Head to Head

[Roy Corduroy]

A comparison of Aaron Kosminski (Mr K) and Dr. Frances Tumblety (Dr T)

_________________________________

Later named in writing by top police official(s) as suspect Mr K - Yes / Dr T - Yes

Named in 1888 as suspect Mr K - No / Dr T - Yes

Was in London 1888 Mr K - Yes / Dr T - Yes

Local man Mr K - Yes / Dr T - No

Age Mr K – 23 / Dr T - 55

Fit Witness Descriptions Mr K - No Data / Dr T - Taller than descriptions

Professed hated of women Mr K - Unknown / Dr T - Yes

Charged with other crimes, London 1888 Mr K - No / Dr T - Yes

Fled London 1888 Mr K - No / Dr T Yes

Later subject to secret witness ID test Mr K - Yes / Dr T - No

Later commited insane Mr K - Yes / Dr T - No

__________________________________

Thank you and your comments are welcome,

Roy

[robhouse]

Professed hated of women Mr K - Unknown / Dr T - Yes

"He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies"

Granted this is based on Macnaghten's memo, which has errors, but still it may well be true.

[Christine]

Charged with other crimes, London 1888 Mr K - No / Dr T - Yes

He was committed to a mental hospital after attacking his sister with a knife. If it hadn't been a relative he probably would have been charged, although sometimes they don't bother charging people who are obviously going to be committed anyhow as a trial wouldn't accomplish much.

[c.d.]

I have always believed that Tumblety's alleged hatred of women was simply a way to account for never being involved with them.

I also can't see Tumblety hating women in general. It would take too much time away from himself.

c.d.

[Dan Norder]

Later subject to secret witness ID test Mr K - Yes / Dr T - No

That should be an "alleged" at best for Kosminski.

[caz]

I'm beginning to think anyone with a recognised mental health problem can probably be binned - in every sense. Give 'em back their dignity is what I say.

And a six foot tall velvet-clad whoopsie who had no problem getting real attention wherever he went would not have ruined his fingernails getting the anonymous variety from street women - a non-starter if ever I saw one.

Boils down to the 1888 view of sexual insanity.

Sexual inanity more like.

Nothing wrong with a serial killer's sense of right and wrong if he can avoid the rope.

Love,

Scepticaz
X

[Septic Blue]

A comparison of Aaron Kosminski (Mr K) and Dr. Frances Tumblety (Dr T)

"Aaron Kosminski" (my emphasis)

Later named in writing by top police official(s) as suspect Mr K - Yes / Dr T - Yes

We do not know that Aaron Kosminski was ever suspected by anyone of being Jack the Ripper:

- Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" (surname only) was quite possibly a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name

- Swanson's purported reference to "Kosminski" may have been based entirely on Macnaghten's reference; as we do not know that any part of the so-called Swanson Marginalia is of genuine provenance

Later subject to secret witness ID test Mr K - Yes / Dr T - No

We do not know that any semblance of an identification - such as the one described by Anderson, and then purportedly described by Swanson - ever took place: i.e., one, in which a witness having potentially damning evidence was simply allowed to bow out, as a matter of personal preference.


Colin

[Christine]

Dan and Colin--I'm a little confused. Do you mean that Anderson and Swanson made the whole thing up, or that the Swanson marginalia are just useless? Because even if you think the marginalia was an outright forgery, Macnaghten was a pompous poser, and Anderson was just out to impress everyone with his infallibility, surely there was some sort of tentative identification of a Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness.

I agree that any claims about a Jew not wanting to testify against a Jew are questionable, at best. If it was really a positive ID, it seems like something more would have been said to someone, sometime. And you have to deal with the mistakes, or maybe it wasn't even Kosminkski.

But surely something took place, and if it was a different Polish Jew then we don't seem to have any record of the police ever questioning him, whereas Kosminski pops up as a suspect everywhere.

What do you think really did happen, if not a secret ID session with Kosminski at some sort of home?

[Septic Blue]

Do you mean that Anderson and Swanson made the whole thing up, ...?

I can easily accept a scenario, in which a witness was asked to identify a suspect, whereupon he insisted that he couldn't be sure. A subpoena would have been utterly useless; and Anderson might have been tempted to embellish his description of this turn of events, in the years that followed.

But, I will not believe for a solitary second, that a suspect and witness were inexplicably brought together in some distantly removed "Seaside Home"; merely for the witness to then refuse to give testimony, on the basis of personal preference; and for the authorities to then simply call it a day. No Way !!!

Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum

The witness ("the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him."), upon refusal to give potentially damning testimony, on the basis of personal preference, would have been quickly acquainted with the term: "Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum".

Because even if you think the marginalia was an outright forgery, ...

I do !!!

Macnaghten was a pompous poser, ...

I do !!!

and Anderson was just out to impress everyone with his infallibility, ...

I do !!!

surely there was some sort of tentative identification of a Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness.

So says the so-called Swanson Marginalia !!!

I agree that any claims about a Jew not wanting to testify against a Jew are questionable, at best. If it was really a positive ID, it seems like something more would have been said to someone, sometime.

