Wouldn't Anderson Have Been Informed of Kosminski's Death?

[Elamarna]

IMHO opinion it probably went down like this:

Kosminski was brought to the attention of police by a family member or maybe a doctor around the time that he was put in an asylum. probably precipitated by him threatening his sister with a knife.

a crazy jew threatening a women with a knife was probably enough for the police to want to check it out.

that man was Aaron Kosminski.

since he was already in an asylum it was "with difficulty" for the police to set up the ID with Lawende, who the police took seriously and who also attended the eddowes inquest, more than likely the witness.


Lawende thought it might be the man he saw, but "couldn't swear to it."

with Andersons preconceived notions about the killer being a jew, his boastful nature, and years to mis remember the events and boost his ego and the public that he had caught the ripper, he came to believe that kosminski was the man.

swanson came to believe it too, but probably not as strongly as Anderson.
"and suspect knew he was identified"... "Kosminski was the suspect."

MM also heard about this suspect and included him in the memorandum.


boom. done. No convoluted theories, mixed up suspects or other nonsense.
just the (somewhat) simple truth.

Abby

I part company with you on several areas:

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende, even if he was sure of the man.
He saw someone with a woman, who he believed could have been Eddowes, sometime before the killing.
He did not see an attack, he did not see someone leaving a murder site, whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.

No mix up as you say.

Just one question, can we prove Kos?
Answer no!

So we either move on, or look for more evidence.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby

I part company with you on several areas:

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende, even if he was sure of the man.
He saw someone with a woman, who he believed could have been Eddowes, sometime before the killing.
He did not see an attack, he did not see someone leaving a murder site, whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.

No mix up as you say.

Just one question, can we prove Kos?
Answer no!

So we either move on, or look for more evidence.


Steve

Hi El

whoever the witness was, it was not Lawende.

rather surprised by this response-from you. your usually one of the more careful posters about making claims of opinion as fact. It very well could have been, and probably was Lawende, although possibly could be Schwartz, I would concede.

I also disagree with the idea that Anderson had a preconceived suspect, I would argue, his suspect was based on the man we have called Kosminski, and was not based on a general Jewish subject.

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.."


I think that pretty much answers that.

[Elamarna]

Hi El



rather surprised by this response-from you. your usually one of the more careful posters about making claims of opinion as fact. It very well could have been, and probably was Lawende, although possibly could be S notchwartz, I would concede.

Hi Abby,

I fully understand that view, and thank you for the kind words.

However on this occasion I fail to see how Lawende can be the Witness, i guess its a personal thing.

To me that either means it is Schwartz or to use Fish a "phantom witness".

Well not so much Phantom, but someone who is known, just not named.

I go on this rare occasion with my personal view, but it is just that, and not something I can prove. So I may suggest it as possible but no more!

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.."


I think that pretty much answers that.

That depends on how you interpret those lines,

I see it as we knew "who" he was, but not his name, so they knew he was a low-class Jew, note not poor, which is actually not true of Kosminski's family. and may have know the street he lived in.
In addition Anderson's statement can be view entirely in line with his not view of not wishing to name the actual name.

However its not something i feel we should get too hot under the collard about, either Anderson and Swanson were correct or they were not, and going back to my normal fact lead view, we do not have enough to prove it either way.


All the best



Steve

[Fisherman]

To me that either means it is Schwartz or to use Fish a "phantom witness".

Well not so much Phantom, but someone who is known, just not named.

Steve

So less phantomlike than the substitute killer who is neither known nor named. But still a likelier suspect than Lechmere for some equally phantomlike reason!

On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.
Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead.

[Elamarna]

So less phantomlike than the substitute killer who is neither known nor named. But still a likelier suspect than Lechmere for some equally phantomlike reason!

On the overall question about whether the leader of the police force of the worlds greatest metropolis would have had kept himself informed about the death of the worlds most prolific killer, I think that one more or less answers itself.
Even if it is reasoned that the ones who kept watch over Kosminski would never divulged even the smallest detail about him and his life inside the walls, one must ask oneself how on earth Anderson and Swanson arrived at the conclusion that he was dead.

Hi Fisherman

that is indeed the question, why did they believe that? there must have been a reason.

As for the phantom killer, at present the prospect still remains, and I am sorry my work on Bucks Row is going so slowly.
However I am sure you would prefer my work to be as full as I can make it.


And so back to Anderson and why he believed his man was dead?

We have several possibilities do we not:


1. He is completely wrong on all counts.


2. He is wrong about the date of death, but correct on the rest.


3. He is right on all counts and we have the wrong individual in Aaron Kosminski.


Three name him as a suspect at sometime, and a fourth eludes to him, Littlechild, when he say Anderson "only thought he knew".

That to me makes it clear that for some reason they had a suspect, whom we have decided was Aaron Kosminski.

