Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[Cogidubnus]

We are talking about a personal letter from a woman to her friends back home... it was not an official dispatch. Besides, if I understand correctly... telegrams were expensive and charged by the word I think.

Hi Rob

No I was wondering (not very clearly) whether the rumours, if they had been that serious, wouldn't have been picked up by a Press Agency and telegraphed as part of a news feed...but in this case presumably not

Be interesting to see the date on that Nova Scotia paper if/when it surfaces

All the best

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

You are incorrect.

RH

Edit: As to your first point, I have responded to this idea already about 100 times. As to your second point... if the police were trying to keep this hush-hush, as I assume they were, they would have made sure it didn't end up in his file.

I removed the non-nice stuff.....

Well if the ID did take place why would the police want to hush it up. They knew the couldn't bring him to trial due to lack of evidence. What mileage was to be had by letting him carry on as normal.

They could have taken him back to the asylum got him certified locked away. Then made a public announcement the killers identity is known and he can kill nor more but we cannot bring him to trial because he is mad.

That way they would have got the public back on their side and regained their credibility

Abberline in 1903 even makes this remark "Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

The simple fact is that they didn't even consider that because Aaron Kosminski was never a prime suspect then and never one 125 years later

[Robert]

I checked the Ancestry UK incoming lists for port of departure Halifax and date 1890. The records for this seem to start at 1891.

[Chris]

Well if the ID did take place why would the police want to hush it up. They knew the couldn't bring him to trial due to lack of evidence. What mileage was to be had by letting him carry on as normal.

They could have taken him back to the asylum got him certified locked away. Then made a public announcement the killers identity is known and he can kill nor more but we cannot bring him to trial because he is mad.

It's rather difficult to make sense of this, but I don't really think lunatic asylums were intended to provide a means of the police locking up people whom they suspected of having committed crimes, but against whom they lacked evidence. Perhaps you can cite an occasion on which that happened, but I think the more usual way around the problem would be for the police to manufacture some evidence and then proceed via the criminal courts.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's rather difficult to make sense of this, but I don't really think lunatic asylums were intended to provide a means of the police locking up people whom they suspected of having committed crimes, but against whom they lacked evidence. Perhaps you can cite an occasion on which that happened, but I think the more usual way around the problem would be for the police to manufacture some evidence and then proceed via the criminal courts.

Ways and means Act. No likelihood of criminal proceedings no help from a court either what are they to do let him run free.

After all take a look at the minor things that got him certified later on. I would expect murder suspect to have been a big factor in making some decisions way back then and certainly something written on an asylum record, speaking of which I am so glad that has survived at least we can stop the old chestnut being used that "Well we don't know what was in the files because they are missing" which we have had to endure over the years.

I have been involved in cases where a person suffering from a mental illness has committed a crime and been arrested and then not charged but simply certified under the mental health act.

[Chris]

Trevor Marriott

Again, it's difficult to understand quite what you're suggesting. (Some punctuation might help.)

Obviously when people who had committed crimes were found to be insane, they would be committed to an asylum rather than being tried. But you seem to be suggesting that when suspects were not found to be insane, and when the police didn't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, they would have them certified insane and locked up instead.

As I said, perhaps you can give us some evidence that this happened, but it sounds like an unfeasibly risky way of proceeding to me. For example, talking of asylum records, what would the asylum be told in these cases - "The man may not appear to be insane, but please have a word with CID before discharging him" ?

[Robert]

Hi Chris

Didn't Martin suggest that they did this in his CDD?

[Robert]

Or rather, would have done this?

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Phil

Here's another quote from just the week before yours, Jack the Ripper in an asylum;-

'DEATH OF "JACK THE RIPPER."

For about two years past there has been a man whose name has never been ascertained, but who has been termed "Jack the Ripper," living in the neighbourhood of Upper Holloway. He was a tall, very thin, and strange individual, and was in the habit of walking at a very fast pace, and in an eccentric way through Highgate and the northern suburbs. It appears that a short time ago he was sent to the Islington Infirmary as a wandering lunatic and died two days after, He was frequently asked why he walked at such a pace and in such a manner, and always replied that he did so for the benefit of his health and that the doctor had told him he must expand his lungs.'

