 suspect - and not an after the event saloon bar cigar smoke late night chat type of potential suspect, then how can it be reconciled that the senior policemen got so much about him wrong?
And it is inconceivable that his medical notes don't even give a covert reference such as 'watch out he may be dangerous'.

More tellingly would a man who was either overtly mad or had mad episodes be able to operate as a stealth killer?

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 10:36 AM
Lechmere you are my man! Exactly.

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 10:50 AM
To the guys that pointed out to me that Kosminsky was not a drooling imbicile.
Well he may not always have been guys, but he behaved in that way at some point. Rob House (dissertation file) tells us that he was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles in 1894! And he died there in 1919, presumably an imbecile to the end.

Sally
10-18-2012, 10:57 AM
I find it hard to believe that Kosminski was targetted just because he fitted the bill. Following that line of logic, had his fellow jew formally identified him at the Seaside Home event, Kosminski would have been hanged for the Whitechapel Murders.

Are you saying, Ed and Miakaal, that you think the police would have done that? Any culprit better than no culprit.

Sorry, but I think that's simplistic and vaguely ridiculous. Plus, let's face it, you both have suspects to push, which makes you less than objective regarding Kosminski's suspect status. :lol:

DVV
10-18-2012, 11:04 AM
I find it hard to believe that Kosminski was targetted just because he fitted the bill.

Hi Sally.
However, the theory precedes the suspect in his case. And that was Anderson's theory. Worse : diagnosis.

robhouse
10-18-2012, 11:11 AM
To the guys that pointed out to me that Kosminsky was not a drooling imbicile.
Well he may not always have been guys, but he behaved in that way at some point. Rob House (dissertation file) tells us that he was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles in 1894! And he died there in 1919, presumably an imbecile to the end.

No sorry, you are wrong. But I have already explained this about ten times, so if you want to find out, look up my older posts. Kozminski was not an imbecile...period. You don't actually know what "imbecile" means anyway.

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 11:20 AM
Sally:

"Are you saying, Ed and Miakaal, that you think the police would have done that? Any culprit better than no culprit. Sorry, but I think that's simplistic and vaguely ridiculous."

Because you know what the police agenda looked like in cases like this? Or because you THINK you know?

If the latter applies, then are you not the one being ridiculous here?

Have a look at "Cross", since you speak of a bias on behalf of people who have suspect preferences; is it probable or not probable that he was looked into deeply?

It is not probable. If it had happened, the police would have secured his name. Likewise, he would not have been treated with the total lack of interest that is apparent.

And just how well does this tally with the police not having preconceived notions about what their man would be like? Not at all. Because it seems evident that a man like "Cross", who could account for himself and who displayed no external madness and who was no any exotic foreigner, would not be of interest to the investigation.

This in spite of having stood alone by a freshly killed victim!

If it had been Issenschmidt that found her, a man with a diagnosis, a madman with a foreign name, if he had found Nichols on an early morning walk - somebody HAD to find her, as Iīm told - then what chances would he have stood to be left to mind his own business afterwards?

Let me tell you, Sally, and everybody else who says that a contemporary suspicion elevates a suspect over the ones who were NOT suspected: This only holds true if the tools the police used were appropriate.

We know very well today that the ordinary serial killer is often a drab man, a man who has attracted no interest at all from his environment. A grey man, a nobody, a socially uninteresting man.

But the police in 1888 sought for men that were "half man, half beast" as one paper put it, a maniac, revelling in blood, as Anderson put it, a mentally deranged person.

That line of inquiry is not compatible with the grey man scenario. Therefore, going on these parameters only, a contemporary suspect is a bad suspect. Please notice that I am here disregarding any collected evidence that may have led Anderson, Swanson, MacNaghten et al to entertain suspicions against their chosen men. Such evidence, relating specifically to the murder series, may have been there. But if it was, it has gone lost, and what remains is as tangible as London fog; hints, murmurs, underlinings that may or may not be of interest, alleged information from undisclosed sources ...

Thatīs how "simplistic and vaguely ridiculous" it is to say that the police would have been at a loss, looking for the wrong type of suspect altogether, Sally. From what we have, it fits the picture. But why bother about such things, when there are fancy ghost leads to follow everywhere?

The best,
Fisherman

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 11:44 AM
Hi RH, well I'm not going to look the word up, but I think an imbecile (in 1888) would be some one who needed help to survive, and perhaps to prevent self harm. Drooling suggests that the mind is elsewhere and not concerned with keeping the mouth closed or swallowing. I grant you that Kosminski could have been none of these things, but I'm not sure I would believe that a cunning, planner like JtR would be sent to an asylum for imbeciles.
Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

Sally
10-18-2012, 12:19 PM
Fisherman -

Yesterday you wrote:

I will not post anything about Lechmere on this thread anymore

And yet here you are, bleating on about Lechmere - again.

Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski.

Sally
10-18-2012, 12:22 PM
Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

Yes, perhaps. But do you think the police would have hung a man simply because he fit a preconceived notion? I don't.

If there was no evidence against him, I doubt he'd have got as far as the Seaside Home.

DGB
10-18-2012, 12:37 PM
An imbecile is someone with severe learning difficulties (an IQ between 25-50, or a mental age of 3-7), they're barely able to even undertake housework. This definitely doesn't fit with Aaron.

However, it has also been used to describe certain criminality, which may have been a reason for Aaron's move.

Hi RH, well I'm not going to look the word up, but I think an imbecile (in 1888) would be some one who needed help to survive, and perhaps to prevent self harm. Drooling suggests that the mind is elsewhere and not concerned with keeping the mouth closed or swallowing. I grant you that Kosminski could have been none of these things, but I'm not sure I would believe that a cunning, planner like JtR would be sent to an asylum for imbeciles.
Sally, I think that a lot of people were targetted because of rumour or News gossip. Guys with Gladstone bags, in aprons, and behaving in what would be deemed as a mad way, to name but a few. Kosminsky may have been very well known in Whitechapel, the way some local tramps nowadays are well known in their community. What I am saying is that when the description of the killer went out as Mad, Foreign etc it would be natural for people to think of Kosminski, if they knew him, and mention him to the enquiring police.

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 12:48 PM
Sally:

"Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski."

Yes. And it is Kosminski, and his viability as a suspect, as suggested by the thread title, that I speak of. And the detection modes used by the police, as exemplified by "Cross" and Issenschmidt.

Any halfwitted person could see that.

The quarterwitted too, I suppose.

After that, who can say...?

So how about you address the issue instead, Sally?

Fisherman

Lechmere
10-18-2012, 01:05 PM
What makes you think Aaron kosminsky didn't have a low iq? I suspect he did.

Sally - Was kosminsky hung or even arrested? Did the seaside home Id take place? If do where, when and by which means.
If you can answer these then you are indeed an expert researcher.
If not then you are merely another inaccurate poster.
Can you see the difference between a couple of senior policemen sitting in their leather armchairs late at night with a tumbler of whiskey and a fat cigar pontificating to each other about the most likely suspect that had (somehow - who knows how now) come to their attention, a suspect that confirms their prejudices, and a full blown evidence based trial at the old bailey?

As for kosminsky's madness - while he was not necessarily a drooler - it is given as his 'motivation' for being the killer. It is presented as the card that declares his potential for guilt. You can't have it both ways and say 'oh no he wasn't that mad' when it is realised that the crimes couldn't realistically have been committed by a madman.

Mr Stu
10-18-2012, 01:11 PM
Yes, I've wondered if Aaron K fitted the bill as other posters have mentioned - the local odd guy.
It still happens today the local strange bloke coming under suspicion or worse being wrongly convicted- Colin Stagg anyone? Barry George? Tom Stephens in the Ipswich strangler case? Christopher Jefferies in the Jo Yeates case?
So yes, I consider it a possibility that AK could've been a person of interest because he fitted a preconcieved idea of being the "type".

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 01:24 PM
To end the debate here, I apologise to all for calling Kosminski an imbecile. From now on I shall refer to him as a man who on occasion behaved oddly.
However, referring to my first post, and despite 13 pages of comment, I still do not see Kosminski, the man, as viable. There is nothing there, apart from some enigmatic remarks made by people whose agenda at the time is unknown.
We do know that the big word around the world regarding the great Scotland Yard was the word FAILED. They failed to find this killer end of. That must have hurt a lot. In the exclusive clubs, and the Masonic Lodges. It would be human nature to, having revised the evidence, give an opinion edged with the rueful comment about French policing.
We have all heard and maybe have been members of the "What if?" college of thought. I feel that S. M. and Sir R were memebrs of the "Must have been" High School. It "must have been" a foreigner, a Jew, a madman.
They were all tightly wrapped indiviuals, and to be fair each may have recorded or known things that we will never know for what ever reason. But the bottom line is they did not arrest the man, the policemen out on the street do not mention him anywhere, and he was not known for violence
or hatred of women. Either he is the wrong man or they are way off target. In both cases it wasn't Kosminski.

Sally
10-18-2012, 01:44 PM
Sally:

"Give it a rest. This thread is for the discussion of Kosminski."

Yes. And it is Kosminski, and his viability as a suspect, as suggested by the thread title, that I speak of. And the detection modes used by the police, as exemplified by "Cross" and Issenschmidt.

Any halfwitted person could see that.

The quarterwitted too, I suppose.

After that, who can say...?

So how about you address the issue instead, Sally?

Fisherman

Fisherman. Your post was concerned with Lechmere, and with bolstering your position, as usual.

My original post was not even addressed to you; yet you saw fit to seize an opportunity to bring up your pet suspect. Any excuse, eh?

robhouse
10-18-2012, 01:46 PM
What makes you think Aaron kosminsky didn't have a low iq? I suspect he did.

OK, again... what do you base this on? Are you suggesting that people with schizophrenia have low IQs? I think some people would find that offensive frankly.

RH

Sally
10-18-2012, 01:54 PM
Ed -

Sally - Was kosminsky hung or even arrested? Did the seaside home Id take place? If do where, when and by which means.

Are you suggesting that Swanson lied, Ed? To what end? Perhaps he was making notes for a novel?

If you can answer these then you are indeed an expert researcher.
If not then you are merely another inaccurate poster.

Don't see how that follows, really. Why inaccurate? What reason do we have to doubt Swanson? Well, I know you'd like to, because it gets in the way of your pet suspect - but you know, even accepting that senior police officials had Kosminski down as their top suspect doesn't prove that he was a murderer. It only demonstrates that they thought he was. The question is, why?

Can you see the difference between a couple of senior policemen sitting in their leather armchairs late at night with a tumbler of whiskey and a fat cigar pontificating to each other about the most likely suspect that had (somehow - who knows how now) come to their attention, a suspect that confirms their prejudices, and a full blown evidence based trial at the old bailey?

Obviously I can, Ed. But I'm afraid that your explanation is pure conjecture. You have no idea how, or why, Kosminski was identified as a suspect. We'd all like to know the answer to that of course - dismissing that identification out of hand is a little bit disingenuous. The 'evidence based trial' was apparently not possible because the mystery Jewish witness wouldn't formally identify Kosminski. That strongly suggests that he had, in fact, been witnessed in connection with one of the murders.

As for kosminsky's madness - while he was not necessarily a drooler - it is given as his 'motivation' for being the killer. It is presented as the card that declares his potential for guilt. You can't have it both ways and say 'oh no he wasn't that mad' when it is realised that the crimes couldn't realistically have been committed by a madman

Define 'Madman'.

DGB
10-18-2012, 02:06 PM
>>>What makes you think Aaron kosminsky didn't have a low iq? I suspect he did.

OK, again... what do you base this on? Are you suggesting that people with schizophrenia have low IQs? I think some people would find that offensive frankly.

RH

I would add that I wasn't saying that Aaron Kosminski didn't have a low IQ or a high IQ, I just doubt - from what we know (the dog case for example) - that his IQ was so low that he couldn't do simple housework and had the mental age of a young child, which would be required for him to be categorised as an imbecile.

robhouse
10-18-2012, 02:10 PM
To end the debate here, I apologise to all for calling Kosminski an imbecile. From now on I shall refer to him as a man who on occasion behaved oddly.

I don't particular care for you to apologize. I'd rather you were actually informed about something before you decided to post about it.

There is nothing there, apart from some enigmatic remarks made by people whose agenda at the time is unknown.

That's one of the funniest ways I have yet seen this put. The anti-Andersonites would be proud.

I feel that S. M. and Sir R were memebrs of the "Must have been" High School. It "must have been" a foreigner, a Jew, a madman.


