Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Retired officials are much freer to express their personal views than are serving ones.

As the current UK case of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, demonstrates (he was a Minister, but much the same conventions apply) where he claimed unity of approach in office, he now lambasts colleagues (Prime Minister Brown, Governor King of the Bank of England) freely in his memoirs.

No doubt Anderson's generation did something similar, perhaps exaggerating slightly in memoirs, but feeling free of make known their peronal as against their official views.

I remain convinced that whatever errors may have crept into their writings given the lapse of time, Anderson, Swanson et al had good reason for saying what they did. Notwithstanding mistakes in phrasing or detail, I firmly believe that if we had all the papers before us that had passed before them, we would understand, even if not agree with, what they wrote.

Phil

I would hardly call several years a lapse in time after all Swanson was involved in the Grainger case in 1895. The you have MM writing his memo in 1894. The ripper was still being talked about then how can you suggest these main players had memory lapses. The only problem they seemed to have had is not remebering what others had said or written before they put pen to paper or gave press interviews

[PaulB]

And out comes the old chestnut "well there could have been and it might have been in the file that were lost,stolen or destroyed". If there ever was any such information and it had been seen by "anyone" would they have sat on it ? and if they did sit on it for what purpose.

How can you say they were serious suspects you could say the the suspects from the registers were serious suspects when clearly they werent. So where do you draw the line on catergorizing anyone as a serious suspect"

You don't give up, do you? You just make one point, then move on to another... Do you dance, Trevor? A bit of the old soft shoe shuffle maybe? Your feet certainly flash as you skip around answering whether you have actually read Martin Fido's book and knew what his thinking was! Or, indeed, that you Knew it was Swanson who said the surveillance was maintained by the City C.I.D.?

But as you duck and dive around those questions, let's just take a gander at the facts shall we? Macnaghten believed Druitt was likely to have been the murderer. That elevates Druitt to a level much higher than an alsoran who was just a name in a ledger, and Anderson believed Kosminski was the murderer (assuming his Polish Jew was Kosminski), which elevates him above that of an alsoran. And Macnaghten said of Kosminski, “There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’” which again suggests that Macnaghten was working on more than just a name in a register, as does the Macnaghten's claim to have received private information about Druitt, which included the suspicions of Druitt's family, which makes it certain he was dealing with more than a name in a register.

So, overall, I'd say it is pretty damned clear that when two of the three named were considered to be the Ripper by well-informed and senior officers, that we are dealing with something a little more serious in the way of suspects than a name in a register. That's why I can say they were “serious suspects”. Those named in the SB registers are not known to have been thought of as the Ripper by anybody. Not a soul. Not unless you know differently. Unlike Druitt and Kosminski they cannot be considered “serious”.

And if Macnaghten did not obtain his information about these people from a ledger, then he got it from somewhere else, like a file.

But you're just diverting the subject away from what really matters, and that is how well you know, let alone understand, the Kosminski arguments you try to disparage. So how about answering my question?

[Trevor Marriott]

You don't give up, do you? You just make one point, then move on to another... Do you dance, Trevor? A bit of the old soft shoe shuffle maybe? Your feet certainly flash as you skip around answering whether you have actually read Martin Fido's book and knew what his thinking was! Or, indeed, that you Knew it was Swanson who said the surveillance was maintained by the City C.I.D.?

But as you duck and dive around those questions, let's just take a gander at the facts shall we? Macnaghten believed Druitt was likely to have been the murderer. That elevates Druitt to a level much higher than an alsoran who was just a name in a ledger, and Anderson believed Kosminski was the murderer (assuming his Polish Jew was Kosminski), which elevates him above that of an alsoran. And Macnaghten said of Kosminski, “There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’” which again suggests that Macnaghten was working on more than just a name in a register, as does the Macnaghten's claim to have received private information about Druitt, which included the suspicions of Druitt's family, which makes it certain he was dealing with more than a name in a register.

