New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"Strong suspect... no. Good suspect... yes. (???) What's the difference?"

Read me a bit more discerning, Rob! I am saying that we can NOT call him a strong suspect today. I am also saying we can NOT call him a good suspect today. BUT I acknowledge that he was apparently considered a good suspect BACK THEN!! Anderson very apparently thought him a very good suspect, MacNaghten less so - but still good enough to exemplify how one could trump Cutbush. Thatīs where the "good suspect" judgement enters my discussion.

So no, and emphatically no. In MY view, he is not strong OR good. He IS a suspect though, but that is based on the judgement of men whom I cannot really know how much to invest in. And, as I said before, in a bunch of lousy suspects, the best suspect is STILL a lousy one. How much that applies to the Ripper investigation and "Kosminski", I canīt tell - and that is the snag.

Hope you see what I mean now.

"I don't think I am oversimplifying anything."

Well, I still say you are. And I think what just went down on the thread goes to prove my point. You and John Bennett agreed that if we could establish that "Kosminski" was Aaron Kosminski, then he would be a strong suspect. That tells the whole story, really - without a shred of caserelated evidence, without knowing what it was that made the police suspect him, with the knowledge that Ostrog, for example, was ALSO suspected - on no god grounds at all! - you think that you can turn Aaron Kosminski into a strong suspect.

That is completely irrational, Rob. Chris also recognized this, thankfully. Iīm sorry, but thatīs it. There has never been a case in history where we could ascribe strong suspicion to a suspect without knowing a iota about what it was that got him suspected. And there never will be. It would potentially be a gross miscarriage of justice to do so.

We may - and should - realize that whatever it was that made him a suspect, it made Anderson enthusiastic. But to begin with, Anderson was a long way away from the factual epicenter of things, sitting behind his desk. He would have relied on what others told him, and others may have been only too willing to please the commisioner. No matter what happened and how, it earned Kosminski a place in the memoranda as a crafty guy, strongly homicidal and with a great hatred of women, particularly the prostitute class. As you well know, not many of us recognize this as an apt description of Aaron Kosminski. And when we look at the discrepancy between the memoranda Ostrog and the real one, our suspicions are further fed! If "Kosminski" WAS Aaron - and there is a vary fair chance that he was - then we may be facing a very unbecoming fitting up of the man.

As far as Iīm concerned, i think that the knife threat against his sister may well lie behind these parameters. Knifethreaters are potentially strongly homicidal, his sister was a woman, and he may have threatened her over her behaviour visavi other men, perhaps thinking her a slut. It need not be any more complicated than that, Rob!

"You are, of course, completely antagonistic to the Kozminski theory because it threatens your Lechmere theory."

That is - again - oversimplifying matters. And it makes me sad. Kosminski does NOT threaten "my" Lechmere theory. He would, if there was any evidence that Kosminski could be tied to the murder series, other than as a man mentioned - together with many others - as a possible Ripper back in 1888. Not all of them could have done it. Not one of them must have. So much for that threat, Rob!

I would also like to think that I am open to other ideas than the one I vote for myself. All I read and take in makes a difference - I just read Gordonīs book on the Thames Torso murders, and to my mind, that book lifts George Chapman up quite a bit as a useful suspect. In my book, he has moved up the ladder, and one may wonder why he should, since I am - in your opinion - terrified by anything that "threatens" Lechmere.

It is simply not true, Rob, and itīs simply not a very nice thing to suggest either. But you are in good company! Just remember that you are yourself claiming that identifying Aaron Kosminski as Andersonīs man makes him a strong suspect - on no factual evidence at all...! None!
So, Rob, before you castigate me for making my call, you may need to have a look at that bit yourself. And then we can both return as friends and try to make progress together, combining what we know and what we think. It would earn me the help of a very skilled researcher and a truly devoted man, and it may teach you a little something about flyfishing for seatrout in exchange. You could do worse, you know.

Deal?

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

HelloPaul,

Agreed.

