Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Joshua Rogan 16 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Michael W Richards 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Jon Guy 27 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 34 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Harry D 41 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 44 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (36 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (21 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (14 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (9 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (7 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:56 AM
John Malcolm John Malcolm is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 78
Default

Another point to remember is that had the suspect been identified after being committed to an asylum, that evidence would effectively have been useless because a person "deemed insane" could not be put to trial.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-23-2017, 02:14 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Default

Hi John

Regardless of what order the identification and the asylum committal came in, wouldn't it have been worthwhile taking Kosminski into a court, in order to ensure that he went to Broadmoor rather than Colney Hatch? It wouldn't have been necessary to put Kosminski on trial - Thomas Cutbush was found unfit to plead, but was still sent to Broadmoor rather than Colney Hatch.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-23-2017, 03:17 AM
John Malcolm John Malcolm is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 78
Default

That's an interesting thought Robert. What was the actual verdict with Cutbush? Since Broadmoor was for criminal lunatics, was he found "guilty, but insane" or something like that? I think, in the case of Cutbush, the evidence was compelling, whereas without testimony from an eyewitness, bringing Kosminski before a court would have risked an acquittal. In that case the suspect might have escaped incarceration altogether. That's just one thing that comes to mind. Does that make sense? Clearly, without that supposed eyewitness testimony, the police didn't think they had enough to charge Kosminski, and even watching him "by day and night" (assuming it was Kosminski they were watching), they risked letting someone they believed to be a murderer kill again. I'm afraid I'll never be able to come up with a clear enough picture of this suspect and the events surrounding him to satisfy even my own "biased" beliefs. Won't stop me from trying though!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-23-2017, 04:05 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Default

Hi John

That might be it, yes : if he wasn't showing clear enough signs of lunacy to be incarcerated, and he couldn't be charged without the eyewitness testimony, the police were snookered.

In Cutbush's case, the jury found him unfit to plead :

http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18910415.html
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-23-2017, 04:37 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Default

Thinking back though, what I was trying to say was that if the witness had agreed to testify, they could either have brought the suspect to trial, or have had him sent to Broadmoor.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:28 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,009
Default

Why would the witness identify the suspect but then refuse to testify against him? Ostensibly because the suspect was a fellow Jew, but in that case, why identify him in the first place?
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-23-2017, 06:31 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Default

The story is that the witness initially identified the suspect as the man he had seen, but on learning that the suspect was Jewish like himself, the witness backpedalled.

This would imply that the suspect didn't look stereotypically Jewish, nor was he known to the witness socially.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-23-2017, 11:40 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Malcolm View Post
That's an interesting thought Robert. What was the actual verdict with Cutbush? Since Broadmoor was for criminal lunatics, was he found "guilty, but insane" or something like that? I think, in the case of Cutbush, the evidence was compelling, whereas without testimony from an eyewitness, bringing Kosminski before a court would have risked an acquittal. In that case the suspect might have escaped incarceration altogether. That's just one thing that comes to mind. Does that make sense? Clearly, without that supposed eyewitness testimony, the police didn't think they had enough to charge Kosminski, and even watching him "by day and night" (assuming it was Kosminski they were watching), they risked letting someone they believed to be a murderer kill again. I'm afraid I'll never be able to come up with a clear enough picture of this suspect and the events surrounding him to satisfy even my own "biased" beliefs. Won't stop me from trying though!
When we try to make sense of 1888 we do it for our own understanding in 2017 at the risk of speculating.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:04 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Malcolm View Post
That's an interesting thought Robert. What was the actual verdict with Cutbush? Since Broadmoor was for criminal lunatics, was he found "guilty, but insane" or something like that? I think, in the case of Cutbush, the evidence was compelling, whereas without testimony from an eyewitness, bringing Kosminski before a court would have risked an acquittal. In that case the suspect might have escaped incarceration altogether. That's just one thing that comes to mind. Does that make sense? Clearly, without that supposed eyewitness testimony, the police didn't think they had enough to charge Kosminski, and even watching him "by day and night" (assuming it was Kosminski they were watching), they risked letting someone they believed to be a murderer kill again. I'm afraid I'll never be able to come up with a clear enough picture of this suspect and the events surrounding him to satisfy even my own "biased" beliefs. Won't stop me from trying though!
I think that's roughly what Anderson indicates may have happened. As I understand it, the police could have brought charges against the suspect, who would then have appeared in the magistrate's court where the evidence of the police would have been heard and where he would have been declared unfit to plead and been sent to Broadmoor. But the public would have known the police had got their man. This didn't happen because the police had to release the suspect. Anderson wrote, 'And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice.' This is thought to refer to the ability of the French police to hold a suspect almost indefinitely while they built a case. The British police couldn't do that and according to Anderson the reason they had to release him was because 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.' The police then had to release the suspect and before they could persuade the witness the suspect's family had him committed, an act which effectively deprived the police of having their evidence heard.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.