So, overall, I'd say it is pretty damned clear that when two of the three named were considered to be the Ripper by well-informed and senior officers, that we are dealing with something a little more serious in the way of suspects than a name in a register. That's why I can say they were “serious suspects”. Those named in the SB registers are not known to have been thought of as the Ripper by anybody. Not a soul. Not unless you know differently. Unlike Druitt and Kosminski they cannot be considered “serious”.

Well serious or not all three couldnt have been the ripper could they

And if Macnaghten did not obtain his information about these people from a ledger, then he got it from somewhere else, like a file.

Yes and the file could have been made up from the type of infmation i cited in an earlier post which raised another valid issue. But then again like of all valid points raised which dont conform to your view you try the old soft shoe shuffle by answering a question with a question and you ask if i can dance.

But you're just diverting the subject away from what really matters, and that is how well you know, let alone understand, the Kosminski arguments you try to disparage. So how about answering my question?

There are no Kosminski arguments his name was mentioned and Fido suggested AAron Kosminski which sent you all of on a Kosminski feeding frenzy. Now Aaron Kosminski is no longer the suspect. All you are left with is a surname which no one has been able to identify and no one will ever be able to I suggest. So the name Kosminski must stand now alongside those of Wilson,Obrien,Churchill and Magrath as only likely suspects

You keep asking me about Fidos book does it matter whether I read it or not Aaron Kosminski is no more, Anderson is unreliable accept it move on with your life enjoy your old age

[TomTomKent]

You don't give up, do you? You just make one point, then move on to another... Do you dance, Trevor? A bit of the old soft shoe shuffle maybe? Your feet certainly flash as you skip around answering whether you have actually read Martin Fido's book and knew what his thinking was! Or, indeed, that you Knew it was Swanson who said the surveillance was maintained by the City C.I.D.?

But as you duck and dive around those questions, let's just take a gander at the facts shall we? Macnaghten believed Druitt was likely to have been the murderer. That elevates Druitt to a level much higher than an alsoran who was just a name in a ledger, and Anderson believed Kosminski was the murderer (assuming his Polish Jew was Kosminski), which elevates him above that of an alsoran. And Macnaghten said of Kosminski, “There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’” which again suggests that Macnaghten was working on more than just a name in a register, as does the Macnaghten's claim to have received private information about Druitt, which included the suspicions of Druitt's family, which makes it certain he was dealing with more than a name in a register.

So, overall, I'd say it is pretty damned clear that when two of the three named were considered to be the Ripper by well-informed and senior officers, that we are dealing with something a little more serious in the way of suspects than a name in a register. That's why I can say they were “serious suspects”. Those named in the SB registers are not known to have been thought of as the Ripper by anybody. Not a soul. Not unless you know differently. Unlike Druitt and Kosminski they cannot be considered “serious”.

And if Macnaghten did not obtain his information about these people from a ledger, then he got it from somewhere else, like a file.

But you're just diverting the subject away from what really matters, and that is how well you know, let alone understand, the Kosminski arguments you try to disparage. So how about answering my question?

I agree, because this falls back to my point about there being a reason the name Kosminski stuck in the minds of the investigators even if we do not know and may never know, what that reason was.

Given the sheer size of the investigation, the width of the net being cast and the amount of information the Police must have been inundated with (if any of these are misconceptions feel free to correct them folks) one would assume that for the name to be remembered or even retained on a register, or for the description to be mentioned by Anderson, there would have to be some cause. Otherwise it would have been lost in the wash so to speak.

Or are the police in the habit of throwing any old name on the register just in case they have to return to it later?

[TomTomKent]

You keep asking me about Fidos book does it matter whether I read it or not Aaron Kosminski is no more, Anderson is unreliable accept it move on with your life enjoy your old age

It would appear to be of importance to understanding your previous comments. If you were aware of the contents of Crimes and Detection, then some of your comments on the video take on a very different context.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, because this falls back to my point about there being a reason the name Kosminski stuck in the minds of the investigators even if we do not know and may never know, what that reason was.