Again: Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum

But surely something took place, and if it was a different Polish Jew then we don't seem to have any record of the police ever questioning him, whereas Kosminski pops up as a suspect everywhere.

"... whereas Kosminski pops up as a suspect everywhere."

We have a grand total of two recorded references to "Kosminski" (surname only):

- Amongst the assertions of Melville Macnaghten

- Amongst the purported assertions of Donald Swanson


Colin

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you for your input everyone, and please carry on.

As to Dr. T. being taller than descriptions, he was 5'10'', and the authors Evan and Gainey said:

"Logic dictates that whilst the killer was with his victim he would not be raising himself to his full stature and making himself conspicuous. On the contrary, he would slouch and lean over her whilst talking, in order to lessen his profile to any witness."

In the Chapman case, in which the victim was 5 ft tall, the witness Mrs. Long's statement of height of the man she saw was consistent in her inquest testimony, and as stated by Chief Inspector Swanson in his Oct 19th report. "A little taller than deceased."

In the Eddowes case, in which the victim was also 5 ft tall, there is variance. Swanson, in the 19th Oct report, gives the height reported by Mr. Lawende to be 5 ft 7 or 8 inches. But at the inquest, Lawnede simply said "he was taller than she was." Mr. Levy, at the inquest, said "about 3 inches taller than the woman."

Only three murders are attributed to Tumblety. In the Nichols case, there is no height issue, because no witness say her with a man.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

"Logic dictates that whilst the killer was with his victim he would not be raising himself to his full stature and making himself conspicuous. On the contrary, he would slouch and lean over her whilst talking, in order to lessen his profile to any witness."

But then he'd just look like a tall man slouching, rather than a shorter man.

All the best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

Dan and Colin--I'm a little confused. Do you mean that Anderson and Swanson made the whole thing up, or that the Swanson marginalia are just useless?

My position is that there are a number of different quite plausible explanations for what really happened and that Swanson and Anderson made claims about later.

I don't think either of them made up the whole thing. Certainly there was a Kosminski who was Jewish and was put in an asylum. But we do know that certain of the facts that were claimed about this suspect simply were not true -- for example, that Kosminski had died when he was definitely still alive. I think it's quite reckless to assume that only those things that can be proven to have been inaccurate were inaccurate... certainly some if not most of the other information might be wrong as well.

And there is more than one reason for why that information is wrong. Clearly some part of it is just bad memory of details at work. Just how bad the memories were is unknown, but it could have been very bad indeed. Some of the claims made that have been shown to be in error are so far from the truth and would have no known reason for anyone to have lied about can only be chalked up to very bad memories. Also, it certainly is not unreasonable to think that Anderson might have been trying to mislead people about what exactly had happened so he could try to claim he had caught the Ripper. Certainly all sorts of other people then and now mislead people, either intentionally or because they have deluded themselves as well, to try to convince them they know who the Ripper was. It's human nature, and Anderson, both by his nature and his unique position, has far more of an incentive to wish to present an inaccurate version of events.

Martin Fido's David Cohen theory has it that there were mistaken memories but that there was a Jewish suspect, just that he was not Kosminski. That's another plausible explanation.

Because even if you think the marginalia was an outright forgery, Macnaghten was a pompous poser, and Anderson was just out to impress everyone with his infallibility, surely there was some sort of tentative identification of a Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness.

We don't really know that any Jewish witness identified a Jewish suspect. If Stewart Evans' theory that the Seaside Home reference was a confused recollection of Lawende failing to identify Sadler, who had previously been identified by someone from the Seamen's Home (but not as the Ripper but as someone who had sold a bloody knife), then there was a Jewish witness who had seen the Ripper but did not ID the non-Jewish suspect and a non-Jewish witness one who did not see the Ripper but did ID the same suspect as someone he had seen elsewhere. If the theory that the "unhesitatingly identified" and "refused to testify" portions of the story came from Violenia's identification of Piser, and that Jews would protect their own kind from inquiries also came from Piser being hidden by his family, then a non-Jew did positively ID a Jew.

What do you think really did happen, if not a secret ID session with Kosminski at some sort of home?

I gave a variety of options about what could have happened above already, but the whole bit about the session having been secret doesn't ring true either. It would have had to have been secret not only from the public but also from other police for the others to say Anderson's claims were wrong. There's no good reason to think Anderson would have taken such a direct involvement or would have excluded the other police. We also know they did plenty of attempted identifications that were not secret and which were known about by the press, so there doesn't seem to be a good reason to think there's ever be a need for a secret ID, with or without Anderson's involvement.

[robhouse]

Dan,

I personally can see any number of good justifications for the police wanting to keep an identification secret, such as I mentioned above. 1) they had no hard evidence 2.) it is quite probable that Kozminski was never arrested. We must remember Swanson saying "with difficulty". and 3) the fear of anti-semitism etc. Also, there is the basic idea that if the MET thought they knew who the Ripper was, but could not convict him (for whatever reason) that there would be a public outcry. If this identification was common knowledge among the lower level police officers, word would certainly have got out, and there could have been all sorts of problems as a result... riots, lynchmob mentality, and extreme anger towards the Met, Kozminski's family, the H.O. etc.