That to me rules out the first of the 3 options. (please note I am not arguing for Kos as the killer. merely was he Anderson's suspect, and if so why did he get the death wrong)

This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Or alternatively he is right about the date and we are looking at the wrong man completely.

I am not prepared to make a judgement on which, the data is too sparse.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Hi Fisherman

Hi Steve!

that is indeed the question, why did they believe that? there must have been a reason.

One of many, I fear. And some will be less worthy than others. It is indeed a phantom issue.

As for the phantom killer, at present the prospect still remains, and I am sorry my work on Bucks Row is going so slowly.
However I am sure you would prefer my work to be as full as I can make it.

You just take your time, Steve. I have spent many years on it myself, and I have lots of things left to check just the same.


And so back to Anderson and why he believed his man was dead?

We have several possibilities do we not:


1. He is completely wrong on all counts.


2. He is wrong about the date of death, but correct on the rest.


3. He is right on all counts and we have the wrong individual in Aaron Kosminski.

Three name him as a suspect at sometime, and a fourth eludes to him, Littlechild, when he say Anderson "only thought he knew".

Mmm. And Henry Smith was not very appreciative of Andersons efforts either. I think Anderson was barking up the wrong tree altogether, but I am as lost as anybody else to prove my point.
Unless, of course, I prove it from the reverse angle: The Ripper and the Torso man were twinlike when it comes to the anatomical implications. They were therefore more than likely the same man. The Torso man seemingly set iut in 1873. In 1873, the small boy Aaron Kosminski, eight years of age or so, had not yet arrived in Britain.
To me, that is very powerful evidence that Anderson must have been wrong.

That to me makes it clear that for some reason they had a suspect, whom we have decided was Aaron Kosminski.

Well, strictly speaking, they THOUGHT they had a suspect. I demand more from a suspect status than mere suspicions on behalf of a senior policeman. WIth no hard facts behind it, I rate men like Kosminski, Druitt et all persons of interest only. That is not to diminish the work done on the two, which has been exhaustive in many a way.

That to me rules out the first of the 3 options. (please note I am not arguing for Kos as the killer. merely was he Anderson's suspect, and if so why did he get the death wrong)

Aaron is by far the likeliest man to have been Andersons choice. But not a very likely killer in my eyes.

This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Phantom ground, Steve - phantom ground.

Or alternatively he is right about the date and we are looking at the wrong man completely.

We are doing so either way, if Iīm correct.

I am not prepared to make a judgement on which, the data is too sparse.

Indeed it is.

[Elamarna]

You just take your time, Steve. I have spent many years on it myself, and I have lots of things left to check just the same.

Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.


.

Mmm. And Henry Smith was not very appreciative of Andersons efforts either. I think Anderson was barking up the wrong tree altogether, but I am as lost as anybody else to prove my point.

]Unless, of course, I prove it from the reverse angle: The Ripper and the Torso man were twinlike when it comes to the anatomical implications. They were therefore more than likely the same man. The Torso man seemingly set iut in 1873. In 1873, the small boy Aaron Kosminski, eight years of age or so, had not yet arrived in Britain.
To me, that is very powerful evidence that Anderson must have been wrong.

It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

At present, I do not feel that approach succeeds in the objective you set, but it is a good starting point.

Well, strictly speaking, they THOUGHT they had a suspect. I demand more from a suspect status than mere suspicions on behalf of a senior policeman. WIth no hard facts behind it, I rate men like Kosminski, Druitt et all persons of interest only. That is not to diminish the work done on the two, which has been exhaustive in many a way.

No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.

Aaron is by far the likeliest man to have been Andersons choice. But not a very likely killer in my eyes.

Agreed, but we may all be wrong.

This leads us to either he has the date wrong, and that raises very big questions about why.

Phantom ground, Steve - phantom ground.

No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.

We are doing so either way, if Iīm correct.

I disagree, if we are purely asking why did Anderson have the wrong date for his suspect, his being the killer of not is academic


Steve

[The Good Michael]

If Kosminski was the murderer and he was identified as such, but was a complete nutter at this point, I'm not so sure the police would be keen to pursue charges, knowing that the man could not stand trial, and was hallucinatory and such. We don't know what went on the period of time when Aaron was first admitted, released and then readmitted permanently. If only a few top officials knew and couldn't prove anything, is it so odd that they might be content locking a loony away who had irreversible mental damage?

What could they really tell the public that wouldn't bring out lynch mobs? "We have the killer, but he's nuts, so we are just locking him away." as if that would fly. Far better for their sake to put him away and throw away the key. It is unsatisfactory to us, but it seems a satisfactory solution to a no-win situation...if Kosminski was the killer.


Mike

[S.Brett]

Hi Steve!

Who the "witness" was, in my view it cannot have been Lawende

I agree...

