Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Research

...
We can't say he wasn't a prime suspect anymore than we can say he was, but Anderson's belief makes "Kosminski" the fairy at the top of the research Christmas tree, followed by Druitt and so on.

Yes, he must be right up there for research until anything arises to qualify that status, such as in the case of Ostrog.

However, and as I contend, the importance, or level, for research that is accorded to 'Kosminski' must be subjective, and commensurate with the veracity and reliability the individual researcher is prepared to bestow upon Anderson. You feel he is the best historical source, I, personally, don't, for the reasons I have given in the past.

That said, and apropos of Anderson, we also have to take into account both Macnaghten's 1894 report and Swanson's undated (but 1910 or later) annotations in his copy of Anderson's book, both of which mention 'Kosminski'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Up?

Or it was never required and never sent, or it is a file copy of a document that was sent to the Home Office and was put with the Cutbush papers and culled. Either way it would lack the customary received and seen markings.

Hell Paul, you're not up at this unearthly hour as well???!

However, of course, you are on the right track concerning the status of this document.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't quite understand...

...
Fair enough. At some point the Macnaghten memorandum was enclosed in an official file to enter the public record as the Macnaghten Report.
I have copies of hundreds of MEPO and HO documents, letters, memos and briefing notes. They are masterpieces of bureaucratic punctiliousness—stamped, counter-stamped, referenced, cross-referenced, notated and cross-notated, initialled, dated and counter-dated. But the Macnaghten Report bears none of these hallmarks. The most seminal document in the Whitechapel murders mystery somehow circumvented Whitehall's bureaucratic machine to emerge unscathed, suggesting [to me, at least] that its eventual introduction to the public record came about by its being privately returned to Scotland Yard in later years.
How could this have happened?
...
Simon

I don't quite understand the phrase 'At some time the Macnaghten memorandum was enclosed in an official file to enter the public record as the Macnaghten report.'

I don't quite understand the words 'The most seminal document in the Whitechapel murders mystery somehow circumvented Whitehall's bureaucratic machine to emerge unscathed, suggesting [to me at least] that its eventual introduction to the public record came about by its being privately returned to Scotland Yard in later years.'

To me the foregoing suggests someone pursuing some sort of 'conspiracy theory', and the added 'to me at least' strengthens that impression.

Do you really understand what you are talking about?

[PaulB]

Simon!

That's a sensational point!

I have thought that for some time, but never really articulated it as boldly as that.

Both versions of the Mac Report are entirely personal bits of his chicanery scrmabling to both put Druitt on the record, in case the whole debacle spills out of Droset again, but not reveal that the police had never heard of him for years.

He never archived the 1894 official version until ... maybe when he retired? The unofficial version, with everybody hyped to the max ('Kosminski' hates all women, Ostrog and his surgical knives, Druitt as a definite doctor who is now catapulted to chief suspect) was pushed onto the public as a solution which robbed anderon of his 1895 claims about the locked-up lunatic.

Or it was never required and never sent, or it is a file copy of a document that was sent to the Home Office and was put with the Cutbush papers and culled. Either way it would lack the customary received and seen markings.

[PaulB]

I rather liked Trevor's list of requirements regarding 'prime suspect' status (except the geo-profiling stuff). Likewise, I don't understand the backlash of so many posters against the term 'prime suspect'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Prime or primary is just a handy term to describe the prioritisation of research.

[PaulB]

I’m not so sure, Paul. According to Macnaghten, Kosminski ‘had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies … There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’.’

Since Macnaghten had no direct involvement with the investigation, it seems reasonable to infer that this was information derived from the case files. Hence it is easy to see why Kosminski might have become a person of interest.

It is less easy, however, to rationalize this depiction of a misogynistic and homicidal Kosminski with the essentially benign character that emerges through his medical assessments. And why, if he really was such a dangerous individual, does it appear that he was never charged with a violent offence either before, during or after the Ripper scare?

You are correct, of course, and things would be a lot different if we knew or even had an idea what those "many circs" were, and your last observation, also noted by Martin Fido, is the foundation for the Aaron Kosminski was not "Kosminski" argument, although the benign character is from a series of terse six-monthly observations largely about Aaron's physical health. We actually know little about his mental condition other than what the committal papers tell us. But I was really just being over-simplistic in an effort to make the point that all the criteria which a policeman like Trevor would employ to define a prime suspect are largely unknown to us. "Kosminski" could fit all that criteria like a glove, which may be why Anderson plumped for him, but we don't know. We can't say he wasn't a prime suspect anymore than we can say he was, but Anderson's belief makes "Kosminski" the fairy at the top of the research Christmas tree, followed by Druitt and so on.