I agree with others who have written that Swanson's interpretation of WHY the witness refused to give evidence may have been incorrect. But although you are going on and on about incorrect statements and inaccuracies in the statements about Kozminski, I think it is important to point out that practically nothing of any importance in ANDERSON's statements about Kozminski, have been shown to be incorrect.

Clearly the Swanson marginalia has problems, as does the Macnaghten memo... but in many larger ways, they seem broadly consistent, and seem to be referring to the same thing, regardless of errors. Again, Anderson's statements on Kozminski have not shown to be grossly (or at all) incorrect.

Rob H

[Dan Norder]

I personally can see any number of good justifications for the police wanting to keep an identification secret, such as I mentioned above.

None of those sound at all plausible for me.

1) they had no hard evidence

They had no hard evidence on anyone, but they still did plenty of attempted witness identifications that were not secret.

2.) it is quite probable that Kozminski was never arrested. We must remember Swanson saying "with difficulty".

None of that would be an excuse for it to be secret, let alone from other police officers, including ones more directly involved in the case.

3) the fear of anti-semitism etc.

They certainly arrested other Jews and had attempted identifications.

Also, there is the basic idea that if the MET thought they knew who the Ripper was, but could not convict him (for whatever reason) that there would be a public outcry.

We certainly know it wasn't the Met in general, based upon the statements of others.

If this identification was common knowledge among the lower level police officers, word would certainly have got out, and there could have been all sorts of problems as a result...

It wasn't known about among the higher level officers either, who explicitly either directly contradict Anderson's claims or, with Macnaghten, say only that he was a suspect and make no reference to any identification, only the part that the clothing was said to resemble. There'd be no reason for Macnaghten to have been out of the loop nor for him to have withheld information in his memorandum.

But although you are going on and on about incorrect statements and inaccuracies in the statements about Kozminski, I think it is important to point out that practically nothing of any importance in ANDERSON's statements about Kozminski, have been shown to be incorrect.

I think you have a different interpretation of "any importance" than most people.

but in many larger ways, they seem broadly consistent, and seem to be referring to the same thing, regardless of errors.

They are broadly consistent in that they refer to a Kosminski who was a Jew as someone who had been suspected, but on the most important aspects (the alleged identification, etc.) they are not consistent. Those inconsistencies are especially important in determining what they really had as evidence against the man. Macnaghten expressly says they didn't have anything to connect anyone and picked Druitt instead. Anderson claims he had moral proof (which just means that he had convinced himself and couldn't actually prove it) and that some Jew was protecting some other Jew but had previously positively IDed him, which is a pretty ludicrous claim in general and one directly contradicted by Macnaghten, Abberlne, Smith and others.

[robhouse]

Dan,

Exactly what of any importance at all in Anderson's claims about the Polish Jew is demonstrably incorrect assuming the person in question is Kozminski? Can you give me one example?

Also, you say Machnaghten said "only that he was a suspect and make no reference to any identification, only the part that the clothing was said to resemble."

Macnaghten actually said "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square." I am not sure where you got the bit about the clothing... And clearly, and obviously as has been pointed out endlessly, the reference to a City PC is wrong, but in general this does seem to support the idea that the suspect was identified.

"Macnaghten expressly says they didn't have anything to connect anyone and picked Druitt instead." Yes this is consistent with what Anderson said. There was no hard evidence or proof against anyone. Of course in the same document he says "He had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies", which does seem to be Macnaghten saying that ALTHOUGH he personally didnt believe this man was the Ripper, there were things about him that made him a strong suspect. So Macnaghten disagreed with Anderson... I dont think anyone is debating that.

Maybe we should be explicit in listing the exact statements made by various people against Anderson. Swanson essentially corroborates his story (with errors). Smith publicly said he disagreed with Anderson. Matthews never remarked against him that I know of. And I am not sure what Monro said against Anderson's theory... someone posted that Monro contradicted Anderson in private, but I am not sure what is the source for this.

But again, in my opinion Anderson believed that the Polish Jew was the Ripper... for whatever reason, he believed it. Other police officers, even higher up ones, may have disagreed with him, and this is not at all surprising, as they had no hard evidence, so any belief of this sort (on the part of Anderson or anyone else) was in the realm of theory. As I am sure you are aware, this sort of theorizing and disagreement goes on in serial killer cases (or other cases)... detectives disagree. A detectives will have a pet theory, other detectives have other pet theories, and so disagreement results. Up until the DNA evidence against Gary Ridgeway, he was just a strong suspect. But some of the detectives on the case clearly felt strongly that it was Ridgeway even before the evidence was conclusive. This is, I think the position Anderson would have been in. A strong belief that Kozminski was the Ripper, a moral certainty, for whatever reason, that he knew he could not prove in court.

And the identification was probably inconclusive anyways.

Rob H