Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Assuming...

...
Say the press asks for a statement from the Police re: the Ripper. What ever happened to the Ripper? What about this guy Cutbush, was he the Ripper? etc etc.
Now say you are Anderson, or Monro, or somebody at the top echelon of the MET... someone who knew about Kozminski, knew exactly what happened with him, knew he was very strongly suspected, to the point that Anderson (at a minimum) was convinced that Kozminski was guilty. Now put yourself in their shoes. What sort of statement to you release to the press about this? About the Ripper? About Kozminski? Say you are talking to someone from the press? What do you tell them?
Can you answer that question for me? Because so far no one has.
Everyone seems to assume (incredibly in my opinion) that the Police would have simply declared.. "Oh yeah, the Ripper was discovered. We know who he was, beyond much of a doubt. He was put in Colney Hatch... name's Kozminski."
Is that really what you believe? I mean... seriously? If not then what exactly would they have communicated?
In my opinion, this is a very important question, and the fact that no one has apparently considered it is quite surprising.
RH

Assuming that Macnaghten's report of February 1894, in response to the press publicity over the unnamed Cutbush, was to provide an answer should a public enquiry have been held into the Sun's claims, then we do have an idea of the sort of response the police would have made, obviously without giving names.

They were not obliged to answer press queries and they could have deflected such enquiries in many ways. It would appear that Anderson was happy to indicate that the offender was a lunatic and Swanson to suggest that he was dead. But, of course, we then move on from the press responses of the nineteenth century to the published remarks of the twentieth century. And we know what Anderson claimed then.

So, in our circular and never ending debate we return, inevitably, to the credibility and honesty of the much-examined Anderson.

[PaulB]

Apropos of this, Paul, it may be of interest to note that in 1971 I was on my police continuation course at Nutfield where officers from various other forces were also on the same course. One told me that he had completed an attachment with the Met and had seen the closed 'Jack the Stripper' file. There was a confessional suicide note in the file from the man the police believed to be the murderer. They considered the case closed with this note.

Was that the Mungo Ireland suicide note? I'm nowhere near up-to-speed with the Stripper case, though I'm itching to find the time to read Neil Melkins book, but I haven't even managed to settle in front of the recording of the Fred Dinage programme yet.

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Was that the Mungo Ireland suicide note? I'm nowhere near up-to-speed with the Stripper case, though I'm itching to find the time to read Neil Melkins book, but I haven't even managed to settle in front of the recording of the Fred Dinage programme yet.

No, it wasn't Ireland. But the really odd thing is that in 1976 I was on a senior constables' course at Halesworth (our then training facility in Suffolk) where the Serious Crimes squad from the Met was based whilst investigating London gangsters operating in Norfolk and Suffolk.

The detective superintendent in charge of the Met squad drank in the bar with our old training sergeant. The next day the training sergeant, in class, told us all that whilst chatting in the bar he had been given the identity of 'Jack the Stripper'. I piped up with the name I had been given in 1971 and he said, 'How do you know?' It was the same name as that given to the training sergeant.

Jonathan Goodman had some high-ranking detective friends in the Met and he had also been given the same name.

[PaulB]

No, it wasn't Ireland. But the really odd thing is that in 1976 I was on a senior constables' course at Halesworth (our then training facility in Suffolk) where the Serious Crimes squad from the Met was based whilst investigating London gangsters operating in Norfolk and Suffolk.

The detective superintendent in charge of the Met squad drank in the bar with our old training sergeant. The next day the training sergeant, in class, told us all that whilst chatting in the bar he had been given the identity of 'Jack the Stripper'. I piped up with the name I had been given in 1971 and he said, 'How do you know?' It was the same name as that given to the training sergeant.

Jonathan Goodman had some high-ranking detective friends in the Met and he had also been given the same name.

I talked with Don about the case once and he mentioned a name to me which meant nothing to me at the time. I wonder if it was the same one. I can't remember what it was now.
Paul

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

I talked with Don about the case once and he mentioned a name to me which meant nothing to me at the time. I wonder if it was the same one. I can't remember what it was now.
Paul

No, I don't think it was, that's the odd thing. I'm sure that Don's suspect was a sportsman who emigrated to Australia (or something like that, I'll have to ask him).

[PaulB]

That rings bells. I knew there was something to do with an Australian emigrant involved, but couldn't recall whether Don said that to me or I'd said it to him and he said, "Oh no..." and told me something else. If you follow my drift.

[Stewart P Evans]

Identity

That rings bells. I knew there was something to do with an Australian emigrant involved, but couldn't recall whether Don said that to me or I'd said it to him and he said, "Oh no..." and told me something else. If you follow my drift.

Sort of... he didn't happen to mention the identity of Jack the Ripper at the same time, did he? Bearing in mind that Don is an older dinosaur than either of us. Do you recall, a few years back, Don and I were declared to be 'old farts'? Have you joined this elite yet?

[PaulB]

It was at a Crime Writers meeting and I have absolutely no idea how the subject came up. The last time we met was when Martin was over and we were all talking about our health and occasional need of walking sticks, so I think I have joined the "old farts". Keith, as ever, was maddeningly youthful. But we should perhaps stop these reminiscences... Old people, mumbling about the past, dribbling food down their shirt fronts...
Paul

[TomTomKent]

Not wanting to get too far from the central topic, but is there any reason that why those who have said the evidence points towards investigating officers considering Kozzy a suspect are being represented as "kozzy-ite" still?

[PaulB]

Not wanting to get too far from the central topic, but is there any reason that why those who have said the evidence points towards investigating officers considering Kozzy a suspect are being represented as "kozzy-ite" still?

Hi
Sorry, I don't quite follow.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=PaulB;189315]

You don't know what those indication are! Gosh, what a surprise that is.