Given the sheer size of the investigation, the width of the net being cast and the amount of information the Police must have been inundated with (if any of these are misconceptions feel free to correct them folks) one would assume that for the name to be remembered or even retained on a register, or for the description to be mentioned by Anderson, there would have to be some cause. Otherwise it would have been lost in the wash so to speak.

I think most of the information that was forthcoming was names of likely suspects being suggested which were enteted in the CID register.

You have to only look at the inquest reports that gives you an idea as to how much they could do with the little information that was to hand.

Well was it a mammoth investigation as you suggest there were only so many lines of enquiry they had to follow.

And besides how come no one has mentioned Kosminki by a christian name you have 3 major players and none of them mention him by his full name doesnt that tell you something or have you been shopping at the same shop and brought a job lot of blinkers.

Or are the police in the habit of throwing any old name on the register just in case they have to return to it later?

[B]You do not know what the police were capable of then or today. but today we sometimes see the dark side of some police officers I am sure its been the same since 1888. Just sometimes the dark sides never come out in the public domain. But they are there /B]

I cant beleive all these arguments are still taking place surrounding Aaron Kosminnski when most seem now to have totally ruled him out

[TomTomKent]

I cant beleive all these arguments are still taking place surrounding Aaron Kosminnski when most seem now to have totally ruled him out

So you think that because Kozminski is probably not the Ripper we should not find the questions raised interesting? Or of other historical value? You don't believe people might approach the question of why he was suspect, or why he was prominent enough to be remembered years later as a puzzle to be pondered or solved?

If you don't believe folks would find that kind of question interesting, then why would we worry about other little questions? (You know, little things like who the Ripper was...)

[PaulB]

There are no Kosminski arguments his name was mentioned and Fido suggested AAron Kosminski which sent you all of on a Kosminski feeding frenzy. Now Aaron Kosminski is no longer the suspect. All you are left with is a surname which no one has been able to identify and no one will ever be able to I suggest. So the name Kosminski must stand now alongside those of Wilson,Obrien,Churchill and Magrath as only likely suspects

You keep asking me about Fidos book does it matter whether I read it or not Aaron Kosminski is no more, Anderson is unreliable accept it move on with your life enjoy your old age

“Well serious or not all three couldnt have been the ripper could they”

No, they couldn't all have been Jack the Ripper, but that doesn't alter the fact that senior and informed policemen thought two of them very probably could have been. That's what makes them “serious suspects”, which is what you've tried to say they weren't.

“Yes and the file could have been made up from the type of infmation i cited in an earlier post which raised another valid issue. But then again like of all valid points raised which dont conform to your view you try the old soft shoe shuffle by answering a question with a question and you ask if i can dance.”


Er, I suggest that the information was taken from a file, not, as you have claimed, a ledger listing names. To which you say, “Yes and the file could have been made up from the type of information...” How does that not conform to what I said? I mean, when you say “the file could have been...” you do mean a file containing information? You mean a file type of file which contains bits of paper? The sort of file people call a file? The sort of file which a little while back you told Martin Fido was where Macnaghten obtained his information, writing: “Where did he get the info from to include in the memo. I will tell you. From files which had been created by officers in 1888 or thereafter. Those files were no doubt created by officers with good intent and put into the system and were likely as not based on nothing more than hearsay.”

So, let me see. Yes, yes, I think I've got it, the information was got from – a file! And let's see. What did I write? Oh my goodness, “And if Macnaghten did not obtain his information about these people from a ledger, then he got it from somewhere else, like a file.”