I certainly do not concede that the police were wearing blinders to the effect that they were singly focused on looking at Jewish suspects. Although, given the demographics of the area, it is not unusual that they would be looking at Jewish suspects. The geographic distribution of the murder sites, in fact, corresponds quite closely to an area of the East End that was referred to as London's "Jewish shtetl". The area where the murders occurred was like a Jewish oasis (in blue) amidst a much larger geographic area that was non-Jewish (red). In short, I don't think it is an outrageous thing to suggest, or for the police to have pondered at the time that the Ripper may have been Jewish.

The following map is from 1899, but I think it is probably similar to the make up in 1888 (the percentages are probably lower).

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 02:20 PM
Sally:

"Your post was concerned with Lechmere, and with bolstering your position, as usual.
My original post was not even addressed to you; yet you saw fit to seize an opportunity to bring up your pet suspect. Any excuse, eh?"

Sally, donīt be stupid if you donīt have to. If antagonsim is all you have to offer (and I have seen nothing else so far), then try Mongolian oilwrestling or something like that instead..

You still donīt get what I am saying, do you? "Cross" (not Lechmere) was used as an example to point to why I challenge the idea that the police worked along intelligible guidelines only. So was Issenschmidt.

I am smack, bang on topic. But you prefer to quibble, quibble, quibble ...

I even went as far as to stick my chin out and say that it may be counterproductive to believe that being a contemporary suspect was something that should keep these men in front of the race today.

But do you address this? Oh, no - babble on about anything else instead. Donīt address the issue, instead disrupt as much as you can - thereīs a good girl!

You really havenīt got a clue, do you?

Anybody who want to pick up the thread and discuss Kosminski and whether the police used good sense only when hunting the Ripper? Or if having been a suspect bacik in 1888 possibly should detract from being so today? It would be infinitely more intersting to discuss that than ... I havenīt even got a word for it :disappointed:

The best,
Fisherman

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 02:30 PM
Hi RH,
Okay whatever, I have seen him referred to as an imbecile, and that he was sent to an asylum for imbeciles, you say he wasn't an imbecile, and then advise me to check the facts. Okay I shall but in the meantime I cannot accept your point, because it too is subjective. Fair enough?
Would you mind explaining why someone so far from the smelly streets as Anderson would know more than any other copper?
Do you have any evidence that Kosminski was violent toward women, or hated them? And we both know, that who does or does not live in the murder site area is irrelevant.

Errata
10-18-2012, 02:37 PM
So, there is this guy here in town. I call him Mr. Bojangles. I don't know if he is homeless, but I know he wanders the streets singing and clapping and doing a little dance. He's completely harmless. I see him maybe once a year at various road intersections, for the past 15 years or so. There's 2 and a half million people in this city, more than a hundred square miles. But I notice this guy, because frankly, he sticks out. Now if this guy were to ever approach me in a dark alley in the middle of the night, I would be on my guard. I don't think he's dangerous, but wha the hell is he doing in an alley in the middle of the night?

That's why I don't think Kosminski is viable. Whitechapel is smaller, no one would have thought that Kos was harmless, and we remember people who stick out. I think he was "too crazy" to be the Ripper. Too visible, too noticeable, too alarming.

Sally
10-18-2012, 02:39 PM
Sally, donīt be stupid if you donīt have to. If antagonsim is all you have to offer (and I have seen nothing else so far), then try Mongolian oilwrestling or something like that instead..

Goodbye Fisherman.

Have a nice day, now, won't you?

DGB
10-18-2012, 03:11 PM
So, there is this guy here in town. I call him Mr. Bojangles. I don't know if he is homeless, but I know he wanders the streets singing and clapping and doing a little dance. He's completely harmless. I see him maybe once a year at various road intersections, for the past 15 years or so. There's 2 and a half million people in this city, more than a hundred square miles. But I notice this guy, because frankly, he sticks out. Now if this guy were to ever approach me in a dark alley in the middle of the night, I would be on my guard. I don't think he's dangerous, but wha the hell is he doing in an alley in the middle of the night?

That's why I don't think Kosminski is viable. Whitechapel is smaller, no one would have thought that Kos was harmless, and we remember people who stick out. I think he was "too crazy" to be the Ripper. Too visible, too noticeable, too alarming.

Perhaps this is the case. But equally you cannot speak for what an alcoholic prostitute, who needs money for booze or a bed might do. It might be that her desperation outweighed the alarm bells which - as you say - could have been ringing.

That's also not to say that Kosminski's descent did not begin after the murders.

robhouse
10-18-2012, 03:33 PM
Hi RH,
Okay whatever, I have seen him referred to as an imbecile, and that he was sent to an asylum for imbeciles, you say he wasn't an imbecile, and then advise me to check the facts. Okay I shall but in the meantime I cannot accept your point, because it too is subjective. Fair enough?
Would you mind explaining why someone so far from the smelly streets as Anderson would know more than any other copper?
Do you have any evidence that Kosminski was violent toward women, or hated them? And we both know, that who does or does not live in the murder site area is irrelevant.

Miakaal,

I, too, have seen him referred to as an imbecile... countless times. Like here for example, where it says "Is this then our Jack the Ripper? Probably not. More likely the harmless imbecile he is documented to be." (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/kosminski_15.html) I don't know if you are aware that I have written a book on Aaron Kozminski (http://www.amazon.com/Ripper-Scotland-Yards-Prime-Suspect/dp/0470938994/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1350573683&sr=8-4&keywords=jack+the+ripper)

You are in good company, because several notable Ripper authors have also assumed that Kozminski was an imbecile, because he was admitted to an imbecile asylum. However, this assumption is incorrect.

Here is an excerpt from my talk at York:

"In the Victorian era, the term "imbecile" was a strictly defined legal term for a particular classification of "insanity"—what we would today refer to as a mentally retarded person. The fact is, despite being nominally an Imbecile's asylum, Leavesden accepted all classes of insane patients. The following is a quote from a book called "Insanity Amongst the Jews," by Cecil F. Beadles, a doctor at Colney Hatch in the 1890s, who in fact made several notes on Kozminski's mental state. "Although Leavesden, Caterham and Darenth are so-called Imbecile asylums," he wrote, "yet the majority of the inmates therein are not affected with congenital or infantile insanity. Most, as is well known, are the subjects of acquired insanity whose condition has passed into terminal dementia."

In other words, the main criteria for admission to Leavesden was that a patient be deemed incurable; Colney Hatch Asylum, by comparison, was for treating mental illnesses that were thought to be curable. Quite simply, Aaron Kozminski was transferred to Leavesden because his schizophrenia was deteriorating and uncurable.

The fact that Aaron Kozminski was never classified as an imbecile is supported by the documentary evidence. (fig) He was initially classified by Dr. Houchin as a "person of unsound mind," another legally defined category of insanity, roughly synonymous with "lunatic." Later, both at Colney Hatch and Leavesden Asylums, Aaron was classified as a lunatic, which corresponds with the diagnosis of schizophrenia."

I am sure I will have to post on this again, as I am fighting an uphill battle against "the internet," according to which, Kozminski is a "drooling imbecile."

RH

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 04:13 PM
This is contemporary reporting, this appears to be the true state of affairs in the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

Anderson pretty much says as much in his book, The Lighter Side....

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 04:23 PM
I think The police, or certain policemen, came to suspect kosminsky because he fitted their preconceived notions of who the culprit would be.
A single mad poor Jew.



I doubt it.

Anderson had his views, not necessarily borne out of racism, but out of the belief that someone must have known the killer, and therefore someone was protecting him; and in his experience the likelihood was 'the Jews'.

From there, something happened to have brought Kosminski to the attention of the police; something beyond 'poor, mad Jew'. I imagine the East End was teeming with unstable characters, both Gentile and Jew, so some event of significant interest occured in order for Kosminski to stand out from the rest.

In my mind, the most likely answer is his family.

After all, it was his family that took him to the asylum 'a short time after'. So, unless they've had a sudden change of mind, they clearly wanted rid of him a short time before. Perhaps their collective conscience got the better of them and they advised the police on what they knew from 1888 and possibly beyond. So, the police wheeled out their key witness and he/she wouldn't give evidence, and it follows maybe the family were left with only one option - have him locked up as a lunatic.

Edited to add:

And, as the idea of family/friends hiding Jack was a cornerstone of Anderson's diagnosis, and according to Anderson it was proven correct on every count, then it's reasonable to conclude that Anderson had information to the effect that the family did indeed know that Kosminski was Jack; which supports the idea that it was his family who brought Kosminski to the attention of the police.

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 04:34 PM
RH, Point taken. I have in fact been looking him up myself in the last hour or so. I did not know you had written a book on the man, no.
I agree that hearing voices or following commands from a dominant personality is hardly imbecilic. Tortured would be a better word perhaps.
I have also read of Andersons behaviour during the Parnell debacal 1887, where he indulged in the idea that he had told, (published) a little but knew much more. He admitted he enjoyed the furore that followed, as it made him feel "10 years younger". (A/Z JtR) he was a man who liked to keep secrets or liked people to think he knew more than they did. For me this is more evidence for suspicion that his revelation was something other than true.
His religeous beliefs would not make him a supporter of Jews, the opposite in fact. Any thoughts?

Phil H
10-18-2012, 04:36 PM
To repeat something I said in an earlier post.

Kosminski appeared in a City court in 1889 over the dog-walking incident in Aldgate - he appears then to have been able to conduct his own affairs, even to have been somewhat obstreperous.

is it possible that someone (maybe a City policeman and not on duty) had seen a man around Mitre Square (also City territory) on the night of Eddowes murder. He then sees Kosminski in court some months later and reports the fact to his superiors.

That would account for a witness not being recorded as appearing at the inquest and would give us another option for the witness referred to by Anderson and Swanson.

We know from Harry Cox's memoirs that CITY police staked out a suspect and a house in a primarily Jewish area/street. this confirms what Sir RA and DSS say - albeit outside normal rules and procedures.

We know that Robert Sagar, another CITY policeman, and himself involved with a City suspect - had connections in Brighton. Was that a reason why the ID took place in the Seaside Home there? (NOTE: I am not suggesting Sagar was the witness).

There seem a lot of interesting City connections here, with someone not unlike Kosminski. I can see the stitch marks but not quite pull it together.

What do others think?

Phil H

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 04:38 PM
Hi FMac,
The reasoning behind the notion "it must be a Jew because they would hide him" sits on the belief that the killer lived within a very small area. And that is weak indeed!

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 04:41 PM
Hi FMac,
The reasoning behind the notion "it must be a Jew because they would hide him" sits on the belief that the killer lived within a very small area. And that is weak indeed!

Hi M,

I wouldn't call it weak as there was a decent chance he lived in the area. But, would agree that I wouldn't have been putting all of my eggs in that basket.

According to Anderson, though, he was proven to have been correct in his assumptions.

When deriding Anderson's claim regarding his 'Jew' theory, please don't forget that he adds some meat to the bones by saying that the culprit matched the theory.

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 04:46 PM
Not a bad idea at all, Phil.

But then we have to fit a policeman to the scenario, and no such thing appears at the inquest.

A more simple explanation is that which Anderson tells us: "our diagnosis was proven correct on every count". A cornerstone of the diagnosis was the idea that Jack was being protected. You don't have to add anything else, such as finding a policeman to connect the dots; you simply have to believe what Anderson tells us to deduce that his family alerted the police to Kosminski because of what they knew.

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 04:47 PM
SAlly:

"Goodbye Fisherman."


... she said, and left without once having commented on the issue at hand, instead opting for bickering about totally non-threadrelated matters. And I know I should be happy, since that is what she does best ...

Fisherman

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 04:50 PM
Not a bad idea at all, Phil.

But then we have to fit a policeman to the scenario, and no such thing appears at the inquest.

A more simple explanation is that which Anderson tells us: "our diagnosis was proven correct on every count". A cornerstone of the diagnosis was the idea that Jack was being protected. You don't have to add anything else, such as finding a policeman to connect the dots; you simply have to believe what Anderson tells us to deduce that his family alerted the police to Kosminski because of what they knew.

Just to add......unless, of course, it was Halse.

Or even one of the police officers at Bernet Street when there were numerous people in the yard. I know some were checked for blood, such as Spooner, perhaps they checked Jack and found no blood but a police officer remembered the face.

Still think the family option is an easier one to believe, but your idea isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 04:52 PM
Rob!

This is a gem: ""Insanity Amongst the Jews," by Cecil F. Beadles, a doctor at Colney Hatch in the 1890s".

Was Beadle of the meaning that there were types of insanity that were typical to Jews - not a race as such but instead people confessing to the Jewish faith. Or was he specifically speaking of the semite people?

No matter what, what was the doctorīs main ideas here; could you outline it very shortly?

The best,
Fisherman

robhouse
10-18-2012, 04:55 PM
He was a man who liked to keep secrets or liked people to think he knew more than they did. For me this is more evidence for suspicion that his revelation was something other than true.