Had you read Martin Fido's 25-year-old book, Trevor? Did you have any idea whatsoever what his thinking was before you disparagingly and wrong-headedly labelled him a Kosminski-ite? Are you ever going to answer this question? Do you actually know anything deeper than scratch-level superficiality about the Kosminski argument?

I'm afraid the only ship that's sinking around here is the one carrying your credibility. Well, that's not true. That ship sank back when you so confidently argued that there was no evidence that Eddowes was wearing an apron!

Well, Trevor, Aaron Kosminski is the only Kosminski thus far found in the asylum records and he was committed in February 1891, from which it is reasonable to infer that serious suspicion fell on him about that time, but Swanson states that following the identification the suspect was kept under City C.I.D. surveillance and “in a very short time” was taken to Stepney Workhouse and thence to Colney Hatch, from which there is no justification for inferring that any great length of time separated the identification from his 1891 committal. Thus, the indications are that “Kosminski” did not come to the attention of the police until 1890, possibly late 1890 and perhaps even as late as early 1891. (I've underlined these words so that you will hopefully realise that I do leave room for alternative thinking, such as that which argues on no plausible evidence that the marginalia is a fake.)

So, no, Trevor, I'm not saying something in an attempt to prevent Aaron Kosminski's ship from sinking, and what does it take to drive into your brain that since I don't believe Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, I don't care a damn whether his ship joins your credibility in the depths of a metaphorical ocean or not.

Paul
you are clearly floundering with your answers if Swanson or Anderson is to be belived then it was the met who instigated the Identification and lets say it did take place and then they brought him back and if it was Aaron Kosminski he according to what was written went back to a relatives house which I belive was in The met police district.

Why on earth would City officers be keeping watch on someone in Met territory. and what would be the purpose. If this ID tok place then surely the suspect would have known he was a suspect for the murders, as would the family would anyone reasonably expect him to venture out killing after all that or be allowed to ventuer out. And besides the series of murders had stopped

To that end i refer back to Major Smith who stated in later years that was after 1895 that the police did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

So in the light of you now catergorically now stating that Aaaron Kosminski was not the ripper will you be re shooting part of The defintive JTR where you suggest he was ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sort of... he didn't happen to mention the identity of Jack the Ripper at the same time, did he? Bearing in mind that Don is an older dinosaur than either of us. Do you recall, a few years back, Don and I were declared to be 'old farts'? Have you joined this elite yet?

I beleive there is a seaside home in Brighton that takes in "old farts"

[TomTomKent]

Hi
Sorry, I don't quite follow.

Just trying to work out the many views in my head, and some posts refer to Kozminski-ites as a single group who all back Kozzy as a suspect. But some of those (for example your self) seem to be discussing not why THEY thought Kozzy was a suspect, but why Anderson, Swanson or the MM point towards Kozzy. I just wondered if there is some reason that distinction is not made?

I am assuming some members self identify as Kozminski-ites, rather than the term being an insult applied to others. I don't want to misuse the term and step on toes.

[TomTomKent]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;189337]

Paul
you are clearly floundering with your answers if Swanson or Anderson is to be belived then it was the met who instigated the Identification and lets say it did take place and then they brought him back and if it was Aaron Kosminski he according to what was written went back to a relatives house which I belive was in The met police district.

Why on earth would City officers be keeping watch on someone in Met territory. and what would be the purpose. If this ID tok place then surely the suspect would have known he was a suspect for the murders, as would the family would anyone reasonably expect him to venture out killing after all that or be allowed to ventuer out. And besides the series of murders had stopped

To that end i refer back to Major Smith who stated in later years that was after 1895 that the police did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

So in the light of you now catergorically now stating that Aaaron Kosminski was not the ripper will you be re shooting part of The defintive JTR where you suggest he was ?

The why seems simple; at least one attack (the charges they would run with) occured in city territory, and with such a high profile case the temptation to steal the scoop from rivals would be there. Seeing as how they were unsure the witness would testify and they wereon a rivals turf the investigation would no doubt be hush hush.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;189337]

Paul
you are clearly floundering with your answers if Swanson or Anderson is to be belived then it was the met who instigated the Identification and lets say it did take place and then they brought him back and if it was Aaron Kosminski he according to what was written went back to a relatives house which I belive was in The met police district.

Why on earth would City officers be keeping watch on someone in Met territory. and what would be the purpose. If this ID tok place then surely the suspect would have known he was a suspect for the murders, as would the family would anyone reasonably expect him to venture out killing after all that or be allowed to ventuer out. And besides the series of murders had stopped

To that end i refer back to Major Smith who stated in later years that was after 1895 that the police did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer.

So in the light of you now catergorically now stating that Aaaron Kosminski was not the ripper will you be re shooting part of The defintive JTR where you suggest he was ?

Trevor, if you took a little more time over composing and punctuating your posts then I'd probably have a better chance of finding them comprehensible. Anyway, I'm not floundering at all. Yes, if Anderson and Swanson are to be believed then it was the Met who instigated the identification and, as Swanson tells us, afterwards returned "Kosminski" to his brother's house, where surveillance was maintained day and night by the City C.I.D. That's what Swanson says. Were you not aware of that?

Why the City C.I.D. was involved is irrelevant to why I said "Kosminski" may not have been identified until late 1890/early 1891.

Also, I did not categorically state that Aaron Kosminski was not the Ripper.

No I won't be re-shooting anything. I'm not a director or a cameraman.

And I have answered your questions - questions to which you really should know the answers if you are the expert you claim to be; they've not been hidden anywhere. So how about answering the one I asked a while back and which you have studiously avoided answering: had you read Martin's book and did you have any idea what his thinking was when you came here and posted about his video? Or were you making those Kosminski-ite carges against him from a position of profound ignorance?