“There are no Kosminski arguments his name was mentioned and Fido suggested AAron Kosminski which sent you all of on a Kosminski feeding frenzy. Now Aaron Kosminski is no longer the suspect. All you are left with is a surname which no one has been able to identify and no one will ever be able to I suggest. So the name Kosminski must stand now alongside those of Wilson,Obrien,Churchill and Magrath as only likely suspects”


How would you know there are no Kosminski arguments, you haven't read the books. You don't know what Martin Fido argues. You don't know what his thinking is. As for the rest of your paragraph, it's drivel. What did Martin Fido suggest Aaron Kosminski was, Trevor? What was it that he proposed about Aaron Kosminski that sent us all on a “feeding frenzy”? Shall I tell you? He suggested that Aaron Kosminski was a harmless imbecile who Robert Anderson would never has suspected of being Jack the Ripper. That's what you think sent us all off on a “feeding frenzy”. You know, that would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And you still fail to understand that Wilson, O'Brien, Churchill and Magrath aren't “likely suspects”, they're not even suspects in any substantial sense; they are on a level with the hundreds of men on whom suspicion temporarily settled for one reason or another. But Kosminski was a genuine, legitimate suspect: there were many circs, remember.

You keep asking me about Fidos book does it matter whether I read it or not Aaron Kosminski is no more, Anderson is unreliable accept it move on with your life enjoy your old age

Yes, it does matter. It matters because you are a self-proclaimed leading Jack the Ripper expert and you have taken it upon yourself to be disparaging about those you think of as Kosminski-ites, and you have called into question their thinking and challenged the authenticity of the marginalia, and you post a message here from which it is abundantly clear that you don't know, don't even have the remotest idea what the thinking of a leading so-called Kosminski-ite is. You haven't read his book, you haven't any idea what his theory is, and it's doubtful that you even have a working knowledge of what the marginalia actually says. So you are not an expert or an authority, and your ignorance is in fact so profound that you even claim that Eddowes what not wearing an apron! So when you say “Kosminski is no more” and make other assertions of that kind, we have a very good idea of how seriously we should take what you say. But apart from that it is a matter of asking you a direct question and you doing whatever you can to avoid answering it which is so telling.

[Supe]

Trev,

And out comes the old chestnut "well there could have been and it might have been in the file that were lost, stolen or destroyed".

As any researcher could tell you, the loss of records -- through disaster or indifference -- happens with dismaying frequency. It is not a catch-all excuse but a damnable reality.

On July 12, 1973, a fire at the government archives center in St. Louis, MO, destroyed 16-18 million Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF), representing the complete military histories of 80% of the U.S. soldiers discharged between 1912 and 1960. And in a service where the joke was that everything, including calls to nature, had to be done in triplicate, there were no copies made of any of the documents.

Moreover, the reason they can only estimate that between 16-18 million OMPF were lost is because over the years files had been loaned to other agencies and never returned, inadvertently destroyed or simply discarded by the witless.

After more than a century, two wars and the often incompetent ministrations of uncaring clerks, is it really surprising that many Met and City police records are missing? And not just those regarding JtR but of so many cases big and small.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you think that because Kozminski is probably not the Ripper we should not find the questions raised interesting? Or of other historical value? You don't believe people might approach the question of why he was suspect, or why he was prominent enough to be remembered years later as a puzzle to be pondered or solved?

If you don't believe folks would find that kind of question interesting, then why would we worry about other little questions? (You know, little things like who the Ripper was...)

All that is happening is that same arguments are being put forward the same pnoint raised over and over again its getting boring now. How many are going to find it interesting its the same people debating the same issues over again. The trouble is tp mnay egos on the line for anyone to back down

[Trevor Marriott]

So you think that because Kozminski is probably not the Ripper we should not find the questions raised interesting? Or of other historical value? You don't believe people might approach the question of why he was suspect, or why he was prominent enough to be remembered years later as a puzzle to be pondered or solved?

If you don't believe folks would find that kind of question interesting, then why would we worry about other little questions? (You know, little things like who the Ripper was...)

But he wasnt a suspect was he someone with the surname was remember evn you said Aaron Kosminski was not the Ripper the facts surrounding him do not even point to him being the Kosminski named.

[Trevor Marriott]

“Well serious or not all three couldnt have been the ripper could they”

No, they couldn't all have been Jack the Ripper, but that doesn't alter the fact that senior and informed policemen thought two of them very probably could have been. That's what makes them “serious suspects”, which is what you've tried to say they weren't.

