Could the Police Really Have Kept Kosminski's Incarceration a Secret?

[c.d.]

I have always felt that Kosminski's incarceration and the apparent ability of the police to keep it secret flies in the face of human nature. It is hard to believe that the police simply put him in an asylum, shook hands all around and then went off for a few pints. You would expect a steady stream of Scotland Yard detectives in and out of Colney Hatch to question him as well as simply wanting to see "Jack the Ripper." Would they have informed the asylum administrators of who they had in their possession? Would the asylum guards eventually have caught on and started spreading rumors? Would someone in the know ever have had a few pints too many and spilled the beans?

It just seems to be that the bigger the secret the harder it is to keep.

What do you think?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

under wraps

Hello CD. Good idea for a thread.

In broad outline, I agree; however, HM government did a fair job of keeping the truth about Frank Millen and the Jubilee dynamite plot under wraps--until about the 21 st C.

Cheers.
LC

[Barnaby]

I agree, CD. I know little about the politics of the day but on the surface this would seem very odd. When the police and government have been taking a beating for failing to catch the killer, why cover up the fact that they actually caught him? Maybe if the killer was Prince Eddy, maybe if it exposed a grave police/state error (e.g., James Kelly and his escape from Broadmoor), but not for a local Polish Jew, and not to "spare the family" for Druitt.

Regarding Kosminski, the only scenario for keeping it secret that I can envision is if the police had reasonable suspicion but were not quite certain that he was the killer. They wouldn't want to come out with a "We caught Jack the Ripper!" and then have another Ripper victim turn up shortly thereafter. But after a number of years with no classic Ripper style murders occurring, one would think that they would make this announcement and take the credit for their work.

[The Good Michael]

Regarding Kosminski, the only scenario for keeping it secret that I can envision is if the police had reasonable suspicion but were not quite certain that he was the killer. They wouldn't want to come out with a "We caught Jack the Ripper!" and then have another Ripper victim turn up shortly thereafter. But after a number of years with no classic Ripper style murders occurring, one would think that they would make this announcement and take the credit for their work.

What if they weren't 100% sure... even after several years, but some felt they got the right guy? Remember that there were other, similar murders after the canonicals. If they had been watching him, but then others died, they still may have been pretty sure, but without absolute proof. Still, he was a loony and he fit what they were looking for and perhaps even the family was frightened of him and associating with him. So, keep him caged, but without absolute proof, they couldn't really talk about it.

Mike

[Barnaby]

We debate the murders after Kelly because they lacked certain features common to most of the canonicals. After a few years without a prototypical JTR murder, why not make the announcement? Worst case scenario (which did not occur), the police could claim a copy cat.

[The Good Michael]

When you make an announcement like that, someone gets credit and not just the department. If there was disagreement on who the killer was (and we know there was), there wouldn't be an announcement that would be satisfactory.

Cheers,

Mike

[Wickerman]

The irony appears to be that the police were not sure who the killer was, and interest appeared to fade, and likewise, this killer had made fools of and had outwitted the (arguably) best police force in the world, then also lost interest in his infamy.
Both the police & the killer returned to their normal roles in life.

Is that what we are supposed to believe?

[Abby Normal]

I agree, CD. I know little about the politics of the day but on the surface this would seem very odd. When the police and government have been taking a beating for failing to catch the killer, why cover up the fact that they actually caught him? Maybe if the killer was Prince Eddy, maybe if it exposed a grave police/state error (e.g., James Kelly and his escape from Broadmoor), but not for a local Polish Jew, and not to "spare the family" for Druitt.

Regarding Kosminski, the only scenario for keeping it secret that I can envision is if the police had reasonable suspicion but were not quite certain that he was the killer. They wouldn't want to come out with a "We caught Jack the Ripper!" and then have another Ripper victim turn up shortly thereafter. But after a number of years with no classic Ripper style murders occurring, one would think that they would make this announcement and take the credit for their work.

totally agree. especially after Andersons proclamations. you would think the flood gates would have opened. instead we have other police officials with diferent suspects and theories.