Swanson:

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London"

It seems that Kosminski was detained in a lunatic asylum about March 1889. After the Kelly murder in November 1888 there was an identification which Kosminski knew.

But in the case of Aaron Kozminski the Seaside Home ID must have taken place in the second half of the year 1890.

Swanson again:

"and he knew he was identified"

If Kosminski and Aaron Kozminski are the same person, then, it is possible that Kosminski knew he was identified after the Millers Court murder in 1888. But the Seaside Home ID (Swanson:"...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification...") took place not before the second half of 1890.

One could think there is a differance between "And after this identification which suspect knew" and "and he knew he was identified".

At the Seaside Home Kosminski knew he was identified (his reaction?) and the witness "at once identified him/ unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him." Seaside Home was their second encounter and it is clear their first encounter was very "intense". And they have seen each other well without any disturbance.

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London"

It might mean that Kosminski was seen when leaving Millers Court and he knew he was identified. He stopped killing prostitutes because he knew he is a suspect, already "seen" by a PC near Mitre Square.

"but couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements."

Suspectīs movements and a good view of the murderer... it could mean that the witness saw Kosminski leaving a crime scene, similiar to the City PC near Mitre Square. A suspect seen two times when leaving a crime scene would be more than a suspect, in the Ripper case he would be the murderer.

It is possible that the witness was not fully aware of what he had seen. Kelly was found a few hours after she was murdered. If the witness saw Kosminski hours before it would be possible that he did not recognize the close link between Kosminski and the murder in Millers Court. In this case, I have no idea how the police had found the witness after such a long time. But I prefer a man like Frank Ruffell, a carman. He was a witness in the Annie Farmer case and it seems his mother was a Jewish widow (maybe he was Jewish, too). In the case of Kelly, Elizabeth Prater:

"At 5.30am she left Miller's Court, seeing nobody except two or three carmen harnessing horses in Dorset Street."

One of the carmen could have entered Millers Court between 5.30-6.00am, maybe only to fetch some water for the horses. The passage was very narrow...

"Frank Ruffell, a man who was taking some sacks of coke in the next house from a van... About half-past nine I was delivering two sacks of coke from my van at the house next door, when a man came out of No. 19. As he walked sharply past me, he muttered to himself, 'What a ---- cow."

In this case, Frank Ruffell was fully aware of the incident:

"About two minutes after that, I saw the woman on the bottom stair bleeding from the neck. Sullivan said to me, 'Did you see a man run?' And I said, 'Yes.' We both ran up Thrawl-street into Brick-lane, but we did not see him."

Such a witness on Dorset Street/ Millers Court had no chance to see what did happen.

Karsten.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.

"Merely"?

It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

I am a lot more certain; the commonalities, some of them very, very specific, are too many not to conclude that we should work from the assumption. Proven it is not, but the likelihood touches on conclusive circumstantial evidence in my eyes.
The "competition", if you will, between Kosminski and the Torso man is a complete mismatch. One man a smallish, thin, delusional man eating out of the gutter and walking other peopleīs dogs for them, and another who kills prostitutes, bleeds them, cuts their abdomens open, sternum to pubes, take out organs, cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, excises part of the colon and steal rings from the fingers of his victims.
Guess who is the more likely man to have been the Ripper, going by the recorded rap sheet?

At present, I do not feel that approach succeeds in the objective you set, but it is a good starting point.

It is the backdrop against which I am reasoning. I do keep the door ajar, but admittedly not very much so.


No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.

I donīt think I need to argue for the carman any more than I have already done. The evidence pointing in his way is real, itīs factual, itīs on record, and that removes him from the Phantom killer more than any other suggested killer.


Agreed, but we may all be wrong.

Sadly, thatīs true.


No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.

...until which time it is Phantom ground. I am not prepared to chant Hoorah!!! and accept Anderson as a master detective in this case until I see some hard facts. If that time ever arrives, Iīll be the first to say "Me oh my, was I wrong!" But Iīll save it for then.


I disagree, if we are purely asking why did Anderson have the wrong date for his suspect, his being the killer of not is academic

In that case, I have nothing to object about. Iīll have to try and cope with that too.

[The Good Michael]

Another thing: I do not believe any officials made written mistakes. They had plenty of time to think about what they wrote. Some communications were speculative, but the ones that are statements, seem to me to be thought out and not like some old men reminiscing over a glass of port and then contradicting each other. There are holes in the information we have, but that doesn't mean there are mistakes, only omission of detail, and there would have been no need for that if there never was a conviction or pursuit of charges. It doesn't mean they were right, but it does mean, to me, they believed what they said.

Mike

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Mine should be somewhat easier, given I am not trying to prove or disprove a suspect, merely examining the wounds and bleeding and general environment in Bucks Row.
But the encouragement is appreciated.

"Merely"?