“Yes and the file could have been made up from the type of infmation i cited in an earlier post which raised another valid issue. But then again like of all valid points raised which dont conform to your view you try the old soft shoe shuffle by answering a question with a question and you ask if i can dance.”


Er, I suggest that the information was taken from a file, not, as you have claimed, a ledger listing names. To which you say, “Yes and the file could have been made up from the type of information...” How does that not conform to what I said? I mean, when you say “the file could have been...” you do mean a file containing information? You mean a file type of file which contains bits of paper? The sort of file people call a file? The sort of file which a little while back you told Martin Fido was where Macnaghten obtained his information, writing: “Where did he get the info from to include in the memo. I will tell you. From files which had been created by officers in 1888 or thereafter. Those files were no doubt created by officers with good intent and put into the system and were likely as not based on nothing more than hearsay.”

So, let me see. Yes, yes, I think I've got it, the information was got from – a file! And let's see. What did I write? Oh my goodness, “And if Macnaghten did not obtain his information about these people from a ledger, then he got it from somewhere else, like a file.”

“There are no Kosminski arguments his name was mentioned and Fido suggested AAron Kosminski which sent you all of on a Kosminski feeding frenzy. Now Aaron Kosminski is no longer the suspect. All you are left with is a surname which no one has been able to identify and no one will ever be able to I suggest. So the name Kosminski must stand now alongside those of Wilson,Obrien,Churchill and Magrath as only likely suspects”


How would you know there are no Kosminski arguments, you haven't read the books. You don't know what Martin Fido argues. You don't know what his thinking is. As for the rest of your paragraph, it's drivel. What did Martin Fido suggest Aaron Kosminski was, Trevor? What was it that he proposed about Aaron Kosminski that sent us all on a “feeding frenzy”? Shall I tell you? He suggested that Aaron Kosminski was a harmless imbecile who Robert Anderson would never has suspected of being Jack the Ripper. That's what you think sent us all off on a “feeding frenzy”. You know, that would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And you still fail to understand that Wilson, O'Brien, Churchill and Magrath aren't “likely suspects”, they're not even suspects in any substantial sense; they are on a level with the hundreds of men on whom suspicion temporarily settled for one reason or another. But Kosminski was a genuine, legitimate suspect: there were many circs, remember.

You keep asking me about Fidos book does it matter whether I read it or not Aaron Kosminski is no more, Anderson is unreliable accept it move on with your life enjoy your old age

Yes, it does matter. It matters because you are a self-proclaimed leading Jack the Ripper expert and you have taken it upon yourself to be disparaging about those you think of as Kosminski-ites, and you have called into question their thinking and challenged the authenticity of the marginalia, and you post a message here from which it is abundantly clear that you don't know, don't even have the remotest idea what the thinking of a leading so-called Kosminski-ite is. You haven't read his book, you haven't any idea what his theory is, and it's doubtful that you even have a working knowledge of what the marginalia actually says. So you are not an expert or an authority, and your ignorance is in fact so profound that you even claim that Eddowes what not wearing an apron! So when you say “Kosminski is no more” and make other assertions of that kind, we have a very good idea of how seriously we should take what you say. But apart from that it is a matter of asking you a direct question and you doing whatever you can to avoid answering it which is so telling.

And you are not a self proclaimed expert are you. Is reading a book going to change the facts ?

i am not going to lower myself to your level other than to say you have no room to crtiticise others when it was you I belive that when Cutbush was the new prime suspect you took you little movie camera and made a charlie cheapo video for You tube claiming he was the Ripper. You need to make up your mind as to who you think the ripper really was and stop changing the goalposts thats if you are capable of sound reasoning.