[Scott Nelson]

The identification of the Kosminski suspect, if it did take place as described, was such a mundane affair, it attracted little attention from either police force. Someone from either Scotland Yard or the City Police may have decided to have it done on a whim. The Yard then sent the suspect along with a few City Police to a secure place for the proceeding. It fails and the suspect is returned without mention in any City Police report that survived (sans the recollections of Robert Sagar). It made such a inconsequential impact on Major Henry Smith, he never bothers to mention it. In 1892 or 1893, a few officials at the Yard sit down and draw up their shortlist of preferred suspects.

[Errata]

I imagine the secret would be easy to keep if the police only made the determination that he was Jack the Ripper after a period of time. There is no causal relationship between the end of the murders and Kosminski's commitment. Ten years down the road, no other murders have happened, looking back on all the suspects and all the possibilities, one man fits everything some officials assumed about the murderer. Kosminski. But there is no evidence, there isn't even concord. While some men may be privately certain that they know who Jack was, they can't prove it, and there are some problems. Like what happens when the press asks why didn't they arrest him, or what happens when some enterprising reporter points out that the murders stopped almost three years before his commitment. Or what happens when family members come forward with possible proof that he couldn't be the killer. So they can drop smug hints in their biographies, but they can never announce what they cannot prove.

In other words, they didn't throw him in an asylum and shake hands. They look back on it years later and decided that they had got their man.

Which I imagine would be easy enough to determine. When cops get their man, they stop looking for him. Did the cops stop looking for Jack in June-ish of 1891?

[pinkmoon]

Next to Druitt kosminski is my favourite suspect however if the police had anything at all on him we would know I personnel think because he lived in the area at the time of the murders and picked up a knife to a family member two years later he fell into the category of ANY suspect is a good suspect when you've got NO suspect. sir Melville picked Druitt over kos I'm sure he would have known if their was anything at all against our poor Jewish suspect.

[The Good Michael]

back to the question: Yes.

If some of the police knew for a fact Kosminski was the murderer but hadn't enough definitive proof to satisfy all officials, why not just leave him in a place he'll never get out of? You can't shout to the world you have your man if others are going to disagree and fight over your statement. Who knows, enough support against your case, regardless of its veracity, and a killer gets let out.

Mike

[Sally]

If some of the police knew for a fact Kosminski was the murderer but hadn't enough definitive proof to satisfy all officials, why not just leave him in a place he'll never get out of?

I think you're spot on there Mike.

Also - I'm not sure how this would've worked back then - but would it even have been viable to take an officially insane man to trial for murder?

[The Good Michael]

I think you're spot on there Mike.

Also - I'm not sure how this would've worked back then - but would it even have been viable to take an officially insane man to trial for murder?

The insanity thing let James Kelly off the hook who was another viable Ripper suspect (after the fact). I believe the Trial of Lunatics law was from 1883 and allowed a person to be guilty, but if found insane, incarcerated the rest of his/her life. James Kelly seems to have just made it into the safety of that law with the help of a letter from his mother-in-law. Still, he did go to trial. So, yes, I think Kosminski would have gone to trial had he been arrested as the murderer with full support of the police officials. But, as there was disagreement by so many people, maybe the best that could be hoped for was an agreement with family to keep the guy in the nuthouse forever. Indeed, it does seem the family fully supported keeping him locked up, so nothing could have been easier.

Of course this is all a 'what if' scenario as posed by the OP's question?

Cheers,

Mike

[Sally]

The insanity thing let James Kelly off the hook who was another viable Ripper suspect (after the fact). I believe the Trial of Lunatics law was from 1883 and allowed a person to be guilty, but if found insane, incarcerated the rest of his/her life. James Kelly seems to have just made it into the safety of that law with the help of a letter from his mother-in-law. Still, he did go to trial. So, yes, I think Kosminski would have gone to trial had he been arrested as the murderer with full support of the police officials. But, as there was disagreement by so many people, maybe the best that could be hoped for was an agreement with family to keep the guy in the nuthouse forever. Indeed, it does seem the family fully supported keeping him locked up, so nothing could have been easier.

Of course this is all a 'what if' scenario as posed by the OP's question?

Cheers,

Mike

Thanks Mike - interesting to learn about Trial of Lunatics law. So

So even if Kosminksi gone to trial he wouldn't have been executed. I can see how that would've gone down with the public - the press would've had a field day.

I suppose also, Kosminksi was in poor physical health and didn't really eat, so the expectation by family and police officials may have been that he wouldn't live for long anyway - which proved to be the case.