The problem with this line of thinking is the Swanson marginalia... which is why people who promote other suspects are so "interested" shall we say, in discrediting the marginalia. Trevor Marriot for example.

His religeous beliefs would not make him a supporter of Jews, the opposite in fact. Any thoughts?

Anderson wrote: "With reference to “Mentor’s” comments on my statements about the “Whitechapel murders” of 1888 in this month’s Blackwood, will you allow me to express the severe distress I feel that my words should be construed as “an aspersion upon Jews.” For much that I have written in my various books gives proof of my sympathy with, and interest in, “the people of the Covenant”; and I am happy in reckoning members of the Jewish community in London among my personal friends." [emphasis mine]

John Malcolm has read many of Anderson's religious writings, so he might be able to answer this more specifically.

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 04:57 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"Anderson had his views, not necessarily borne out of racism"

Racism back then was practically non-existant. It was not racism to state a number of very generalizing things about different "races" - it was science. Notice that Rob just quoted a book called "Insanity Amongst the Jews," by Cecil F. Beadles, a doctor at Colney Hatch in the 1890s. This sort of stuff would have been very common. Ideas of racial biology and typification flourished, etcetera. This is important to the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 05:03 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"Anderson had his views, not necessarily borne out of racism"

Racism back then was practically non-existant. It was not racism to state a number of very generalizing things about different "races" - it was science. Notice that Rob just quoted a book called "Insanity Amongst the Jews," by Cecil F. Beadles, a doctor at Colney Hatch in the 1890s. This sort of stuff would have been very common. Ideas of racial biology and typification flourished, etcetera. This is important to the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

I don't think it's important to the issue.

Anderson qualified why he felt the culprit was a Jew.

And it wasn't because he felt Jewish people were more predisposed to such crimes.

It was because he concluded that Jack wasn't living alone, and from there he believed the family must have known their family member was Jack, and in his experience the Jewish population were more likely to protect someone from a court of law.

You could certainly argue that the logic was flawed, and there is one obvious problem with it: that being that there were a few shifty characeters about who would have returned home in the early hours dishevelled, dirty and in some cases bloodied. But, I'm not following your logic that racial theories, and I believe these began in Sweden in the 1700s, are important to Anderson's statements regarding Kosminski.

robhouse
10-18-2012, 05:03 PM
Rob!

This is a gem: ""Insanity Amongst the Jews," by Cecil F. Beadles, a doctor at Colney Hatch in the 1890s".

Was Beadle of the meaning that there were types of insanity that were typical to Jews - not a race as such but instead people confessing to the Jewish faith. Or was he specifically speaking of the semite people?

No matter what, what was the doctorīs main ideas here; could you outline it very shortly?

The best,
Fisherman

I did not read the entire book (it is handwritten manuscript), nor can I tell you if Beadles differentiated between "the semite people" or "people confessing to the Jewish faith." It did seem that Beadles was quite anti-Semitic, as he wrote things like this:

"We all know to what extent the insane are capable in the matter of foul language and obscene behavior, but it is doubtful if any class of patients can approach the insane Jew in either. They are disgusting to a degree. I am speaking of course of the really bad cases. Amongst the young males, onanism is practiced openly to a degree not seen amongst the non-jewish element."

It is interesting that he refers to this: "Amongst the young males, onanism is practiced openly to a degree not seen amongst the non-jewish element"... which immediately made me think of Kozminski, and the question of whether he practised onanism [masturbation] openly in the asylum.

By the way, you have not answered my previous question as to why you believe Kozminski had a low IQ.

RH

robhouse
10-18-2012, 05:05 PM
Also, I should note that Cecil Beadles was one of the attendants at Colney Hatch who actually observed Aaron Kozminski, and wrote entries in his record.

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 05:13 PM
Thanks for this, Rob!

It goes to show very clearly what kind of time we are dealing with and what sorts of conceptions flourished. The Jews were unrivalled when it came to obscenities; they were in fact disgusting.

This said by a practicing doctor at a official asylum.

There will be more like this, for those who put their shovels in the dirt and dig around; Jews were like this, Russians like that, negroes were unintelligent, and brits were the crown of the creation. Some races were hasty, some were nasty and given to criminality.

This was not racism, mind you - it was what the common people AND the doctors and scientists believed in.

To think that it would not have coloured the hunt for the Ripper is simply untenable. And to my mind, Rob, I very much suspect that being a "mad Jew" put you on top of the suspect list very easily.

"you have not answered my previous question as to why you believe Kozminski had a low IQ."

To be perfectly honest, I canīt imagine I said something like that since I donīt know. Could you provide the post number, please?

"Also, I should note that Cecil Beadles was one of the attendants at Colney Hatch who actually observed Aaron Kozminski, and wrote entries in his record."

... and somebody Anderson consulted...?

Thanks for the information - this is very interesting.

The best,
Fisherman

robhouse
10-18-2012, 05:20 PM
Thanks for this, Rob!

It goes to show very clearly what kind of time we are dealing with and what sorts of conceptions flourished. The Jews were unrivalled when it came to obscenities; they were in fact disgusting.

This said by a practicing doctor at a official asylum.

There will be more like this, for those who put their shovels in the dirt and dig around; Jews were like this, Russians like that, negroes were unintelligent, and brits were the crown of the creation. Some races were hasty, some were nasty and given to criminality.

This was not racism, mind you - it was what the common people AND the doctors and scientists believed in.

To think that it would not have coloured the hunt for the Ripper is simply untenable. And to my mind, Rob, I very much suspect that being a "mad Jew" put you on top of the suspect list very easily.

"you have not answered my previous question as to why you believe Kozminski had a low IQ."

To be perfectly honest, I canīt imagine I said something like that since I donīt know. Could you provide the post number, please?

"Also, I should note that Cecil Beadles was one of the attendants at Colney Hatch who actually observed Aaron Kozminski, and wrote entries in his record."

... and somebody Anderson consulted...?

Thanks for the information - this is very interesting.

The best,
Fisherman

Sorry. My bad. It was Lechmere who said that !

I do not think Anderson consulted Beadles (to my knowledge), although it is know that he corresponded with the superintendant of Colney Hatch with a month of Aaron's committal (which is very interesting, to my mind).

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=240412&postcount=7

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 06:06 PM
Rob:

"Sorry. My bad. It was Lechmere who said that !"

Thatīs a relief to hear! Well, not for Edward, perhaps ...

"I do not think Anderson consulted Beadles (to my knowledge), although it is know that he corresponded with the superintendant of Colney Hatch with a month of Aaron's committal (which is very interesting, to my mind)."

Aha. Well, irrespective of whether he shared information with Anderson or not, I think the point needs to be made that there were people like Beadles in charge on important posts in society, who actually regarded Jews as some sort of vermin, more or less. Not all of them, obviously (well...), but what we today would regard as ridiculously racist perceptions were passed off quite legitimately. One can easily imagine that with men like Beadles in charge of important assessions of patients of other descents than the British one, a man like Kosminski could count on no favours at all. A man unrivalled in obscenities, a disgusting man as it were, would not end up at the bottom of the list over possible miscreants in the sexually coloured branches.

Once again, to take nothing away from your research, I am not here talking about the specific bits and pieces that may once have pointed in Aaronīs direction, but instead of the typification of races that was obviously quite general among people, common men and society pillars alike.

All the best, Rob!
Fisherman

miakaal4
10-18-2012, 06:15 PM
To Fmac,
Yeah I see that. But he was thinking of a particular Polish Jew. It seems to be that Kosminski was putting himself about in that area. People saw him, some saw him misbehaving, I think there is a good chance he was seen in the area at the right times too, but all this weakens the case against him. If and it is a big if, he was known locally as a bit strange because of his eating and drinking habits, would not one witness come out an say,"Hey that man with the victim...I know him, he's that bloke that eats food from the gutter!"?

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 06:19 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"I don't think it's important to the issue."

I do.

"Anderson qualified why he felt the culprit was a Jew. And it wasn't because he felt Jewish people were more predisposed to such crimes."

Not as such, no. But he may have focused on Jews from the outset, courtesy of the widespread racism prevailing.

I know there is that text where Anderson answers a Rabbi, and says that he has always had the utmost respect for the Jewish people or something such - but the background here is alarming anyway. Once a whole society shares the belief that Jews are not really as good as Brits, then that will colour most peopleīs views.

"It was because he concluded that Jack wasn't living alone, and from there he believed the family must have known their family member was Jack, and in his experience the Jewish population were more likely to protect someone from a court of law."

Which was a shameful prejudice, according to the self same Rabbi! And that has me thinking ...

"I'm not following your logic that racial theories, and I believe these began in Sweden in the 1700s"

If that was so, then itīs kept well away from the common Swedish knowledge! This is from the net:

"CLR James Modern Politics writes that 'the conception of dividing people by race begins with its slave trade. Thus this (the slave trade) was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religious and philosophers had . . .the only justifications by which humanity could face it was to divide people into races and decide that Africans were an inferior race"

So racism was formed as an attempt to justify the most appalling and inhuman treatment of black people in the time of the greatest accumulation of material wealth the world had seen until then.

By the end of the 17th century, racism had become an established, systematic and conscious justification for the most degrading forms of slavery.

The justification of slavery by an ideology of racism started to fade under attack by abolotionists and with the decline of the slave trade. Racism, however took on a new form as a justification for the ideology of imperialism. This racism of empire was dominant for over a century from the 1840's on. Concepts such as the "white man's burden" became fashionable especially in England where British Colonialists liked to cast themselves as father and mother with a clear duty to take responsibility for the material and spiritual well-being of their 'colonial' children. Racism became the ideological justification of capitalism's expansion into conquering countries, plundering their wealth and exploiting the natives.

When white imperialism was at its height, a new expression of racism was taking shape - that is anti-immigrant racism which was typified in England by racist opposition to new immigrants from Ireland."

Of Sweden it is said that we traded with slaves in the 18:th century, and so we will not be without guilt. But the slavery as such seems to be the starting point, and we were not the first country to set that ball in motion!

Back to Kos!

The best,
Fisherman

Simon Wood
10-18-2012, 06:19 PM
Hi Rob,

Anderson writing on 7th March 1891 to the Medical Superintendent at Colney Hatch regarding George Hall should not be construed as an endorsement of the belief that Scotland Yard may have informed the asylum that it believed Aaron Kosminski to have been the Ripper.

After all, exactly two months later, on 7th May 1891, Macnaghten wrote an almost identical letter regarding Michael Ostrog to Dr. T. Claye Shaw, Principal and Medical Superintendent at Banstead Lunatic Asylum, Surrey.

And we all know where Ostrog was during the Whitechapel murders.

Regards,

Simon

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Simon:

"Anderson writing on 7th March 1891 to the Medical Superintendent at Colney Hatch regarding George Hall should not be construed as an endorsement of the belief that Scotland Yard may have informed the asylum that it believed Aaron Kosminski to have been the Ripper."

What if Anderson instead was looking for confirmation; I harbour mistakes against the man, can you tell me if he is consistent with a man who would kill and eviscerate? Would he be capable of such a thing?

In June -92, Anderson says that it is impossible to believe the Ripper killings were the acts of a sane man- they were those of a maniac revelling in blood. To me, the first part would have said "It was not the work of a sane man" if Anderson had known by then. Saying that it was impossible to believe means that he has tried but failed, the way I read it; and why try if he knew the killerīs identity?

The best,
Fisherman

Simon Wood
10-18-2012, 06:33 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Anderson "was looking for confirmation" of what?

Regards,

Simon

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 06:56 PM
That would be any suspicions he could have been harbouring against Kosminski at that early stage. Maybe one or more of the circs MacNagthen was to mention in the memoranda had surfaced at that stage, giving rise to an interest on behalf of Anderson, I donīt know. Just thinking aloud here.

Of course, it is claimed that the Seaside Home business was the clincher - but what if it wasnīt? What if Anderson was looking for more, and had doubts in March? Or am I being totally off here...?

The best,
Fisherman

Simon Wood
10-18-2012, 07:16 PM
Hi Fisherman,

You and the SY5 are all totally off, if, as you posit, Crossmere was the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

robhouse
10-18-2012, 07:17 PM
Hi Rob,

Anderson writing on 7th March 1891 to the Medical Superintendent at Colney Hatch regarding George Hall should not be construed as an endorsement of the belief that Scotland Yard may have informed the asylum that it believed Aaron Kosminski to have been the Ripper.

After all, exactly two months later, on 7th May 1891, Macnaghten wrote an almost identical letter regarding Michael Ostrog to Dr. T. Claye Shaw, Principal and Medical Superintendent at Banstead Lunatic Asylum, Surrey.

