Plausibility of Kosminski

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mr. Evans.

"I simply cannot agree that any witness ever got a good view of the murderer which is what Anderson claimed. The reasons being that (a) the known sightings were in far from ideal conditions and (b) no murder was seen being committed (so how can you say that anyone got a good view of the murderer) and (c) the alleged identification was carried so long after the event as to be totally valueless."

And this seems to be corroborated by Mac's dictum that no one had seen . . . .

Cheers.
LC

I think 'good view' should be qualified here.

What constitutes 'a good view'?

In my view, Lewande's view was good enough to give a solid description. It may not have been an ideal view, but good enough all the same.

I think Wickerman does a good job of showing that, taking Anderson and Swanson at their word/s, these must have been two separate IDs.

In terms of Anderson's witness:

I'm scratching my head struggling to understand how he could come to the conclusion that Schwartz was the man.

Everything fits with Lawende, including time of death, police beats etc. And, there is one significant factor against Schwartz: BS man attacked Stride in a spot out of sync with Jack's dark corner, and I feel this is the clincher.

That said, Anderson could quite easily have seen it differently. Not saying Schwartz wasn't the man; more a case of struggling to understand Anderson's conclusion that Schwartz was the better of the two witnesses (if indeeed he did arrive at such a conclusion).

[lynn cates]

fool

Hello Maria. I'm a fool. I have been holding some records from Islington and, I think, Banstead, barely realising it. They seemed hardly important. I found them and am sending them to Chris Phillips for transcription.

I misunderstood the research associate.

SOOO, everyone, go to the LMA. You might hit the jackpot.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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.

Today, if you go to the hospital with a gunshot wound the hospital is required to inform the police.

I have to wonder if the police had wired the hospitals & Institutions to inform them if they received any patients with particular conditions.
Suspect Lunatics, in the press, were a common target.

When the Kosminski family took Aaron to Mile End perhaps the institution had wired the police due to something contained in what the family had told them, and/or his evident condition.

Possibly this was the start of their suspicions, Swanson makes no hint they suspected him before he was "released into his brother's care". Subsequently they would need to talk with the family.

Should we really think the police would conduct an I.D. with a witness from a previous murder if, this suspect did not in the slightest way resemble the published description?
Swanson:
"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

- Because the City CID had this man under surveillance, surely this is a strong indication they were watching the man they thought responsible for the Mitre Sq. murder.
- Therefore, the witness used in the I.D. also must be a witness from the Mitre Sq. murder.
- That being the case, is it then reasonable to assume this Kosminski resembled to some degree (apart from age), the very description (above) given by Swanson and credited to Lawende?

The sequence of circumstantial evidence might lead us in that particular direction.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

apologies for the brief highjacking

Lynn, this sounds good. When you say “transcription“, do you mean that Chris Phillips will transcribe the Banstead files and post them here?
If I may be allowed the briefest highjacking of this thread, Lynn, if you have any way to figure out which bank in London (or Paris) Piňtr Rachkovsky might have been using in 1888 (perhaps through your Palo Alto files?), I'd appreciate that information and could use it in researching bank records in London. (Might probably turn out into a Polyanna idea though.)

[Hunter]

I have to wonder if the police had wired the hospitals & Institutions to inform them if they received any patients with particular conditions.
Suspect Lunatics, in the press, were a common target.

When the Kosminski family took Aaron to Mile End perhaps the institution had wired the police due to something contained in what the family had told them, and/or his evident condition.

Possibly this was the start of their suspicions, Swanson makes no hint they suspected him before he was "released into his brother's care". Subsequently they would need to talk with the family.

As Rob House stated in his recent book, the second time Aaron Kozminski was taken to Mile End, he was examined by Mr. Edward Houchin, a surgeon for H division, Metropolitan Police. Houchin had evidently been installed there to examine entrants since 1888. There's no proof, but one can't help but speculate that Houchin was used to process potential suspects in the Whitechapel murders, unless there is information that the use of police surgeons at such institutions was common practice.

Going back to what I suggested earlier, in lieu of actually catching the murderer, the police strategy was to locate, monitor and incarcerate as many perceived lunatics as they could in the hope that the responsible person or persons would be placed where no further harm could be done. Houchin may have been the one to notify officials about individuals that may require investigation... such as surveillance, interrogation and/or ID attempts by a witness. A promise to that individual's family that no publicity would be made about it would be an incentive for them to cooperate in an effort for committal.

This might explain some of the activities mentioned by Cox, Sager and even Swanson... even though they seem to be describing different suspects... and they may have been.

Evidently, Kozminski became prominent to Swanson, for the reasons he stated; though he may have been given mistaken information regarding another similar individual who had died.

It would be interesting if someone could determine if there was an increase in asylum committals of males between 20 and 40 in the immediate years after 1888.

[mariab]

It would be interesting if someone could determine if there was an increase in asylum committals of males between 20 and 40 in the immediate years after 1888.

Now this is a very clever research idea.

[TomTomKent]

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.

Which does not answer the question I asked. Never mind. As far as I am concerned Kosminski not being the Ripper, or not being Aaron Kosminski are not reasons we should not find this an area of interesting discussion.

If you don't agree, or you think people only continue this thread out of ego andcan not back down, if you aren't enjoying the process of sharing ideas to see what others may find plausible, why take part yourself?

[TomTomKent]

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.