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski isn't as bad.. because there isn't any evidence the man was even involved in the crimes. And involvement or connection to, is normally something the police note..with a name. And noted that he may have been questioned in connection with..even after the fact in biographical reminiscences.

Now I must away, my apologies.

best wishes

Phil

Ruling out Aaron Kosminski is ten times worse than ruling him in.

Until you can demonstrate that that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the Kosminski named by Swanson and Macnaghten then you are just playing silly name games. And you are downplaying valuable source material from two informed and senior sources who to all intent and purposes are stating that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper. And ignoring a third source who acknowledges that "Kosminski" was a good suspect.

And you are ruling out Kosminski because you don't know the evidence on which their conclusion was based, but that's your ignorance, an ignorance forced on you because those sources said all they thought was necessary and because the vagaries of time and fate have destroyed what other paperwork may have existed. That's not unusual. It isn't rare. There are other crimes cases where no paperwork exists at all.

So, there are three senior sources, three sources who had information that we don't, who say that Kosminski was a suspect, two of those sources overtly and tacitly saying he was Jack the Ripper. And you think it's okay to dismiss what they say and count Kosminski out. You in fact think it is better to count him out than to give fair and considered attention to three senior and informed contemporary sources and count Kosminski in. Sorry, but that's just nuts.

But, of course, one should neither count Kosminski in nor out, because we don't know why he was ever suspected and we can't assess how good the evidence against him was and therefore we can't decide whether it was good or bad evidence. And no matter how hard you try to claim that the absence of evidence supporting Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten diminishes the case against Kosminski, it doesn't diminish anything at all.

So, sure Aaron Kosminski may not be the Kosminski, but so far there is no viable alternative and there may never be a viable alternative. Produce one and maybe you'll have an argument worth listening to, but just saying maybe he wasn't the suspect because we don't have the evidence that he was doesn't mean diddly.

[Dr. John Watson]

ps the phrase Kosminski was the suspect - is evidence he was a suspect enough for me

I guess that says it all.

John

[Jenni Shelden]

ps the phrase Kosminski was the suspect - is evidence he was a suspect enough for me

[Jenni Shelden]

DSS was a policeman at the time.

I dont think he was the Ripper.

I think you just need to do much better in terms of trashing the suspect rather than just repeating the same mantra like he'll go away and not be a suspect anymore.

Even SJW cant manage that status, once named and all that

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi Fisherman,
I dont think either was the Ripper, but, the police at the time did. That's evidence

Jenni

No Jenni, the police at the time did not. The first mention of Kosminski's name came in 1894, and it came from someone who wasn't even a policeman at the time of the killings. As pointed out elsewhere, there isn't a single mention of anyone named "Kosminski" in any official or unofficial record, document, circular, report, correspondence or other writing dating back to the time of the killings and thereafter. And what you consider "evidence" isn't proof of anything except that three retired police officials, years after the killings, stated that someone named "Kosminski" was a suspect and wrote as much in personal recollections. Evidence is defined as that which would prove something, that is make something "evident" or obvious to others. It's certainly evident that three men named Kosminski, but that's not proof that Kosminski actually was a Ripper suspect. It would be the equivalent of three people writing that you stood on your head in the middle of the road seven years ago. Should anyone take that as proof that you really did stand on your head seven years ago?

John

[robhouse]

I would not agree that, even if we find conclusive proof that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski of Anderson fame, this should prove that he, as you put it, is a strong suspect.

I would agree that if we get the ID, then we know that he WAS a suspect. We also know that he probably was considered a good suspect, given Andersonīs and MacNaghtens interest in him. But that is all.

Strong suspect... no. Good suspect... yes. (???) What's the difference?

Ugh, Rob - I think you are oversimplifying matters here rather badly.

I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. I am addressing the fact that some people some to be focusing (now, not surprisingly) on the fact that we cannot be certain that Aaron was the right Kozminski. And I was proposing a question... if that was resolved, would we then be able to consider Aaron Kozminski a strong suspect in the case.