And we all know where Ostrog was during the Whitechapel murders.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

I am not claiming that this letter proves anything at all. That said, I have always assumed that Anderson probably would have informed the superintendant at CH asylum that Kozminski was a suspect. I believe he would have told the man "in confidence", and under instructions to not let this become known to the general population of the asylum or even the lower level employees.

It was interesting (to me anyway) to see confirmation that, at least, Anderson was in direct communication with the Sup'td of the asylum within a month of Kozminski's admission to Colney Hatch.

Your point is taken. It seems clear that the Convict Supervision Office at the MET kept track of "criminal lunatics" as a matter of procedure. I will admit that it came as a surprise to me that Criminals were admitted to Colney Hatch at all, as I would have assumed they would be in Broadmoor. My assumption is that Broadmoor was for more serious criminal cases, or more dangerous criminals.

RH

Fisherman
10-18-2012, 07:22 PM
Simon:

"You and the SY5 are all totally off, if, as you posit, Crossmere was the Ripper."

Okay, thanks for telling me, Simon - I owe you one!

the best,
Fisherman

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 07:22 PM
Hi Harry - yes, 'with difficulty' might mean that Kosminski resisted physically; or perhaps alternatively it might mean that the identification was difficult to arrange - perhaps because it was a covert operation.

Quite so Sally!
The police continually dealt with lunatics and awkward people so why did Swanson make a specific point about this transfer? - because the paperwork was out of the ordinary?, it was difficult to arrange and perhaps as a consequence was kept quiet?

But is there any surviving official paperwork connected with any identification (or identification attempt)? Unless I'm missing something, we're reliant on press reports even for the identification of Pizer by Violenia/Violina.

You are quite right but the police did not make special arrangements in those cases (Piser/Violenia). The media often had a reporter stay at both Leman St. and Commercial St. waiting for the next break, this may be why such extra precautions were taken with Kosminski, assuming what we read is correct.

They took him elsewhere for an I.D. but they had no legal authority to do so, unless there was a medical professional on duty at the Seaside Home?
In that case may they circumvent the law by having Houchin? make out transfer papers to "whom it may concern" in residence at the Seaside Home under the pretext of gaining a second opinion? The Mile end Inst. would actually move him, not the police?
How else could they move him without arresting him first?
(just shooting in the dark here)

Regards, Jon S.

Casebook Wiki Editor
10-18-2012, 08:13 PM
John Malcolm has read many of Anderson's religious writings, so he might be able to answer this more specifically.

RH

I've waded through 3 of his books; as you know there are a lot more than that. He was a Messianic Christian and folks of that ilk have a special affection for Israel and the Jewish people for what should be obvious reasons. (I hope they are obvious....if not re-read Revelations) At least today's Messianics are....and I suspect this is one area of thought that changes slowly.....

Phil Carter
10-18-2012, 08:15 PM
You are quite right but the police did not make special arrangements in those cases (Piser/Violenia). The media often had a reporter stay at both Leman St. and Commercial St. waiting for the next break, this may be why such extra precautions were taken with Kosminski, assuming what we read is correct.

They took him elsewhere for an I.D. but they had no legal authority to do so, unless there was a medical professional on duty at the Seaside Home?
In that case may they circumvent the law by having Houchin? make out transfer papers to "whom it may concern" in residence at the Seaside Home under the pretext of gaining a second opinion? The Mile end Inst. would actually move him, not the police?
How else could they move him without arresting him first?
(just shooting in the dark here)

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Plus, if I may make so bold, the time gap.

Just how many people did they arrest or take in to X amount of local police stations for questioning and to check out?

Yet X amount of time between Aug 1888 and 1895, this one, special case, warranted such possible illegal attention without an arrest warrant?

All that fuss about a poor Polish Jew who as we know him, had no record for even striking a woman?

I just cannot believe it... for what is getting on for what must be a hundred different reasons.

best wishes

Phil

Monty
10-18-2012, 08:17 PM
I've waded through 3 of his books; as you know there are a lot more than that. He was a Messianic Christian and folks of that ilk have a special affection for Israel and the Jewish people for what should be obvious reasons. (I hope they are obvious....if not re-read Revelations) At least today's Messianics are....and I suspect this is one area of thought that changes slowly.....

Sir Robert Andersons books are available on Kindle for those who are interested.

Monty
:)

Phil H
10-18-2012, 08:45 PM
The "with difficulty" could mean a number of things - and DSS knew what he meant.

I suspect it does not involve force - and the word was it not was "sent" not taken".

The difficulty IMHO, more likely relates to arrangements with the staff of the Seaside Home and (maybe) for Kosminski's family to take him there. The family after all took him to the Workhouse with his hands tied behind his back. Thus the "with difficulty" is simply adminstrative and makes the point that the arrangements were out of the ordinary and took extra care. I would also not rule out that City police were responsible for the journey which might have caused additional complications.

If, as I now begin to surmise, Anderson had been alerted to the possibility of Kosminski as Eddowes killer (he having been seen in the 1889 court case), and the city (Cox) having watched and followed him, Anderson and Swanson may have thrown out the rule book and have been engaging in a little private detective work. (Anderson was after all well versed in the "secret" world.) Using the City boys as their agents would have helped distance themselves from what was being done and allowed an element of deniability.

I still can't work out who the witness was, but I believe that he may only have emerged in 1889 and be someone we haven't heard of. The Jewish element escapes me at present. I think Sagar's suspect may be wrapped up with this too (Kosminski).

Just ideas I'm playing with.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 09:20 PM
The "with difficulty" could mean a number of things - and DSS knew what he meant.

I suspect it does not involve force.



I suspect it does for two reasons at least:

1) The family took him to the asylum with his hands tied behind his back. I'd be slightly disappointed in the event my family tied me up and walked me down to the local asylum for no more than going about my normal day-to-day business. Clearly, force was a necessary tool to walk this fella down the street and his family had reached a point where there weren't many other options - suggests that he was an usually difficult customer.

2) The familiy giving up on the fella suggests Kosminski has flipped at this point. Assuming that's the case, and Kos is spending the better part of the day picking fish heads off the floor because he thinks it's a better option than a home cooked meal served with a napkin and on a table with clean cuttlery, then I doubt he's going peacefully with a group of strangers; police strangers at that. If I were paranoid, the last thing I'd want is the police turning up inviting me to a secret location for reasons they were unwilling to divulge.

Simon Wood
10-18-2012, 09:21 PM
Hi Phil H,

Offenders have traditionally been "sent" to prison, but this does not mean they are trusted to make their own way to the gates of Parkhurst or Wormwood Scrubs.

"Sent" in our context means taken.

Regards,

Simon

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 09:44 PM
"Sent" in our context means taken.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I think we are testing possibilities here. Without being too blunt Swanson writing "sent by us" could mean the police (SY?) organized/initiated even orchestrated the move, but apart from providing an escort, did not actually handle the patient themselves.

Regards, Jon S.

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 09:51 PM
Hi Phil H,

Offenders have traditionally been "sent" to prison,...

Yes but Simon, the police do not send anyone to prison. The judge or the jury do this, not the police. The police are only a tool of the judiciary.

Regards, Jon S.

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 09:57 PM
Hi Simon.

I think we are testing possibilities here. Without being too blunt Swanson writing "sent by us" could mean the police (SY?) organized/initiated even orchestrated the move, but apart from providing an escort, did not actually handle the patient themselves.

Regards, Jon S.

Sent by us with difficulty tells the full story.

Orchestrated by the police, but with problems.

If the family have to tie his hands to walk him down the street, and it's a safe bet that they didn't mention they were dropping him off at the asylum, then I doubt he's going quietly with the police.

Simon Wood
10-18-2012, 09:59 PM
Hi Jon,

Agreed. A perfectly fair argument.

If I depute you to get X to the Seaside Home, I can claim to have "sent" X and you to have "taken" X.

But I still don't believe a word of it.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
10-18-2012, 10:03 PM
A previous poster made the remark about attempt to discredit 'Kosminski' in favour of other suspects, as if this is somehow new?

Instead it is exactly what Macnaghten, rightly or wrongly, did with his 1913 comments, his memoirs, and via Griffiths and Sims (pointedly in 1910) towards Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect from 1898 through to 1917.

Bridewell
10-18-2012, 10:15 PM
I suspect it does for two reasons at least:

1) The family took him to the asylum with his hands tied behind his back. I'd be slightly disappointed in the event my family tied me up and walked me down to the local asylum for no more than going about my normal day-to-day business. Clearly, force was a necessary tool to walk this fella down the street and his family had reached a point where there weren't many other options - suggests that he was an usually difficult customer.


Hi FM,

Having his hands tied behind his back isn't necessarily indicative of violence. Kosminski is not recorded anywhere as violent that I'm aware of. He is said to have been, when "going about his normal day-to-day business", a compulsive and public masturbator - to my mind a much more likely reason. If the reason had been violence I would expect his feet to have been pinioned also, and there is nothing to suggest that this was done.

Regards, Bridewell.

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 10:19 PM
If the family have to tie his hands to walk him down the street, and it's a safe bet that they didn't mention they were dropping him off at the asylum, then I doubt he's going quietly with the police.

Agreed, but the family did not have access to drugs to sedate him. In a patient transfer from one institution to another, if the patient is physically violent he could have been sedated.
So the "with difficulty" may have been of a bureaucratic nature.

Swanson was not being too clear in his footnotes, he appears to have been trying to say more than he was prepared to admit to. Its what we might call being cagey.

Regards, Jon S.

Fleetwood Mac
10-18-2012, 10:28 PM
Hi FM,

Having his hands tied behind his back isn't necessarily indicative of violence. Kosminski is not recorded anywhere as violent that I'm aware of. He is said to have been, when "going about his normal day-to-day business", a compulsive and public masturbator - to my mind a much more likely reason. If the reason had been violence I would expect his feet to have been pinioned also, and there is nothing to suggest that this was done.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell,

Would be a struggle to get him down the street in the event his legs were tied.

In order to necessitate his hands being tied, I think it's fair to say that he was difficult - clearly he needed restraining, and usually people who don't need restraining aren't restrained.

What I would say is that we can't be sure of the scale of violence and the reason.

Through work, I've spent time among people who have never killed anyone, and I'd imagine never would, but they are extremely difficult. These people don't think in line with what we consider to be normal thinking. A slight change to their surroundings can lead to them smashing the place up - not because they're killers, but because they can't handle the slightest upheaval to their existence. A mere change in the amount of people in their vicinity can lead to a violent reaction.

So, I think its fair to say that Kosminski was violent and difficult to lead. What we don't know is exactly what he was suffering from, and whether or not his problem was misconstrued by the authorities.

Cogidubnus
10-18-2012, 11:23 PM
Having his hands tied behind his back isn't necessarily indicative of violence. Kosminski is not recorded anywhere as violent that I'm aware of. He is said to have been, when "going about his normal day-to-day business", a compulsive and public masturbator - to my mind a much more likely reason. If the reason had been violence I would expect his feet to have been pinioned also, and there is nothing to suggest that this was done.

Hi Colin

I think it's fair to say that Kosminski's behaviour before and after permanent incarceration might be totally different.

All the best

Dave

Wickerman
10-18-2012, 11:24 PM
So, I think its fair to say that Kosminski was violent and difficult to lead. What we don't know is exactly what he was suffering from, and whether or not his problem was misconstrued by the authorities.

The most critical detail that we do not know is, what was he like in 1888?

The fact his condition worsened in the 1890's amounts to nothing with respect to his candidacy as a serial killer in 1888.

Unless anything surfaces concerning his condition at the time of the murders everything so far written about him as regards being a suspect 'could' be another red herring. He 'could' be perfectly innocent.

Regards, Jon S.

robhouse
10-19-2012, 01:39 AM
He is said to have been, when "going about his normal day-to-day business", a compulsive and public masturbator...

Not sure where you get this quote from...

RH

harry
10-19-2012, 03:19 AM
Jon,
A red herring to cover what?.Or do you mean the whole latter published memoirs and marginella concerning Kosminski to be a red herring.Certainly nothing,as this thread demonstrates,gives a clear and concise account that allows more than a posibility or presumption to be aired,and it shouldn't be like that,but where does the blame start?

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 08:47 AM
The most critical detail that we do not know is, what was he like in 1888?

The fact his condition worsened in the 1890's amounts to nothing with respect to his candidacy as a serial killer in 1888.

Unless anything surfaces concerning his condition at the time of the murders everything so far written about him as regards being a suspect 'could' be another red herring. He 'could' be perfectly innocent.

Regards, Jon S.

Also, Jon, I'd imagine that people who we consider to have severe learning difficulties today, would have been lumped into the insane category in those days.

