Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[Bridewell]

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,

Nor can I. A gate arrest at the asylum when he was released on the first occasion perhaps?

[Bridewell]

Plus the fact if a doctor was told all about Kosminski and his ripper connection would any doctor want to release him and maybe allow him to kill again and them have that persons murder on their conscience.

Trevor,

Why would this be on a doctor's conscience? His job would be simply to determine whether or not the patient was insane - a purely clinical decision surely? A much greater crisis of conscience would arise if he certified a sane man on the basis of police opinion that said man was JtR.

[Mayerling]

The populace would assume that anybody sharing the same last name was related to the suspect and that asylum staff knew who he was, but didn't say anything.

People having the last name of "Hitler" changed their names during and after WWII. Similarly with "Oswald" after JFK's assassination.

Hi Scott,

It's a good point, and fortunately the so-called suspects all have rather unusual nams (the most "common one" I came think of is "Bury", though "Stephen" comes close). But it still does not explain why anyone in this poor area of London would be a threat if a) they are too poor to mount a threat; and b) the police are now also looking at the suspects, so that it is suicidal to bring oneself into the ken of the police. And as for the issue of the attack on asylums and their staff - really now? With bombs or battering rams?

Jeff

[Chris]

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,

Nor can I. A gate arrest at the asylum when he was released on the first occasion perhaps?

I don't think anyone has suggested that Aaron Kozminski was allowed out of the asylum for an identification parade. Swanson wrote that the attempted identification took place before he was sent to Colney Hatch. Anderson, in the serial version of his memoirs, wrote that his suspect was identified "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum", but that phrase was omitted from the book version.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Why would this be on a doctor's conscience? His job would be simply to determine whether or not the patient was insane - a purely clinical decision surely? A much greater crisis of conscience would arise if he certified a sane man on the basis of police opinion that said man was JtR.

A medical decision based on what he had been able to assess from a physical and mental examination and also what he had been told by the police and the family.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think anyone has suggested that Aaron Kozminski was allowed out of the asylum for an identification parade. Swanson wrote that the attempted identification took place before he was sent to Colney Hatch. Anderson, in the serial version of his memoirs, wrote that his suspect was identified "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum", but that phrase was omitted from the book version.

Also remember Swanson and Andersons account conflict with each other.

[Bridewell]

"The Press Association is authorised to state that there is absolutely no foundation for a report that "Jack the Ripper" has been arrested in London.

Whilst it's tempting to conclude that the authorisation came from Scotland Yard, this is not overtly stated. If Scotland Yard was the source, why would the article not specifically make that attribution and thus give the statement much greater weight. By wording it as they have done, the article invites the reader to assume that the authorisation was given by Scotland Yard. By not making that specific attribution they don't invite Scotland Yard to refute it.

As for the timing, vis-a-vis Kosminski, the article alludes to a medical student which Aaron Kosminski certainly wasn't, so I don't see the relevance.

[robhouse]

Hi RH,

I have to ask, what is the security threat to the relatives, asylum staff, etc. from anyone by divulging the name of the suspect? We have here (as far as we can surmise - short of wild speculations concerning "the highest in the land" a la Stephen Knight) that the victims are (with apologies to those victims) common prostitutes. Even Mary Kelly is a common prostitute. For members of their circles of friends or relatives (mostly on the bottom stratum of society) to go out of their way to wreak vengeance on relatives of say Kosminski, Osrog, Druitt, Cutbush, etc. is hard to believe. First the police would be supposedly keeping tabs on the suspects and note people who came around to their addresses too frequently. Secondly, while Kosminski and Osrog might reside nearby, the Druitt family are in Wimborne, and Cutbush is middle class - how would denizens of the East End approach them to do harm to them or their families. And assaults on asylums and their staffs? How about an attack reminiscent of the "Clerkenwall Outrage" of 1868? You might recall you needed a well organized group to pull off that one, with enough money to cover the expenses. This from the relatives of "Long Liz" or or Annie Chapman?