All good points, and a fine question I would love to have answered regardless of how likely, or unlikely it was that a, or any, Kosminski was a suspect.

[TomTomKent]

Now this is a very clever research idea.

A freedom of information request perhaps?

[Stewart P Evans]

Unfair

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.
...

Trevor, it is well known that Paul and I have had our differences in the past and, obviously, there are still things we disagree about (and that's as it should be).

But I have to say I think that you are being a bit unfair here. I don't think that he should be called a 'self-proclaimed expert' when his past work earns him that accolade from others. His books alone have earned him the recognition he has and I have never heard him declaring himself to be an expert.

Paul obviously takes an interest, as do I, in any new developments and information that comes to light and it was the release of the Cutbush asylum material that prompted his interest and the video piece.

I don't recall that Paul has ever claimed that Cutbush was the Ripper, nor do I recall that Cutbush was declared 'the new prime suspect' other than, maybe, in some media outlet.

It's this sort of post by you that could be read as a personal attack, as opposed to factual commentary, and it does pay to get your facts straight first.

[PaulB]

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

No, I am not a self-proclaimed expert and like Stewart I feel uncomfortable about being called one, but any expertise I have has come from several decades spent researching the case. And reading a book isn't going to change the facts, Trevor, but there is a fair chance that reading a book will tell you what the facts are.

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.

Actually, it was Richard Jones, who has released a couple of rather highly thought of DVDs and is another Ripper author you probably haven't read, invited me to accompany him to the opening of the Cutbush papers, and he took rather more than a “little movie camera” - it was a professional camera and there were at least two crew – to film my initial reactions. I didn't know it was going to be on You Tube. Had I done I wouldn't have worn that silly jacket. And I didn't say that I thought Cutbush was Jack the Ripper or anything remotely like that!

I do not intend to post further on this topic

Good. A wise move. Everyone will be happy with that.

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

Any new information that brings us to a better understanding of the case is always welcomed by me and when and if you make your new evidence known, I will welcome it with open arms. But there is no cartel, Trevor, that's just a product of your imagination, and to my profound regret I have no influence over what posts people make. As for mud-slinging, you've flung the dung freely and frequently, so don't start complaining when some gets flung back. And let's not forget that it was you who popped up here in your ignorance to draw attention to a video in which you thought Martin Fido was saying something new. And when asked if you knew Martin was voicing what was substantially a quarter of a century old, and asked if you had actually read Martin's book and knew what his theory and thinking was, you didn't fess up and to your credit you didn't lie, but you avoided the question and tried to suggest that I was the one being evasive, just as above you try to suggest that you're not going to sink to my level! My goodness, Trevor, you were down there, looking up and waving and waiting to greet me! You are the one who tried to score points, you are the one who talked of clocks ticking, ships sinking and book burnings on the village green. You could just have admitted that you hadn't read Martin's book, didn't know what his thinking was, and didn't realise that Martin didn't send anyone off on a feeding frenzy... Okay, you'd have displayed your ignorance and set people wondering what kind of authority slags off theories when they don't even know what it is. But that's happened anyway. None of this is my fault, Trevor. It's yours.

[PaulB]

Trevor, it is well known that Paul and I have had our differences in the past and, obviously, there are still things we disagree about (and that's as it should be).

But I have to say I think that you are being a bit unfair here. I don't think that he should be called a 'self-proclaimed expert' when his past work earns him that accolade from others. His books alone have earned him the recognition he has and I have never heard him declaring himself to be an expert.

Paul obviously takes an interest, as do I, in any new developments and information that comes to light and it was the release of the Cutbush asylum material that prompted his interest and the video piece.

I don't recall that Paul has ever claimed that Cutbush was the Ripper, nor do I recall that Cutbush was declared 'the new prime suspect' other than, maybe, in some media outlet.

It's this sort of post by you that could be read as a personal attack, as opposed to factual commentary, and it does pay to get your facts straight first.

Hi Stewart
Thanks for that. I responded to Trevor's post before reading yours. Richard wanted to make a video record of our reactions to the Cutbush papers, the content of which was unknown to us, hence the camera and crew, who shot a lot more stuff than was on You Tube. I didn't object to being interviewed, and actually thought it was a good idea to film our initial reactions, albeit it was all a bit flat as the papers weren't all that revealing.
Paul

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

...
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

I trust that what you describe as 'new evidence' is indeed that, evidence.

As an ex-police officer you, like I, should know exactly what constitutes evidence (type etc.) and as you have described it as 'new evidence' I am looking forward to seeing exactly what it amounts to. That is if you ever decide to use or share it, but that's up to you. I shall certainly not be holding my breath.

As for JTRForums, it should be pretty obvious to someone with your detective abilities to see that the contributors there are reading these boards, just as you are reading theirs. So they have obviously read what you have to say and no one needs to tell them what your message is.

[Chris]

... as you have described it as 'new evidence' I am looking forward to seeing exactly what it amounts to. That is if you ever decide to use or share it, but that's up to you. I shall certainly not be holding my breath.

I am looking forward to seeing whether it's in the Ultimate Sourcebook.

[TomTomKent]

Unfortunately none of the information about the new evidence so far is useful for discussing the implications. Being told Mr M has it, and what it is not, wont changes the views of who is worthy of research or valid as a suspect. Until it is in the public domain for people to make up their own minds we are under no obligation to believe it discounts or discredits anything.