But, if we can be sure that this fella was picking food out of gutters as a result of paranoid delusions, then he certainly has a mental problem associated with fear and possibly resulting in violent reactions.

He certainly could be innocent.

For me, his mental condition isn't a significant factor in his status as a suspect: it's the ID.

Phil H
10-19-2012, 08:53 AM
We do know something of Araon Kosminski's mental state and competence, given the Court case in 1889. he could clearly then express himself, and take a position - in regard to his name and payment of the fine.

Judge that as you will, but it IS evidence.

Phil H

miakaal4
10-19-2012, 10:38 AM
He gets nicked for having a dog with no muzzle. No knives, no screaming and shouting, no promises to get revenge, just the statement that the mutt wasn't his.

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 12:08 PM
His brother had to go to court to explain why Aaron gave an 'incorrect' name and address. This suggests to me that Aaron was 'simple' and needed his brother to speak for him.
The mastabation and that he became uncontrollable so far as his family were concerned also is suggestive of someone with a low mental age - low iq.
There are pointers hat his mental Illness went way beyond just schizophrenia.
Which is why it was ridiculous to claim that I suggested schizophrenics had low iqs.

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Sally I did not suggest that Swanson was a liar just because I am sceptical about the whole seaside home id.
I suspect that the whole thing was a long after the event muddled up and Poorly remembered version of sadler's Id. That fits with all the other garbled and slightly inaccurate memories, and indeed denials that the case was solved by other officers, which combine to indicate that Aaron was not in fact a number 1 suspect so far as the police on the ground were concerned, and he was just the favoured suspect of some desk bound senior officers with their own preconceived and slightly arrogant notions.

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 12:27 PM
Sally I did not suggest that Swanson was a liar just because I am sceptical about the whole seaside home id.
I suspect that the whole thing was a long after the event muddled up and Poorly remembered version of sadler's Id. That fits with all the other garbled and slightly inaccurate memories, and indeed denials that the case was solved by other officers, which combine to indicate that Aaron was not in fact a number 1 suspect so far as the police on the ground were concerned, and he was just the favoured suspect of some desk bound senior officers with their own preconceived and slightly arrogant notions.

What's garbled about: "there was a successful ID, murderer would have hanged, Kosminski was his name, witness refused to give evidence, City CID watched him day and night, he died in the asylum shortly after".

There is absolutely nothing garbled about that.

It only becomes 'garbled' when people throw in comments like your Sadler one, which surely is the polar opposite of the Kosminski ID, or when people conclude it must have been Aaron, or when people conclude that The Seaside Home is unrealistic etc.

Swanson's statement is unwavering and anything but garbled.

Sally
10-19-2012, 12:48 PM
Hi Ed

As FM says, it doesn't look that garbled, really. It was a matter of years, not centuries. The way some are talking about the mixed up memories of senior police officials, you'd think they all had dementia. :anxious:

Again - we cannot really just dismiss the evidence regarding Kosminski as either a fit up based purely on prejudice; nor the confused ramblings of old men just because we prefer another suspect :)

We don't know the basis for that belief, true, but we should be able to say on the evidence that Kosminski was an important suspect; believed by senior police officials to have been the Ripper.

Until we know why thought that, he has to remain as a viable suspect in my view.

miakaal4
10-19-2012, 01:03 PM
Hi Sally,
How viable? Compared to...?

Phil H
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
His brother had to go to court to explain why Aaron gave an 'incorrect' name and address. This suggests to me that Aaron was 'simple' and needed his brother to speak for him.

Or that he was not good with people, tended to be inflexible and rather eccentric - and that thus not defending his position well.

I don't think it suggests he was "simple" at all - just that he was unworldly perhaps. It also suggests a supportive and loyal family who understood Aaron family member.

Phil H

robhouse
10-19-2012, 01:51 PM
His brother had to go to court to explain why Aaron gave an 'incorrect' name and address. This suggests to me that Aaron was 'simple' and needed his brother to speak for him.
The mastabation and that he became uncontrollable so far as his family were concerned also is suggestive of someone with a low mental age - low iq.
There are pointers hat his mental Illness went way beyond just schizophrenia.
Which is why it was ridiculous to claim that I suggested schizophrenics had low iqs.

I don't think any of this is accurate. First (as Phil suggests) I think it is entirely normal that a family member would go to court to testify on his brother's behalf. You mention masturbation... ok, look at other serial killers, Dahmer for example, who masturbated compulsively and in front of people. Was he "slow"?

You say "he became uncontrollable so far as his family were concerned." Where are you getting that from? There is no evidence that he "became uncontrollable".

There are no "pointers" that his mental illness went "way beyond" schizophrenia. His documentation is entirely consistent with schizophrenia. He may have also had "depression" or something like that, but there is absolutely no indication that he had a low IQ.

RH

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 03:57 PM
From the brief reports we have the brother wasn't so much testifying as explaining something that Aaron would have been able to explain himself - if he was capable of doing so. Phil has suggested he wasn't capable.

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 04:02 PM
Fleetwood
It was garbled as Aaron didn't die soon after, unless you think Swanson referred to some unidentified person.

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 04:11 PM
Sally
The reality is that most people on here have a favoured suspect but that doesn't invalidate comments they make.
Some people adopt the 'cunning plan' of pretending not to have a suspect all the more convincingly to argue for their suspect - some even pop back up on here with a different name after being banned for over aggressively arguing for a particular suspect and then pretend not to have a suspect but then spend their time patrolling these boards attacking certain other suspects and so on and so on.
So give it a rest.

Phil H
10-19-2012, 04:53 PM
From the brief reports we have the brother wasn't so much testifying as explaining something that Aaron would have been able to explain himself - if he was capable of doing so. Phil has suggested he wasn't capable.

I didn't say that at all, or infer it, Lechmere.. You deliberately distort meanings to your own ends.

No more than an unworldly vicar trying to explain something to a court might come across rather strangely, he might need an intercessor. That does not imply that the vicar is incapable, simply unused to the legal process.

if Aaron Kosminski was an eloquent man, but a fervent orthodox Jew (even beyond that) - unbending (one might say almost unbalanced except that it might be misinterpreted) in his religious views, he might need the aid of a brother better versed in gentile ways. That is ALL I was saying.

Phil H

Phil H
10-19-2012, 05:01 PM
It was garbled as Aaron didn't die soon after, unless you think Swanson referred to some unidentified person.

"Garbled" is an odd word to use - it means that something is confused or badly explained.

SirRA and DSS appear to have been MISTAKEN or misinformed, but set out their understanding clearly and simply. That is NOT garbled.

I believe that they sincerely believed what they had been told and did not think to question it (why should they). Things had moved on, their responsibilities demanded focus and the issues had changed. The information about Kosminski's reported death might have been of passing interest and mentally noted, but I doubt when it came it was either a surprise or of more than passing concern to either Anderson or Swanson - why should it by that time?

I can imagine an exchange in passing, perhaps in the margins of a meeting on a wholly different subject or case: "You remember that man kosminski we identified as the whitechapel killer?" "Yes, what of him?" "I was told the other day that he's died in Colney Hatch." "Oh really. Well that's the end of that then!"

They may have been misinformed, but both men set down the facts as they knew them clearly.

Phil H

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 06:47 PM
Fleetwood
It was garbled as Aaron didn't die soon after, unless you think Swanson referred to some unidentified person.


But then, you're assuming it was Aaron.

Wickerman
10-19-2012, 07:12 PM
Jon,
A red herring to cover what?.Or do you mean the whole latter published memoirs and marginella concerning Kosminski to be a red herring.Certainly nothing,as this thread demonstrates,gives a clear and concise account that allows more than a posibility or presumption to be aired,and it shouldn't be like that,but where does the blame start?

Harry.

A Red-herring with respect to Kosminski actually having killed anyone, never mind being Jack the Ripper.

Without knowing why the police suspected him, under what circumstances, and connected with which murder, we are holding an empty bag.
Undoubtedly the ID was intended to confirm a "circumstantial" suspicion on behalf of the police, but what was it?
It is surprising to me that there is not even a hint of what it could have been.

Look at it this way, if the police had information from a third party (family/neighbours?), all rumor's, "he-said, she-said" type evidence, then the police set up an I.D. and bring in a witness with the full expectations of getting Kozminski to confess, because, they actually have nothing with which to connect him to any of the crimes, but he does not confess.
Then all this suspicion is based on heresay evidence - the rumor's, and in consequence, with a failed ID, the police have nothing.

On the other hand, the police could have been told about him hoarding bits of flesh/tissue in his room, that he was always absent from home on the nights in question, that on those particular nights he came in bloody and spent time cleaning his clothes or even to be seen burning some clothes.
As it stands we know of no reason for the ID to be initiated in the first place.

Their whole case may predicate on a rumor, and if the rumor was wrong to start with then Kozminski was innocent all along.
This seems to be close to the situation we have with Anderson & Swanson.

Regards, Jon S.

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 07:15 PM
Phil
But Aaron Kosminsky died after Anderson.
You imply that Swanson and Anderson were mistakenly told that the person who they were convinced was Jack the Ripper had died in Colney Hatch or Leavesden long before he actually had. I would suggest that if they genuinely thought that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper then they would surely have been kept accurately informed about him and would accurately recall his circumstances.
Anderson and Swanson were both somewhat obsessed by their involvement in the Ripper case for understandable reasons.

On the topic of masturbation...
Dahmer graduated from being essentially a flasher to being a serial killer.
That is quite different from the uninhibited and inappropriate sexual behaviour (such as public masturbation) common with ‘simple’ people, that is people with severe learning difficulties, people with a low mental age.
The references to Kosminsky’s masturbation are not in connection with ‘flashing’.
Furthermore I think the dog case newspaper reports are consistent with a simple person, as are the medical records – where he has difficulty expressing himself.
Such people also often get out of hand within their own family – Kosminsky attacked his sister.

And if the Kosminsky suspect wasn't Aaron it was someone who was strangely similar to him!

I actually think that Kosminsky – in the shape of Aaron Kosminsky is one of the better suspects.
I agree that Swanson wrote the marginalia. I think the Kosminsky referred to is Aaron.
But in the final analysis if he was a genuine contender at the time and not an almost desperate late-in-the-day-face-saving culprit then Swanson, Anderson and Macnaghten would have been more accurate and less garbled.

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 07:21 PM
I would suggest that if they genuinely thought that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack the Ripper then they would surely have been kept accurately informed about him and would accurately recall his circumstances.



No.

You certainly can suggest that they would have kept tabs on him. That is more than reasonable.

But, in terms of being accurately informed - they couldn't control that - this was down to other people being dilligent.

There is always the chance that the records went haywire somewhere along the line and when they enquired they were told: "not here, must be dead" - when actually he was still residing there.

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 07:30 PM
Harry.

Their whole case may predicate on a rumor, and if the rumor was wrong to start with then Kozminski was innocent all along.
This seems to be close to the situation we have with Anderson & Swanson.

Regards, Jon S.

I think you have a point, Jon, in that in the event the family were prepared to go to the police with information, then why didn't they testify? what would be the point in going to the police in the first place and not testifying thereafter? Logically, although I've argued otherwise previously, seems it wasn't them.

But, all of this is musings about exactly what they had and doesn't change the fact that we have a statement from the police saying an ID took place and he was positively identified.

It seems a simple thing to say but it needs repeating: Swanon's notes are fine; it's our knowledge of the case that leaves a lot to be desired.

robhouse
10-19-2012, 07:40 PM
I think you have a point, Jon, in that in the event the family were prepared to go to the police with information, then why didn't they testify? what would be the point in going to the police in the first place and not testifying thereafter?

For one thing, whatever information may have been supplied by an informant, family member or otherwise, it was apparently not sufficient to convict. So it may have been suspicion or other circumstantial bits of evidence. Whatever it was fell short of being evidence sufficient to get a conviction. So the question of "why didn't they testify" does not necessarily come into play. OK... maybe there was no informant at all. Granted. However, it is entirely possible that there was, and that they didn't testify because the police knew that whatever information they supplied would be insufficient "legally" to convict.

You also have to realize the enormous problem and pressure that a family member of the Ripper would be under. Say if one of Kozminski's siblings suspected him. This person would have a major problem. Go to the police and tell them? What if Kozminski had been convicted? Can you imagine the problems this would have caused for his family? Jews, living in the East End? It would have been a MAJOR problem. A major security issue. So what is the alternative? Not to go to the police? Or to go, and hope that the police can come up with some sort of "solution" to a very delicate problem?

"It is here, in his official sanctum, that we find the head of that complex organisation known as the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police. Dr. Anderson is an Assistant Commissioner, and his staff a strong body of picked officers are concerned with every matter relating to the prevention and detection of crime. These detectives are engaged, it may be, not merely in elucidating mysteries or in making arrests, but in the performance of a large amount of inquiry work, both for the metropolitan and for the provincial and foreign police; and in all their movements they are responsible to their chief, whose controlling hand and inspiring brain govern the conduct of every investigation requiring delicacy and originality of handling.