[Jonathan H]

I see a Macnaghten who furtively creates a document which is a gun loaded and cocked, but not fired in 1894.

But in 1898, he disseminated a different version for the public.

A mistke by a previous poster is to see Macnaghten as not involved in the investigation of suspects. he investigated Druitt and 'Kosminski' -- who was incarcerated while he had been at the Met for over wo years -- begins with him in the extant record.

But if it was all verbal, due to the infornation about Aaron Kosminski, who becomes 'Kosminski' the Ripper suspect, then Anderson may never have even know about the 1894 Report, not could he c=access it as it was not plaed on file.

Remembr, that is all so slippery when Mac called the 'draft' or backdated rewrite, a 'Home Office Report' for Griffiths and Sims, when it was neither. That copy was not a document of state nor did it accurately reflect the original, not about Druitt and Sadler.

Sims does not say 'copy' in 1903 -- he says this is it, the Report like there is no other version.

[Tom_Wescott]

I rather liked Trevor's list of requirements regarding 'prime suspect' status (except the geo-profiling stuff). Likewise, I don't understand the backlash of so many posters against the term 'prime suspect'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Simon!

That's a sensational point!

I have thought that for some time, but never really articulated it as boldly as that.

Both versions of the Mac Report are entirely personal bits of his chicanery scrmabling to both put Druitt on the record, in case the whole debacle spills out of Droset again, but not reveal that the police had never heard of him for years.

He never archived the 1894 official version until ... maybe when he retired? The unofficial version, with everybody hyped to the max ('Kosminski' hates all women, Ostrog and his surgical knives, Druitt as a definite doctor who is now catapulted to chief suspect) was pushed onto the public as a solution which robbed anderon of his 1895 claims about the locked-up lunatic.

[Hunter]

Hi Simon,

Did I win the Kewpie doll?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

"The memorandum (as opposed to the Aberconway paper) is an official document because it is enclosed on an official file and this is part of the public record."

Fair enough. At some point the Macnaghten memorandum was enclosed in an official file to enter the public record as the Macnaghten Report.

I have copies of hundreds of MEPO and HO documents, letters, memos and briefing notes. They are masterpieces of bureaucratic punctiliousness—stamped, counter-stamped, referenced, cross-referenced, notated and cross-notated, initialled, dated and counter-dated. But the Macnaghten Report bears none of these hallmarks. The most seminal document in the Whitechapel murders mystery somehow circumvented Whitehall's bureaucratic machine to emerge unscathed, suggesting [to me, at least] that its eventual introduction to the public record came about by its being privately returned to Scotland Yard in later years.

How could this have happened?

I remain your obedient servant &c.,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

We can't assess and evaluate the viability of "Kosminski" as a suspect because we actually don't have the foggiest idea why he became a suspect.

I’m not so sure, Paul. According to Macnaghten, Kosminski ‘had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies … There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’.’

Since Macnaghten had no direct involvement with the investigation, it seems reasonable to infer that this was information derived from the case files. Hence it is easy to see why Kosminski might have become a person of interest.

It is less easy, however, to rationalize this depiction of a misogynistic and homicidal Kosminski with the essentially benign character that emerges through his medical assessments. And why, if he really was such a dangerous individual, does it appear that he was never charged with a violent offence either before, during or after the Ripper scare?

[Phil H]

Simon

I would question the status of the Macnaghten Report as an "official" document.

It is generally believed to have been written as a briefing note for Commissioner Edward Bradford or Home Secretary Herbert Asquith in the event of the Sun story prompting an official enquiry, but there is nothing to suggest it was ever circulated amongst Whitehall's higher echelons. Which is probably just as well.

Had such an enquiry finally got underway, with this document reflecting "official" police thinking entered into evidence, on checking its facts a keen-witted counsel would have had little trouble in demonstrating the Macnaghten Report to be nothing but a potpourri of misleading statements.

The memorandum (as opposed to the Aberconway paper) is an official document because it is enclosed on an official file and this part of the public record.