You say no, because we do not know why he was a suspect. Well, so what? That does not mean we can throw out the assertions by Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten.




ehhh. I was going to reply more fully, but what is the point really. You are, of course, completely antagonistic to the Kozminski theory because it threatens your Lechmere theory.

RH

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Fisherman,
I dont think either was the Ripper, but, the police at the time did. That's evidence

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi John,
exactly, and they either couldnt do anything with the info (as implied in the Kosminski instance) or choose not to

Jenni

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"There is more evidence against him than any modern suspect"

Not at all, Jenni. How could there be, given the fact that we know nothing about what evidence there was? Strange reasoning, to my mind, I must say. But Iīve seen it before, of course.

I would submit that in terms of circumstantial evidence, Charles Lechmere has Aaron Kosminski well and truly beaten! In his case, we CAN point to a number of things that are potentially very damning.

But thatīs for another thread, of course, of course ...

The best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

Chris, you sum up my opinion perfectly. The problem is not knowing what led them to believe it. However, i do think that they did shows there was a reason.

In the same way that many of these officials claimed the 'Dear Boss' letter was written by a journalist. Perhaps they had acces to information that we today do not.

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris, you sum up my opinion perfectly. The problem is not knowing what led them to believe it. However, i do think that they did shows there was a reason.

There is more evidence against him than any modern suspect, because we know he was suspected at the time, by people who were in a position to be able to investigate him, right?

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Chris; his viability as a suspect is tied to the quality and amount of evidence there once was against him, and NOTHING ELSE!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Yes I would. And it would be a landmark day for Ripperology should that proof arise!

Just to continue disagreeing with John, while I'm in no real doubt that 'Kosminski' was Aaron Kozminski, and while I think that makes Aaron a historically important suspect, I don't think it makes him a strong one. Whatever exactly happened at the Seaside Home, there are still the opinions of all the other senior officers to contend with, including Macnaghten and his "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

[Fisherman]

Rob House (to John Bennett):

"what if it could be shown, beyond a doubt, that Aaron was the right Kozminski? Then would you accept that Aaron is a strong suspect in the case?"

Ugh, Rob - I think you are oversimplifying matters here rather badly. Plus I am not sure that you are taking height for the fact that this must be a question in two levels, if you like.

I would not agree that, even if we find conclusive proof that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski of Anderson fame, this should prove that he, as you put it, is a strong suspect.

Why would I? It would be foolhardy to do so. And why? Well,because even if we DO get the ID, we are still as much in the dark as ever about the reasons he was suspected. This is an almightily heavy parameter - in fact, the ONLY parameter that may guide us to true knowledge about the viability of the accusations against Kosminski!

I would agree that if we get the ID, then we know that he WAS a suspect. We also know that he probably was considered a good suspect, given Andersonīs and MacNaghtens interest in him. But that is all. STILL no evidence, knitting him to the crimes, remember? And without that, he cannot be a strong suspect. Plus, letīs keep in mind that in a case with no good suspects at all, the best one is still a bad one.

MacNaghten teaches us that Kosminski was roughly on par with Ostrog in his eyes; Ostrog, of whom we can say that whatever it was that once pointed HIS way, it was dead wrong. No evidence can have been there. At worst, there could have been allegations by somebody that Ostrog was the killer, that he had confessed in private or so on. Whatever it was, it got him into the memoranda, on par with Kosminski.

It therefore applies, that Kosminski also may have been tagged by the same weak pointers! This, I would say, must be beyond dispute - the evidence against Aaron Kosminski, accepting that he was THE Kosminski, may have been catastrophically weak, as we see things today. The ID process, if it took place the way most people think it did, was, in the end, a failure, we know that. Of course, Anderson tells us that it was a total success, but for the willingness of the witness to speak up in court. But there are such things as overenthusiasm, misinterpretations and a will to please people in high command. Combine this with the very clear errors aascribed to Kosminski after the ID process, and the very lack-lustre reactions of Littlechild, Smith, Abberline ... and I say that claiming that a positive ID of Aaron as the Kosminski Anderson spoke of is anything but material enough to make him a strong suspect today.

The best,
Fisherman