...

An observation of ours, that in England the police are necessarily hampered a great deal by the freedom-loving characteristics of the people which are opposed to the introduction of measures such as are at the command of the continental police, induces Dr. Anderson to observe that his department has "a great thirst for information," and the public might often assist him very materially by communicating with him in confidence, for very often a small matter sets his officers in motion."

June 11, 1892 - Representative Men at Home: Dr. Anderson at New Scotland Yard from Cassell's Saturday Journal

Note the date... [emphasis mine]

Rh

Fleetwood Mac
10-19-2012, 07:52 PM
For one thing, whatever information may have been supplied by an informant, family member or otherwise, it was apparently not sufficient to convict.



Agreed, but that begs the question: who was the witness?

Lawende - obvious problems in terms of adding something concrete.

Schwartz - ditto.



So the question of "why didn't they testify" does not necessarily come into play.



On reflection, agreed.

Phil Carter
10-19-2012, 08:16 PM
His brother had to go to court to explain why Aaron gave an 'incorrect' name and address. This suggests to me that Aaron was 'simple' and needed his brother to speak for him.

Just a quick question for all, off the top of my head without looking it up...

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

best wishes

Phil

Bridewell
10-19-2012, 08:41 PM
Fleetwood
It was garbled as Aaron didn't die soon after, unless you think Swanson referred to some unidentified person.

There's a difference between being 'garbled' and having a mistaken belief that the Kosminski referred to (assuming it was Aaron) had died earlier than he actually did.

Regards, Bridewell.

Phil H
10-19-2012, 08:57 PM
I believe the witness was someone not mentioned in the surviving files - as I have said above, maybe someone who saw a man at the time of the Eddowes murder and then saw him again at the hearing in 1889 when Kosminski appeared. That would put a name to a face and be well after the inquest. Inquiries about Kosminski could then have produced other Jewish witnesses, who knew something - I guess. Pure speculation.

I increasingly dismiss Lawende (though i fully recognise why he is mentioned), because I don't believe that the police in 1888 were so stupid as to believe that he had seen enough or would remember enough to convict.

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

Phil Carter
10-19-2012, 09:29 PM
Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Of course.. many thanks for replying.

best wishes

Phil

Jonathan H
10-19-2012, 10:36 PM
To Lechmere

Yes, I subscribe to that theory too: that Anderson and/or Swanson is misremembering the Sadler failed identification of 1891.

It is not that what Swanson writes is garbled, People who have a fading memory do not know this. Instead they recall what they think is a crystal clear memory. Therefore they write it in a confident manner if they think they are recalling it without impediment.

In early 1891 Aaron Kosminski was sectioned and then a few days later a Ripper suspect was 'confronted' with a Jewish witness, which has to be Lawende, who said a disappointing no.

Both Anderson and Swanson always give the impression that they are writing about an identification, a wrapping up of the case in late 1888 or early 1889 (exactly where Macnaghten has backdated the incarceration of 'Kosminski') and that there were no murders which the police thought were by Jack after Kelly -- which is demonstrably false.

The counter-argument is that this means both Anderson and Swanson had a memory failure about exactly the same aspect of the case.

It's not impossible, but does not seem very likely either.

On the other hand, we have another element provided by Swanson which might explain this: the Seaside Home, perhaps inspired by the Seaman's Home and that the Ripper suspect, Sadler, was a seaman. Another contributing element to Anderson's memory malfunction is that Coles was initially considered to be the final victim and was young and pretty like Kelly. They have arguably been fused together by 1910.

Thus the messy, unsatisfactory and humiliating events of 1891 have been collapsed into 1888/9 and therefore no longer exist.

In this theory Swanson had known about 'Kosminski' for as long as Anderson -- and agreed that this was the murderer -- but did not know that he had been positively identified by a Jewish witness until the memoir of 1910. Anderson clarified by explaining that the suspect had been transported to a seaside location outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction. This was all a generation before, eg. a long time ago, and so Swanson accepted it and made a private notation -- for which he would never be held accountable.

Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

In his memoirs, Macnaghten pointedly denied that there was some kind of definitive witness or sighting, or that the real 'Simon Pure' Ripper could possibly have been a Hebrew since he supposedly blamed -- via the graffiti -- a trio of Jews for disturbing him with Stride (Mac even corrected 'Juwes' into 'Jews', possibly to make it appear to be written by an educated Gentile).

That Anderson was challenged by Mentor and the Liberal government in 1910 is well known.

What is less well appreciated is that another police chief Macnaghten (and his pliable proxies), one who certainly knew about 'Kosminski', took on Anderson at the time and dismissed his Ripper prognostications.

That does not automatically mean that Macnaghten was right and Anderson was wrong. He may not have been.

But it does mean that, from 1898, Macnaghten was trying to inform the public that the likeliest Jack was not 'one of them' but 'one of us'.

Phil Carter
10-19-2012, 11:01 PM
Hello Jonathan,

Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

In his memoirs, Macnaghten pointedly denied that there was some kind of definitive witness or sighting, or that the real 'Simon Pure' Ripper could possibly have been a Hebrew since he supposedly blamed -- via the graffiti -- a trio of Jews for disturbing him with Stride (Mac even corrected 'Juwes' into 'Jews', possibly to make it appear to be written by an educated Gentile).



Ignoring for a moment the potential distrust and dislike that Anderson and or Macnagthen had for each other...the above quote given by you is important, I think.

"further romantic revelations" isn't a singular comment, it seems a generally accepted description of Anderson's comments..and that is important.

"imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ..."

This is simply reference to something that Anderson apparently thought and therefore referred to by Sims. To me, it links in something.. it's a step BEFORE the "his own kind refused to identify him"..in other words..it is a pointed comment that Anderson suspected Jews for harbouring the Ripper either financially or morally.(if not physically)...

What, I wonder, does that tell you about Anderson, and his attitude to the Jews? I know what it tells me.

Thanks for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

Lechmere
10-19-2012, 11:05 PM
The version of events relating to Kosminsky described by Swanson and Macnaghton is garbled – as in mixed up or inaccurate.
A garbled or inaccurate version of events can be pronounced upon in a confident and assured manner. But the facts contained within that pronouncement can still be garbled. As they are in the case of Swanson’s comments about Kosminsky.

I suspect that Swanson and Anderson chatted about things in after years and reinforced each other’s errors and misconceptions.

Lastly – on the subject of Kosminsky’s madness. This is put forward as the reason for his killing. In other words he killed during early and spasmodic bouts when he became unhinged. However if he became momentarily or periodically unhinged it is not credible to he would be able to operate as a calculating stealth killer during those moments. Certainly not one who successfully murdered 4, 5, 6, 7 or however many victims. He would have been caught after the first one as such killers invariably are as they are careless as to their own security.

Chris
10-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

That's new to me. Can you give us a more precise reference?

Jonathan H
10-19-2012, 11:43 PM
To Phil H

Well, I think that Sims is engaging in bigotry-baiting.

As in he is throwing in the despicable notion of the international conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

He does not mean it literally. It's a caricature.

It's also a real low blow -- and a schoolboyish one.

In his memoirs Macnaghten made no effort to write something like: there was a local Jewish suspect, but he must take a back-seat to the Gentile Gent.

Instead he just dumps 'Kosminski' and Ostrog all together. They are nothing. He had also told Sims that Ostrog was in an asylum abroad at some point (Sims, 1907).

Secondary sources have confirmed that detail and also confirmed why Mac never wanted to have his name linked -- in public -- to the Russian 'mad doctor' 'suspect' -- he was not a doctor, or homicidal, and had an iron-clad alibi for the Whitechapel murders.

To Chris

This was a new primary source to me too, until recently, and it backs my overall theory -- or so I claim.

It is, in my opinion, one of Mac's many salvoes against Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14725

Errata
10-20-2012, 01:22 AM
Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

I think his communication waxed and waned a bit. And I don't know if it was his ability to communicate, or his desire to communicate, which is actually kind of an important distinction. When he was on the streets, I got the impression that the motives for his behavior had a certain amount of guesswork. A relative/friend described why he appeared to be doing what he was doing in regards to his food issues and scrupulosity, but I think it was a guess. Not that it wasn't spot on, I just don't think Kosminski could articulate "I am doing X because of Y and Z." I think he was a little too locked in his head at that point to explain anything. Which is frankly not uncommon in a psychotic break. After he was hospitalized, he seemed to stop communicating after a couple of years. Which I think is why he threw a chair at an orderly instead of yelling at him. If I recall, he did have bouts of verbal abuse, but then there was the chair thing, and in terms a Kindergarten teacher might indulge in, "he forgot how to use his words." I think most residents of a Victorian mental institution stopped talking. People in institutions today stop talking, because that's the farthest they can withdraw. There's no privacy, it's loud, people are constantly in your face. Most people shut down. So it's not remarkable that Kosminski would. Nor would it even necessarily be a function of his illness. It's only notable because it makes it incredibly hard to know if he didn't want to communicate, or if his disease had progressed to a point that he couldn't communicate.

In other words, his episode in the streets could be a sign of severe schizophrenia, or a psychotic break from other factors. And the best way to know would be to see how he was five or ten years down the line. But we don't know because he was in an institution that predictably changes behavior for both the mentally ill and the perfectly sane. And the change in his behavior is the one that happens to everyone, whether ill in an asylum 150 years ago, or sane in a prison today. He became withdrawn, and shut down. He could have been sane, he could have been very ill, he could have been my teenage cousin after her first broken heart. His described symptoms in the institution are at best, not very helpful.

Chris
10-20-2012, 07:44 AM
This was a new primary source to me too, until recently, and it backs my overall theory -- or so I claim.

It is, in my opinion, one of Mac's many salvoes against Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14725

Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can get a copy of the full article.

harry
10-20-2012, 08:58 AM
People cannot,and could not in 1888 or thereabouts,simply take someone to court and declare that person would speak for them.It was the court which decided whether a witness or defendant was capaple of speaking on their own behalf,and it was the court which decided what procedure would follow,should a person be deemed not capable of giving evidence.However I am not sure what the case would be in the likelihood that a persons relative be used as an interpreter.When was the decision made not to proceed with the arrest of Kosminski,even though it has been claimed there was enough evidence to do so?That the officers present at the ID were the obvious people to do so,se ems to suggest they might have been under orders not to.
Sally's statemet that there was insufficent time elapsed to allow for memory failure on the part of Anderson and Swanson ,is one I totally agree with,which allows for a deliberate de cision by them to omit details which,had they been included,might have cleared the doubts so many are left with.

Jonathan H
10-20-2012, 09:16 AM
To Simon

Eh, I was being straight ... so I guess that's a no, mate.

Jonathan H
10-20-2012, 09:17 AM
Phuk! Wrong thread! Now he'll never know ...

Phil H
10-20-2012, 10:07 AM
When was the decision made not to proceed with the arrest of Kosminski,even though it has been claimed there was enough evidence to do so?
At this staghe we don't know.

That the officers present at the ID were the obvious people to do so,se ems to suggest they might have been under orders not to.

Seems to sugget - says it all. We simply don't know.

Sally's statemet that there was insufficent time elapsed to allow for memory failure on the part of Anderson and Swanson ,is one I totally agree with,which allows for a deliberate de cision by them to omit details which,had they been included,might have cleared the doubts so many are left with.

Since Swanson was not writing for publication (may not even have known anyone else would read his scribblings), I cannot see that he needed to say more than he did. he was, it appears, in the habit of annotating his books - he set down what made sense to him. things he knew, or ddi not consider relevent for his purpose he omitted. But Swanson at least I exhonerate from being deliberately misleading.

Before the marginalia emerged, we knew none of this. We now know more (though our knowledge is imperfect) than we did before and must work with that. I believe it is too easy to argue that writers were seeking to mislead (they may have been) but we must also look at what they did say.

It seems to me thast Swanson gave us much detail - the Seaside home (capitalised) existed at that time; we know the CITY police did stake-out a house on Met territory. We know a man called Araon KOSMINSKI existed and was put away at about the right time, but died later than the two policemen thought. We know there were difficulties in arranging an ID and that afterwards they could not - for whatever reason - take the case to trial. The marginalia is clearly and precisely written, and tells us in fact a great deal we ddi not know before. After some scepticism and testing the maginalia in my own mind, I am happy with what DSS wrote. I'd like more - that may come.

Anderson, I agree, is more complex. Partly because his words changed a bit over the years - though he is broadly consistent. We must remember that he was writing to entertain a general audience, not annotating the official file. I expect (unless what he and DSS were doing was wholly off the record) that somewhere there is (or at least was) a - probably confidential - file that includes more information - dates, arrangements etc. One day it may see the light of day again.

