Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[Trevor Marriott]

First of all, the police couldn't have publicly declared that Kozminski was positively identified, since the witness refused to testify. Secondly, if they had, it would have caused mayhem in the East End... riots, etc.

What are you suggesting that they would have done then? You seem to have no sense of proper legal or police procedure, or even common sense.

RH

I have already suggested what they could and have done but you seem to not want to take it in. Again you are hell bent on resorting to verbal abuse as you always seem to do when I challenge your theories and the scenarios you keep putting forward. But I am not going to stoop to your level

I would suggest you remove those blinkers and stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes with your obsession with Kosminski being the ripper.

[lynn cates]

not wacky

Hello Robert. Not wacky at all. If you need to get someone off the street, you can find a way.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

If Anderson was so keen to avoid anti Jewish disturbances then why on earth did he later go into print blaming a Jewish suspect?

[Robert]

I know this sounds wacky, but would it have been possible for the police to charge an obvious lunatic with some criminal offence, however minor - resisting arrest, causing damage to asylum facilities, uttering obscenities - specifically with the aim of getting him found unfit to plead and packing him off to Broadmoor? If they adopted such a harsh policy, they could have got rid of both David Cohen and Aaron Kosminski to Berkshire. There would have been no need to falsify anything or collude with anyone : the whole thing would have been done strictly, or ultra-strictly, by the book.

[lynn cates]

understatement

Hello Mac.

"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."

You, good sir, are a master of understatement.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

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 ?

First of all, the police couldn't have publicly declared that Kozminski was positively identified, since the witness refused to testify. Secondly, if they had, it would have caused mayhem in the East End... riots, etc.

What are you suggesting that they would have done then? You seem to have no sense of proper legal or police procedure, or even common sense.

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 ?

[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]

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,

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

[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]

Or rather, would have done this?

[Robert]

Hi Chris

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