Compared with trying to prove a suspect, it is merely, I am reasonably sure of that.

And my admiration for the work you must have done grows.

It would indeed Fish, if you could prove it, and despite your best efforts that has not happened. You do make a more than reasonable argument for a link, however to me it is far from conclusive.

I am a lot more certain; the commonalities, some of them very, very specific, are too many not to conclude that we should work from the assumption. Proven it is not, but the likelihood touches on conclusive circumstantial evidence in my eyes.
The "competition", if you will, between Kosminski and the Torso man is a complete mismatch. One man a smallish, thin, delusional man eating out of the gutter and walking other peopleīs dogs for them, and another who kills prostitutes, bleeds them, cuts thir abdomens open, sternum to pubes, take out organs, cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, excises part of the colon and steal rings from the fingers of his victims.
Guess who is the more likely man to have been the Ripper, going by the recorded rap sheet?

Firstly the views given of Kosminski, do not as you know describe how he was prior to his incarceration.

We know nothing about him which says if he could or could not have done the killings. (The Dog incident just suggests he was not a raving lunatic)

However your conviction that the two, JtR and Torso are the same, is not convincing to me at this point, there are similarities, but there are also major differences.
We will have to agree that at present we cannot agree on that issue I think.

No problem with that at all, other than I place Lechmere in roughly the same position, but time will tell if that changes of not.

I donīt think I need to argue for the carman any more than I have already done. The evidence pointing in his way is real, itīs factual, itīs on record, and that removes him from the Phantom killer more than any other suggested killer.

Yes he is close to ONE murder, very close to the correct time, how close is however a matter of debate, but even allowing for extremes it must be within 5 mins of the fatal cut, possible closer.

The research I am doing at present may throw more light on this.

Agreed, but we may all be wrong.

Sadly, thatīs true.


No just something we have not found the answer for yet, it may well be just around the corner.

...until which time it is Phantom ground. I am not prepared to chant Hoorah!!! and accept Anderson as a master detective in this case until I see some hard facts. If that time ever arrives, Iīll be the first to say "Me oh my, was I blind!" But Iīll save it for then.

No problem, if he was right, it was not his work, but that of an underling.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Another thing: I do not believe any officials made written mistakes. They had plenty of time to think about what they wrote. Some communications were speculative, but the ones that are statements, seem to me to be thought out and not like some old men reminiscing over a glass of port and then contradicting each other. There are holes in the information we have, but that doesn't mean there are mistakes, only omission of detail, and there would have been no need for that if there never was a conviction or pursuit of charges. It doesn't mean they were right, but it does mean, to me, they believed what they said.

Mike

That is the view I take as well.

They may not be correct, but they believed they were.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Compared with trying to prove a suspect, it is merely, I am reasonably sure of that.

Thatīs a point, of course.

And my admiration for the work you must have done grows.

I was a professional researcher for fourteen years, and I have a memory that is well cut out to remember details, so it came reasonably easy for me. But the material is large, admittedly - as you will have found out.


Firstly the views given of Kosminski, do not as you know describe how he was prior to his incarceration.

True - but a giant, he was not. I think it is a fair bet that he was a smallish man throughout.

We know nothing about him which says if he could or could not have done the killings. (The Dog incident just suggests he was not a raving lunatic)

True again - but his condition is not one I would favour when looking for "my" Ripper. Not in the least.

However your conviction that the two, JtR and Torso are the same, is not convincing to me at this point, there are similarities, but there are also major differences.

I think we can safely say that the differences we know of can very easily be overcome.

We will have to agree that at present we cannot agree on that issue I think.

No problem, Steve.


Yes he is close to ONE murder, very close to the correct time, how close is however a matter of debate, but even allowing for extremes it must be within 5 mins of the fatal cut, possible closer.

The research I am doing at present may throw more light on this.

Letīs hope so. I think you will find that one of the drawbacks - or advantages, depending on how you see it - is that there can never be any conclusive establishing of times. As Jason P-J says, if it can be argued that "surely shw may have bled for half a minute longer?", then it can also be argued that it may have been a minute. Or two. Or three. Or five. I think all we can do is to go with what experienced forensich specialist with medical insights tell us is the PROBABLE time span. And when we do so, using Jason P-J as that specialist, we can see that what he proposes puts Lechmere right in the spot when Nichols was cut.
When I found that out, after already having felt very certain that Lechmere is our man, it certainly did not detract from that certainty.

It will be interesting to see what you arrive at.


No problem, if he was right, it was not his work, but that of an underling.

Yes, but his never dirtying his own hands did not disallow him the pleasure of being dubbed the greatest detective of his time, did it? Itīs not always fair, but it is the way it works.

[Fisherman]

That is the view I take as well.

They may not be correct, but they believed they were.


Steve

There are such things as pride and self-delusion to weigh in too. Itīs phantom territory, and remains so.