Phil H

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 10:10 AM
What I find a bit hard to swallow are the combined statements of Anderson and Swanson, as per:

Anderson:

"...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he
was confronted with him"

...and Swanson:

"...the suspect had been identified ... and he knew he was identified"

To begin with, identified AS WHAT? As Aaron Kosminsky? Or as the Ripper? Or as someone else altogether, like Sadler?

Lawende; if we try this on him we need to accept that he "unhesitatingly" identified Kosminski "the instant he was confronted with him".
How on earth could he do that? He was not certain that he would be able to identify the man he saw in Church Passage TWO AND A HALF YEARS EARLIER! Yet we are asked to believe that he could do so at a stage where Kosminski had sunk into madness and gone from a man who could confidently and violently kill out in the open streets to a person who ate out of the gutters and who gave the impression of a harmless lunatic, by the looks of things.

At any rate, Lawende couldnīt hang Kosminski. At best, he could profess to believing that he was the man he had been seen with a woman he had only seen from the back. The only action Lawende saw between the two was that the woman put her hand on the manīs chest. Hardly a crime, punishable by death!

And Swanson tells us that the suspect "knew he was identified". This speaks to me of a person with intact wits, a man that had held hopes, perhaps, to stay unidentified, but who knew the game was up after this super witness had given him away. And once again, as WHAT: Aaron Kosminski or the Ripper? Or ...?

Of course, if the identification only sought to establish the identity of the suspect, then the witness needed not be reluctant to point him out since it would have him hanged! Such a thing would only come into play if there was a certainty that the person X had done the killing, and an UNcertainty that the suspect WAS the person X was about. In such a case, a witness confrontation could establish THAT particular detail, and such an identification would - to me, at least - sound like the kind of thing that would cause the types of comments that Anderson and Swanson gave: the witness recognized the man the instant he laid eyes upon him (something that speaks of great certainty and perhaps a long-time connection), plus the suspect knew he had been made - he too understood that the man with whom he had been confronted had all the knowledge it took to pinpoint him; a relative, an old friend, a former employer; that sort of person. Not somebody who had (barely) seen him in a fleeting moment in a dark alley two and a half years earlier and never more.

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
10-20-2012, 10:16 AM
Phil - your post pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. Darn it, you beat me to it! :)

The salient point being to bear in mind who each man was writing for when they commented on Kosminski. In Swanson's case, that appears to have been private comment, for himself only - thus he had no need to include anything which didn't suit his purpose. Anderson was writing for the public, and could presumably say only so much in that context.

Neither source is perfect, but it is what we have. I too hope for more in dues course.

Phil Carter
10-20-2012, 10:18 AM
What I find a bit hard to swallow are the combined statements of Anderson and Swanson, as per:

Anderson:

"...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he
was confronted with him"

...and Swanson:

"...the suspect had been identified ... and he knew he was identified"

To begin with, identified AS WHAT? As Aaron Kosminsky? Or as the Ripper? Or as someone else altogether, like Sadler?

Lawende; if we try this on him we need to accept that he "unhesitatingly" identified Kosminski "the instant he was confronted with him".
How on earth could he do that? He was not certain that he would be able to identify the man he saw in Church Passage TWO AND A HALF YEARS EARLIER! Yet we are asked to believe that he could do so at a stage where Kosminski had sunk into madness and gone from a man who could confidently and violently kill out in the open streets to a person who ate out of the gutters and who gave the impression of a harmless lunatic, by the looks of things.

At any rate, Lawende couldnīt hang Kosminski. At best, he could profess to believing that he was the man he had been seen with a woman he had only seen from the back. The only action Lawende saw between the two was that the woman put her hand on the manīs chest. Hardly a crime, punishable by death!

And Swanson tells us that the suspect "knew he was identified". This speaks to me of a person with intact wits, a man that had held hopes, perhaps, to stay unidentified, but who knew the game was up after this super witness had given him away. And once again, as WHAT: Aaron Kosminski or the Ripper? Or ...?

Of course, if the identification only sought to establish the identity of the suspect, then the witness needed not be reluctant to point him out since it would have him hanged! Such a thing would only come into play if there was a certainty that the person X had done the killing, and an UNcertainty that the suspect WAS the person X was about. In such a case, a witness confrontation could establish THAT particular detail, and such an identification would - to me, at least - sound like the kind of thing that would cause the types of comments that Anderson and Swanson gave: the witness recognized the man the instant he laid eyes upon him (something that speaks of great certainty and perhaps a long-time connection), plus the suspect knew he had been made - he too understood that the man with whom he had been confronted had all the knowledge it took to pinpoint him; a relative, an old friend, a former employer; that sort of person. Not somebody who had (barely) seen him in a fleeting moment in a dark alley two and a half years earlier and never more.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Christer,

Excellent post.

best wishes

Phil

Sally
10-20-2012, 10:20 AM
Fisherman - does Swanson not write 'Kosminski was the suspect?' That would seem to be pretty straightforward - Kosminski was the suspect.

Phil H
10-20-2012, 10:30 AM
Fisherman - we would all lie answers to similar questions, but as historians (which is what I consider I am) we have to use what we have.

"...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he
was confronted with him"

"...the suspect had been identified ... and he knew he was identified"

These comments are not mutually exclusive. they simply see the situation one from the witness perspective and the other from the suspect's.

To begin with, identified AS WHAT? As Aaron Kosminsky? Or as the Ripper? Or as someone else altogether, like Sadler?

There is a logical answer to this, although of course the correct one is that we do not know.

The witness (I now infer someone other than Lawende) appears to have seen a man with Kate, and identified the man in Brighton as such. Whether he also knew him as Araon Kosminski, I do not know. BUT, if, as I now conjecture, the witness (not Lawende) saw a man in or near Mitre Sq on the night of the murder, and then put a name to him during the Kosminski court case in 1889 - the witness might have known the man in Brighton's name.

we need to accept that he "unhesitatingly" identified Kosminski "the instant he was confronted with him".

Lawende might not have done, but another witness might.

And Swanson tells us that the suspect "knew he was identified".

Maybe a facial expression showed unmistakable recognition. If DSS was not present - and his use of the word "sent" suggests (to me at least) he was not - he would be going on what he was told.

if there was a certainty that the person X had done the killing, and an UNcertainty that the suspect WAS the person X was about. In such a case, a witness confrontation could establish THAT particular detail, and such an identification would - to me, at least - sound like the kind of thing that would cause the types of comments that Anderson and Swanson gave:

If a man (AK) was identified in 1889, is home had been staked-out and he had been followed (see Cox's reinisences) the police may have had more on AK than surmise, and the ID could have been to tie him in to Mitre Sq specifically.

All hypothesis.

Phil H

Phil H
10-20-2012, 10:32 AM
Phil - your post pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. Darn it, you beat me to it!

Sorry, Sally!!

Phil

Fleetwood Mac
10-20-2012, 10:43 AM
Of course, if the identification only sought to establish the identity of the suspect, then the witness needed not be reluctant to point him out since it would have him hanged!



Anderson's and Swanson's writings don't leave room for this idea.



a relative, an old friend, a former employer; that sort of person. Not somebody who had (barely) seen him in a fleeting moment in a dark alley two and a half years earlier and never more.

The best,
Fisherman

The witness learned the suspect was Jewish during the ID event. It follows that we can safely say that the witness was not a member of the family nor a friend.

Fleetwood Mac
10-20-2012, 10:58 AM
The witness (I now infer someone other than Lawende) appears to have seen a man with Kate, and identified the man in Brighton as such. Whether he also knew him as Araon Kosminski, I do not know. BUT, if, as I now conjecture, the witness (not Lawende) saw a man in or near Mitre Sq on the night of the murder, and then put a name to him during the Kosminski court case in 1889 - the witness might have known the man in Brighton's name.



The problem with Lawende is the nature of his evidence.

I think we can infer that Swanson and associates wanted the witness to give evidence, and as he didn't they couldn't get him into a court.

It follows that in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break.

Was it make or break? I don't think so. I can't imagine a scenario where they didn't have much on him apart from the usual "nightwalker, oddball, brandished a knife" and along comes Lawende to say that was the man, against whom I testified, the one I doubted I could recognise again; whom I saw chatting with a woman whom I identified by her clothes.

I just can't see how this was enough to confidently state 'murderer would have hanged'.

There is always the option, I suppose, that Lawende had successfully ID'd him, and was willing to give evidence; but there was another witness who refused to give evidence.

In terms of what the witness saw or heard, there are other possibilities such as: dropping the apron in GSG; suspect telling the witness he had had done them and providing details known only to the murderer and the police.

But, I think we can safely say that the witness and suspect were acquaintances at the very best, as one didn't know the other was Jewish.

Jonathan H
10-20-2012, 12:02 PM
If you only had the Swanson Marginalia, Anderson's memoirs and both versions of the Mac Report you would never know that this Polish Jew, 'Kosminski' was sectioned as late as Feb 1891!

This is because these sources implicitly and explicitly backdate the timing to late 1888 early 1889.

They claim that the murderer was identified in that time frame.

Their murderer is not somebody out and about for over two years (which is why Cullen, Farson and Rumbelow initially thought Anderson must be talking about Pizer and Violena).

This is the Anderson-Swanson suspect:

He was 1. watched, 2. identified, 3. sectioned and 4. died -- all soon after Kelly.

Arguably three of those elements of the tale do not match the real Aaron Kosminski.

Sims in 1907 has the Polish Jew 1. formerly working in a hospital in Poland, 2. not identified by a beat cop witness, 3.not sectioned soon after the Kelly murder, and 4. not deceased soon after that.

Two of those elements -- from Macnaghten? -- that we know about fit Aaron Kosminski.

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:17 PM
Sally:

"does Swanson not write 'Kosminski was the suspect?' That would seem to be pretty straightforward - Kosminski was the suspect."

Thatīs pretty observant, Sally - and I will tell you that I have been just as observant!

But the gist of the matter is that we cannot reconcile what we know about Aaron Kosminski with what was said about the identification. And terein lies the rub.

Lawende did NOT get a very good look at the man in Church Passage. That is important, but even more important is that Kosminski - if he was the Church Passage man - would not have had any reason at all to allow the faces of Lawende, Harris and Levy to get burnt into his brain. The people you meet in the crowd today, the ones you look at on the bus, at the street corners, are people about whom you will forget. In two and a half years, if I was to bring forward the man from the buc, the man from the street corner, then you would look at them and say "I never saw him in my life".

It was said that the suspect in the Seaside home "knew he was identified". This can have meant one out of two things:

A/ He was told "You have been identified", or
B/ He knew HIMSELF that he had been identified - and nobody had to tell him this.

What would apply in the case at hand? Well, obviously B would apply. Swanson would not tell us that the witness got information that he had been identified, he instead - if I am correct - confirms what Anderson says, more or less: The identification quality was flawless, the witness immediately and without hesitation pointed the suspect out the moment he saw him. One glimpse and bang! And there was no reason at all for the suspect to deny the ID; this is what Swansonīs wording is about: He knew he was ID:d, or, putting it differently: He knew the game was up.

No Lawende, no Schwartz would be enough to ensure this immediate, clear and stron reciprocal identification process, thatīs what I am saying.

And therefore, Sally, I also say that whoever the men at the Seaside home were, they were NOT Aaron Kosminski and Lawende OR Schwartz.

We also need to recognize the fact that we supposedly have a man who hear voices, who eats out of the gutter, who will not work and who most probably cared not about his personal hygiene and such things - a lunatic, if you will, at one end of this identification. And such a man, Iīd suggest, would not be somebody about whom you could unanimously say that he knew he had been identified. Aaron Kosminski was in a parallel university, in Cukoo land, in 1891. How would anybody know that he recognized that he had been faced with a witness who could nail him for the Ripper deeds - something we know that neither Lawende nor Schwartz could do?

None of it comes even close to adding up, and therefore it will be wrong. Aaron Kosminski was not faced with Lawende or Schwartz in 1891 and beyond doubt proven to have been the Ripper in the process. We know that the material never allowed for it from the outset, and much less so in 1891 when time would have eroded away the worth of any identification.

Itīs all good and well to profess to being able to read, and claiming that Swanson said Kosminski. But being able to read many times precedes being able to understand, and there is no rational way that Kosminski as the Ripper fits the bill of the Seaside home ID, given what we have.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:33 PM
Phil H:

"These comments are not mutually exclusive. they simply see the situation one from the witness perspective and the other from the suspect's."