The Sheffield Evening Telegraph and Star, 17 July 1890

'tall, very thin' = Fleming !

[Robert]

You've done it now : you've used the 'F' word.

[Chris]

Didn't Martin suggest that they did this in his CDD?

I'm not sure, but I'd still be sceptical, unless there's good evidence that it was done. For obvious reasons, having someone confined to an asylum if they weren't really insane would have been a serious offence. Not that I think police officers were necessarily incapable of committing serious offences, but surely this would be particularly risky, in that it would require the collusion of doctors and asylum staff.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just one question from me.

Why was Tommy Cutbush, who did no more than stab some poor lass around the arse region, which is debatable as his solicitor felt there were good grounds for his innocence, sent to England's high security prison for dangerous, homicidal lunatics; while Aaron Kosminski, aka Jack the Ripper, was allowed to lounge around in a local asylum?

Something's not right there.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure, but I'd still be sceptical, unless there's good evidence that it was done. For obvious reasons, having someone confined to an asylum if they weren't really insane would have been a serious offence. Not that I think police officers were necessarily incapable of committing serious offences, but surely this would be particularly risky, in that it would require the collusion of doctors and asylum staff.

Well Aaron Kosminski was taken and incarcerated for three days believed to be mad/insane. I believe the procedure was that the authorities then had by law three days to assess him. He was then released after three days not being certified as mad/insane

Surely if there had been any suggestion of him being the ripper during that period the doctors would not have released him especially if the police had said "We know he is the killer because he has been identified but we have no evidence"

There would be no risk and no collusion a simple practical exercise with all parties working together to get a killer of the streets so he could kill no more, after all everyone was suggesting the killing were committed by a madman.

After all he was later formally certified for the heinous crimes of eating out of the gutter and hand cranking in the street that got him locked away for life didn't it ?

I can also hardly see asylum authorities allowing the police to take a patient under their care out for the purpose of an ID parade,

[robhouse]

The reason Kozminski was allowed to walk free is that the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him. Anderson says this numerous times, and it is clear that the police simply followed the correct legal procedure. You cannot just put someone away for suspecting them of being guilty, or even for believing them to be guilty. You have to prove guilt in a court of law. And the police lacked sufficient evidence to do so, so Kozminski was released. There was really no option legally but to release him. I think the police may have had a hand in eventually convincing the family to have him put away, and making sure that he was never released. And if this is what happened, then I am certain they would have wanted to keep quiet about it. To go parading around boasting about capturing the Ripper would have been idiotic, illegal, and would have been a major security risk for the Kozminski family, for East End Jews in general, for the staff at the asylum etc... risk of being sued for libel etc.

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

The reason Kozminski was allowed to walk free is that the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him. Anderson says this numerous times, and it is clear that the police simply followed the correct legal procedure. You cannot just put someone away for suspecting them of being guilty, or even for believing them to be guilty. You have to prove guilt in a court of law. And the police lacked sufficient evidence to do so, so Kozminski was released. There was really no option legally but to release him. I think the police may have had a hand in eventually convincing the family to have him put away, and making sure that he was never released. And if this is what happened, then I am certain they would have wanted to keep quiet about it. To go parading around boasting about capturing the Ripper would have been idiotic, illegal, and would have been a major security risk for the Kozminski family, for East End Jews in general, for the staff at the asylum etc... risk of being sued for libel etc.

RH

And so would letting him walk free to kill again after supposedly having him positively identified.

You don't have to prove to a court that someone is mad

Risk being sue for libel what are you on about. As I have explained there were reasons why he was taken to the asylum and assessed clearly on what was known at that time was not sufficient, But adding to that the fact that the police could say we have had him positively identified as being the ripper I am sure that would have been enough to tip the scales.

I know which choice any normal person in authority would have made given those circumstances but of course that doesn't sit to well with your scenario does it ?