I may mention that some of the suspects would be extremely dangerous to approach with hostile intent. Imagine looking murderous with a weapon at Bury, Cream, Deeming, or Chapman. Who do you think would end up being hurt or killed.

On the other hand your third reason: "probably illegal" is more likely the reason. The Yard had enough headaches from the case to wish to bury it and go on with more current events and problems. They did not need to fight off slander suits from various families or even the named suspects regarding what were technically still wild allegations of identification. That is most likely to be the reason for police reticence.

Jeff

First of all, I think you seem to be lacking a sense of how much hysteria surrounded the Ripper murders. It is not the victim's relatives who would do the attacking, it is the East End working class people in general. Are you aware how many people turned out to see the funeral of the victims, all prostitutes with little f any family in the area... tens of thousands of people.

Now imagine the police releasing a statement saying, "Well, we believe the Ripper is this guy named Kozminski over on Providence Street". The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

Also... in the eyes of the law, he was innocent. The police cannot make a public statement that such-and-such person is probably guilty. It would be libel. Imagine if someone made such a statement about you.

It is incredible to me that people still don't seem to get this.

RH

[Mr Lucky]

Actually I realized it was a joke, but my pedantic side got the better of me. Sorry about that.

Hi Jeff

So you realised it was a joke, so you edited the smilies out, so that everyone else would think I'm being serious ?

Pedantic? That isn't being pedantic, that's not the right word at all.

[Mayerling]

First of all, I think you seem to be lacking a sense of how much hysteria surrounded the Ripper murders. It is not the victim's relatives who would do the attacking, it is the East End working class people in general. Are you aware how many people turned out to see the funeral of the victims, all prostitutes with little f any family in the area... tens of thousands of people.

Now imagine the police releasing a statement saying, "Well, we believe the Ripper is this guy named Kozminski over on Providence Street". The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

Also... in the eyes of the law, he was innocent. The police cannot make a public statement that such-and-such person is probably guilty. It would be libel. Imagine if someone made such a statement about you.

It is incredible to me that people still don't seem to get this.

RH

Hi RH,

I'd agree with your about the risk of mob response in the East End in 1888 and early 1889. But after that I think it could be somewhat discounted. Yes there would be at least three more killings ascribed to the Ripper in the period from Mary Kelly's death to 1891, but they were few and far between (not five or six within a four month period). There were also rumors that the Ripper was dead - possibly a suicide. It would have required more intensive homicidal acts to set a mob going again (and the Tamworth news item is from July 1890 - already at a point that other crimes and events are gaining more notice).

As for the anti-Jewish riots, I will grant that to you - but if the name of the perpetrator was not Jewish (like Deeming or Druitt or Gull or Stephen or Bury) there would not be an anti-Jewish mob. However I can't see a mob from the East End headed to Gull's home in the West End without facing real force - like Warren called out in the Trafalgar Square riots.

I still feel that the more likely reason was what you mentioned - the legal ramifications regarding slandering the "good name" of the suspects.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

Nope, not Magda Lupescu either. Well, we're gradually shortening the list.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

Nope, not Magda Lupescu either. Well, we're gradually shortening the list.

Poor Magda, "As the gentleman came to her rescue...."

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Rob

The security situation would be simply out of hand. He would be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb, and his family too. And probably there would be a Jewish riot. Do you imagine the police would have wanted that?

I think that folk underestimate the traditional cussedness/bloody mindedness of the Londoners...London was historically something of a hotbed...and we're talking just over twenty years after the Hyde Park Railings affair, and Bloody Sunday was only 1887 after all.

It ain't stiff upper lip and dignified protest in 19th century London...and the readiness of the East End to rise up and take on all comers can be readily seen as late as the Battle of Cable Street in 1936, maybe even in the 1990 poll tax riots.

All the best

Dave

[Mayerling]

Hi Dave,

Was the "Cable Street" Riot of 1936 the confrontation with Mosley's Fascists?

Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Yes Jeff, that's the one...

All the best

Dave