Yes. AND they describe a situation where the witness is either one that is very fresh or one that KNEW the suspect very well. If Lawende had noticed that the Church Passage man had three eyes or a nine-inch nose, then we would know this. But he did not - the man therefore in all probability displayed no traits that made him stand out very much. Two and a half years will do things to your propensity to ID such a man instantaneously and with no doubt. It canīt be done.

"The witness (I now infer someone other than Lawende) appears to have seen a man with Kate"

Why?

"Lawende might not have done, but another witness might."

Like who? Levy? If he really ID:d Kosminski as his relative, then that could explain the total lack of doubt. But it would NOT explain why he did not speak up from the outset, would it? And it would most certainly allow for a scenario where Levy had to be told that Aaron Kosminski actually was a fellow Jew.

"Maybe a facial expression showed unmistakable recognition. "

With a mad man, a schizophrenic or whatnot - how can we "read" ANY expression in his face as "Bugger; this man has ID:d me"? How do we know that the expression should not be read: "Oh my! Thatīs God!" How, Phil?

With a SANE man, however, a look of defeat and realisation of a game lost may be something we can pick up on with some sort of confidence. But it wonīt come anywhere near a true confirmation anyway!!

"If a man (AK) was identified in 1889, is home had been staked-out and he had been followed (see Cox's reinisences) the police may have had more on AK than surmise, and the ID could have been to tie him in to Mitre Sq specifically."

But that does not change the semantic phrasing of Andersons and Swansons claims, does it? They describe a meeting between two men where a ppositive ID could obviously not go wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

Fleetwood Mac
10-20-2012, 12:43 PM
Sally:

"does Swanson not write 'Kosminski was the suspect?' That would seem to be pretty straightforward - Kosminski was the suspect."

Thatīs pretty observant, Sally - and I will tell you that I have been just as observant!

But the gist of the matter is that we cannot reconcile what we know about Aaron Kosminski with what was said about the identification. And terein lies the rub.

Lawende did NOT get a very good look at the man in Church Passage. That is important, but even more important is that Kosminski - if he was the Church Passage man - would not have had any reason at all to allow the faces of Lawende, Harris and Levy to get burnt into his brain. The people you meet in the crowd today, the ones you look at on the bus, at the street corners, are people about whom you will forget. In two and a half years, if I was to bring forward the man from the buc, the man from the street corner, then you would look at them and say "I never saw him in my life".

It was said that the suspect in the Seaside home "knew he was identified". This can have meant one out of two things:

A/ He was told "You have been identified", or
B/ He knew HIMSELF that he had been identified - and nobody had to tell him this.

What would apply in the case at hand? Well, obviously B would apply. Swanson would not tell us that the witness got information that he had been identified, he instead - if I am correct - confirms what Anderson says, more or less: The identification quality was flawless, the witness immediately and without hesitation pointed the suspect out the moment he saw him. One glimpse and bang! And there was no reason at all for the suspect to deny the ID; this is what Swansonīs wording is about: He knew he was ID:d, or, putting it differently: He knew the game was up.

No Lawende, no Schwartz would be enough to ensure this immediate, clear and stron reciprocal identification process, thatīs what I am saying.

And therefore, Sally, I also say that whoever the men at the Seaside home were, they were NOT Aaron Kosminski and Lawende OR Schwartz.

We also need to recognize the fact that we supposedly have a man who hear voices, who eats out of the gutter, who will not work and who most probably cared not about his personal hygiene and such things - a lunatic, if you will, at one end of this identification. And such a man, Iīd suggest, would not be somebody about whom you could unanimously say that he knew he had been identified. Aaron Kosminski was in a parallel university, in Cukoo land, in 1891. How would anybody know that he recognized that he had been faced with a witness who could nail him for the Ripper deeds - something we know that neither Lawende nor Schwartz could do?

None of it comes even close to adding up, and therefore it will be wrong. Aaron Kosminski was not faced with Lawende or Schwartz in 1891 and beyond doubt proven to have been the Ripper in the process. We know that the material never allowed for it from the outset, and much less so in 1891 when time would have eroded away the worth of any identification.

Itīs all good and well to profess to being able to read, and claiming that Swanson said Kosminski. But being able to read many times precedes being able to understand, and there is no rational way that Kosminski as the Ripper fits the bill of the Seaside home ID, given what we have.

The best,
Fisherman

I think we could also add to the above that Swanson did not entertain the idea that this man was a lunatic, nor did the witness. According to Swanson, the man would have hanged, and by implication the witness thought so too as he did not want that on his mind.

So, whoever the suspect was, it's a fair assumption to say that he didn't display the characteristics that would lead to a lunatic accusation - at the time of the ID - and I think this is supported by "knew he was identified, no such murders occurred in London again" - clearly, Swanson's man was capable of rationality and self-control.

The suspect could quite easily have been Aaron Kosminski, and the witness could quite easily have been Lawende or Schwartz. I'm not convinced with either Lawende or Schwartz, but that's due to quite a few assumptions on my part - such as Liz Stride moving from being thrown down on the pavement into the dark corner. The identity of the witness is merely guess work at this juncture, and stranger things have happened and all that.

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:49 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"Anderson's and Swanson's writings don't leave room for this idea."

Not if we accept all they say, perhaps. But we can clearly see that what they say is very questionable, and does not fit in with a man in the kind of condition that Aaron Kosminsky was.

And why would we work from the conception that the ID needs to be fit into the Kosminski frame? Maybe Kosminski is what needs to be fit into the ID frame - and he does not fit there, since no man ever got a good look at the Ripper. The Seaside home witness had all the knowledge he needed to do the ID. No hesitation there! Two and a half years after the case, with an arguably much changed suspect, he pulls it of, just like that! I donīt buy that for a second.

"The witness learned the suspect was Jewish during the ID event. It follows that we can safely say that the witness was not a member of the family nor a friend."

If the witness did not know this before, then yes, the family can probably be discounted, as most of his friends. What I am saying is that the type of evidence Anderson speaks of, an immediate and totally unhesitating identification, points in the direction of these types of people generally. It must have been somebody who had no reason at all to wawer, and that discards anybody who saw Kosminski two and a half years earlier and never since. A very fresh witness who had a very good l9ook could also do the trick, somebody who Kosminski recognized and was able to verify that he had recognized - without which we do not have jigsaw puzzle piece number two: the suspect knew that he had been ID:d.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:50 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

" in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break."

Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:53 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

" I think we can safely say that the witness and suspect were acquaintances at the very best, as one didn't know the other was Jewish."

And I think that we can safely say that they were aquaintances at the very least, if the identification was to rest on a two and a half year old observation of questionable quality.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 12:57 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

"clearly, Swanson's man was capable of rationality and self-control.
The suspect could quite easily have been Aaron Kosminski, and the witness could quite easily have been Lawende or Schwartz."

Aaron Kosminski of 1891...? The man who ate out of the gutter, the compulsive masturbator who heard voices? Rational and self-controlled? Who was incarcerated due to this? Swanson would regard him as a fully responsible man?

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
10-20-2012, 12:58 PM
Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

I don't think they could Fisherman. If that is truly all that Lawende saw, I don't see how he could have been the witness. Perhaps Schwartz?

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 01:02 PM
Sally:

"I don't think they could Fisherman. If that is truly all that Lawende saw, I don't see how he could have been the witness. Perhaps Schwartz?"

Then theyīd be hanging a man for pushing a woman. Sounds like a first to me, Sally. I think both men are unviable from the hangmanīs perspective, to be honest.
And remember that Swanson clearly said that Schwartīs sighting offered place for a second violent man - the Ripper - at a time closer to 1.00. Swanson does not seem to be very hot on BS man being the Ripper, thus. So why hang him - if the miniscule Kosminski WAS this broadshouldered man from the outset...?

The best,
Fisherman

Fleetwood Mac
10-20-2012, 01:05 PM
Fleetwood Mac:

" in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break."

Lawende saw a man standing together with a woman who COULD have been Eddowes. Full stop.

How could anybody swing for that?

The best,
Fisherman

Because it depends upon what else they had.

For all we know they could have had evidence from the family. All they needed then was someone to place him at the scene of one of the crimes minutes before a murder. The final piece in the jigsaw.

The problem with this is that in the event the family had supplied the police with damning information then it should have been enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor - regardless of the ID.

I think that you and I are ably demonstrating that all of this is guesswork, but we do know beyond doubt that two senior policeman claimed that there was a successful ID of a man named Kosminski and they believed this man was the murderer.

Oh, and Lawende: he saw them minutes before she was murdered, at the scene of the crime, and he identfied her (clothes or otherwise). Still enough room for me to doubt that Lawende was the witness, but I think your comment above down plays the significance of Lawende's sighting.

Phil H
10-20-2012, 01:06 PM
theyīd be hanging a man for pushing a woman. Sounds like a first to me, Sally. I think both men are unviable from the hangmanīs perspective, to be honest.

So should we not be asking: "Did the police have a witness that is not identified by name in the files?"

To me I glimpse a huge circumstantial gap in our information today, and in what we know of how the police acted then, that might accomodate such a witness.

Phil H

Hunter
10-20-2012, 01:25 PM
Yes, I subscribe to that theory too: that Anderson and/or Swanson is misremembering the Sadler failed identification of 1891.

I disagree. Swanson was specific about this identification and how the witness and suspect reacted, which would have been an entirely different result with Sadler. And the special "difficulty" involved in getting the suspect to the ID location that Swanson remembered makes it also unlikely that he mis-remembered that location.

In this theory Swanson had known about 'Kosminski' for as long as Anderson -- and agreed that this was the murderer -- but did not know that he had been positively identified by a Jewish witness until the memoir of 1910. Anderson clarified by explaining that the suspect had been transported to a seaside location outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction. This was all a generation before, eg. a long time ago, and so Swanson accepted it and made a private notation -- for which he would never be held accountable.

I am not aware that Anderson stated that the suspect had been transported "outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction," but Swanson clearly writes that the suspect was "sent by us."

If this ID did take place in some form, it would have been orchestrated by Swanson, not Anderson. Swanson was in operational charge of this case, as he had conducted ID procedures on other cases as well. Unlike Anderson or Macnaghten, Swanson was an operational officer. This would have been his job and is probably why he wrote so prolifically about this event in Anderson's book, because he remembered it, not just was told about it.

Lechmere
10-20-2012, 01:39 PM
With respect to people's memory and how it fades over time - I would suggest there is a direct relation to how closely they were connected to the events they remember. If they 'remember' hearsay, it is likely to be less firmly planted in their mind than direct experience. I think Anderson and Swanson were going in hearsay that they subsequently misremembered... and hence garbled.

Hence their garbled memories are not deliberate deception - merely wish fullfillment and poor memory not refreshed by access to files.

On the ID being enough to hang the culprit, thus has to be nonsense as the culprit would have to be caught in the act - not just nearby or even with the victim at some time before.
Did anyone see a murder take place? Is there a missing report that might suggest there was? I very much doubt it.
Nothing the family could have said to the police (and there is zero reason to suppose they said anything) would alter the lack of any evidence to hang anyone on an ID based on being near a murder scene. That tells us that the 'hanging' statement is rubbish.

Lastly, relatively newly arrived Jews tended to look like Eastern European Jews. They looked very different from the gentile population. They stood out a mile off. That is no doubt how the suspect would have been identified as a Jew. That makes it all the more 'suspect' that the alleged witness didn't know until the ID that the suspect was a Jew.
This is another reason to doubt that the Seaside Home business happened as said and was in fact a garbled version of the Sadler ID.

Fisherman
10-20-2012, 01:43 PM
Fleetwod Mac:

"For all we know they could have had evidence from the family. All they needed then was someone to place him at the scene of one of the crimes minutes before a murder. "

But they couldnīt, cold they? At least not courtesy of Lawende or Schwartz, reasonably. And how would the "family evidence" look, to call for a placing at the scene to complete the hangmanīs wishlist?
Eityher the family evidence was conclusive, in which case nothing more needed to be asked for, or it would NOT be conclusive - in which case, why and how would putting him at the spot(s) help the case? Sounds pretty weak to me - and Lawende or Schwartz would not be of much help, given the time elapsed.

"The problem with this is that in the event the family had supplied the police with damning information then it should have been enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor - regardless of the ID."

Exactly!

"I think that you and I are ably demonstrating that all of this is guesswork, but we do know beyond doubt that two senior policeman claimed that there was a successful ID of a man named Kosminski and they believed this man was the murderer."

A man CALLED Kosminski, to begin with! And we donīt know who this man was - but we DO know that Aaron K makes for a poor suggestion in many a way. Also, whether Swanson believed the suspect was the killer or not can be questioned - he only tells us that the man in question was a suspect. Anderson says that the killer was incarcerated, but getīs much wrong - and that goes for many more things than the Ripper case.

The best,
Fisherman