I do not intend to post further on this topic

I should also point out that the new evidence I have obtained has not come from the registers or ledgers but other police documents so tell the rest of your cartel members on there to cease the slagging off and mud throwing I would tell them myself but I am not a member of JTR Forums

[Wickerman]

... You don't believe people might approach the question of why he was suspect, or why he was prominent enough to be remembered years later as a puzzle to be pondered or solved?

That, I think, must be the principal question on everybody's lips.

Why was Kosminski a suspect?

Presumably, the police I.D. was the result of police suspicions?

Do the words of Macnaghten have any bearing on these questions?
"... many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

How many of these suspects went through an I.D.? several, dozens, or just the one?

And what were these "circs"?
"...There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'."

Is Macnaghten only referring back to the I.D. we are debating, or something else?

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that there were not a lot of suspects swirling around in the mix. The very dearth of suspects led to the police – after the event, and not the police on the ground – dredging up suspects from prisons and hospitals records and via family members sneaking on people who were guilty of ‘odd behaviour’ of some sort, usually sexual.

The appearance of a name on the SB ledgers does not imply that the person concerned was an unresolved suspect. The lack of those names being mentioned thereafter would I suggest imply that they were eliminated.

The ‘non-also ran’ suspects were all Head Office ‘after the event suspects’ . If there were any decent contemporary suspects (e.g. recorded on the ledgers) then the ‘non-also-rans’ wouldn’t have probably never have emerged.

[mariab]

If no more murders 'of this type' took place, they may have thought, in retrospect, that they had gotten their man somewhere and at some point. This may explain why Swanson took a special interest in the Coles murder if he thought there was a good chance that they may have found their man before this murder took place.
That would not deter someone like Swanson from investigating others (such as Grainger) because there was no certainty in his mind at that point and he had to carry out the duties he was responsible for. Anderson's 'certainty' appears to have developed at a later date and after no more possible suspects emerged... and probably came from information supplied by Swanson in the wake of his investigations of many suspects.

After more than a century, two wars and the often incompetent ministrations of uncaring clerks, is it really surprising that many Met and City police records are missing? And not just those regarding JtR but of so many cases big and small.

I agree with both these statements at 100%.

Maria,
For the sake of clarification {...} I was responding to something Phil Carter had written to Martin Fido. {...} I, o course, agree with Stewart's catalogue of the reasons given by Macnaghten himself.

I understand now, and thank you so much for explaining.

All I know is what Sugden discussed. Macnaghten wrote to the Medical Superintendent at Banstead on 7 May 1891, the day of Ostrog's admission, on behalf of the Convict Supervision Office.
Macnaghten asked for immediate information to be sent to said office in the event of Ostrog's discharge. Macnaghten explained that the Magistrate at Bow Street Court had adjourned the case sine die, in order that Ostrog could be brought up and dealt with for failing to report himself if it was found that he was feigning insanity.
The records of the Banstead Hospital should be at the LMA, but were uncatalogued when accessed by Sugden.

The Macnaghten letter to Banstead concerning Ostrog is interesting.

Thank you, Mr. Evans. The main reason I'm interested in perusing the entire content of the Macnaghten letter to the Medical Superintendant at Banstead and perhaps the Superintendant's reply to Macnaghten (I know, dare to dream!) is to see if at that point (May 1891) they became clear or not that Ostrog did not demonstrate real violent tendencies. If Macnaghten already knew this fact in 1891, then his inclusion of Ostrog in the MM can only be explained through bad memory or through a mix up with another suspect, possibly Charles Le Grand (for whom I've located evidence for criminal activity in Paris, without yet having managed to further research if it's the same individual, but I'll be doing this in October).

I wish so, but was given to understand that neither the Grove Hall nor Banstead records were there. Perhaps I should try again?

Lynn, did you correspond with the LMA on this?
Evidently these records were uncatalogued when Sugden saw them in the 1980s. We suspect that Macnaghten's letter might be at the LMA in the case files:
http://tinyurl.com/6yw2867
Rob Clack is trying to locate it, and I'll spend 3 days in London in early October trying to look for it (and other things) at the LMA.