You mistake the nature of Civil Service work if you think it must have been circulated or been legally accountable.

Documents - briefs, submissions (in the old days minutes or menoranda) are prepared and submitted for various reasons. While MM may have had various motivations, the memoranda appears to propose lines to take in the event of Parliamentary or press interest in the Sun articles. nothing unusual in that.

Had the Home secretary required something for the House - to respond to a Parliamentary Question for instance - then specifc and cleared briefing would have been provided in an appropriate format.

Civil servants (certainly not at the level of MM - either Assistant-Under-Secretary or Deputy U-S equivalent, I think)) do not and did not need to be told to use foresight and judgement to prepare docuements against certain possibilities - that is what MM appears to have done.

The file copy - usuable as guidance if, for instance, MM was away - would have given junior staff a lead if more specific briefing was required, but (in days long before FOI) was subject to confidentiality and need to know. It would never have been required for a court of law.

Just clarification,

Phil

[PaulB]

Paul
As far as The Whitechapel murders are concerned for a suspect to be categorised as a prime suspect they would need to meet a number of different criteria which would escalate them to that status

1. Was known, to carry a knife, or info received that he did carry a knife

2. Had a history of violence towards women and in particular prostitutes

3. Previous convictions of a simliar nature.

4. Fitted the description give by any witnesses and those witnesses being in a position to make a positive identification at a later stage. In most serious offences now when Identification is an issue with the new ID procedures a video ID parade can be put together within 1 hour. As has been said years later ant parade conducted then in any format would have no evidential value and any outcome in any event deemed to be un reliable.

5. Couldnt give an explanation as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders or any if any account given.

6. The strength and reliablity of any information the police would have received about the suspect.

7. The home address location of the suspect in relation to the murders although
most criminal and murderers for that matter do not commit crimes on their
own doorstep for obvious reasons.

8. A general assessment of the suspect i.e the type of person he was, what type
of background he came from. How well he is likely to have known the killling
grounds. Could he have known the victims. Could any enquiries have been
done to find out if he had been to the area or knew the area,

In this day and age anyone who even fitted some of those in a murder case is likely to be arrested. I have dealt with recent murder cases where people have been arrested simply because they were seen or mentioned by others as being in the area at the time.

The point in mentioning this is that those people would be recorded in the police system as being arrested on suspicion of murder and those entries would stay on record despite the fact that they would soon be eliminated from any further suspicion.

In the case of Kosminki you are right we dont know what the information which led to the name Kosminski being mentioned was. But looking at it sensibly it couldnt have been much given the passage of time and the lack of documentation surrounding what the police are supposed to have done on receipt of that information.

In view of that I would refer you to para 6 above and I belive that whatever it was it could have been nothing more than hearsay, or another guess would be the incident with his sister.Which would have engaged paras 1,2 and 5 above. But looking at Aaron Kosminski he really doesnt fit the profile for many reasons whic can clearly be seen.

I hope this give you a greater understanding of police methodology with regards toi the assesing and evaluating the viabilty of suspects.

Thank you, Trevor. As Stewart said (post 1767) and I had earlier said (post 1764), the term prime or primary suspect is not being used here in the sense of talking about a suspect who was the most likely to be the perpetrator, but in the sense of the principal suspect for research. We can't assess and evaluate the viability of "Kosminski" as a suspect because we actually don't have the foggiest idea why he became a suspect. On the one hand we can argue that the evidence "couldnt have been much", on the other whatever it was it was enough to convince Anderson and possibly Swanson.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I would question the status of the Macnaghten Report as an "official" document.

It is generally believed to have been written as a briefing note for Commissioner Edward Bradford or Home Secretary Herbert Asquith in the event of the Sun story prompting an official enquiry, but there is nothing to suggest it was ever circulated amongst Whitehall's higher echelons. Which is probably just as well.

Had such an enquiry finally got underway, with this document reflecting "official" police thinking entered into evidence, on checking its facts a keen-witted counsel would have had little trouble in demonstrating the Macnaghten Report to be nothing but a potpourri of misleading statements.

A lot of egg would have landed on a lot of faces, especially over the £10 compensation paid from police funds to Michael Ostrog.

Except for the purposes of leaking parts of its spurious "confidential" content to Major Griffiths, I doubt the document ever left Macnaghten's desk.

It should be classed as a "private" document written by an official for uncertain purposes.

Regards,

Simon