Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

This...

Macnaghten says that he was removed to an asylum about March 1889, not that he died then.
In fact, in the Aberconway version he wrote that he believed Kosminski was still in the asylum. Was this statement removed because there was already a belief in some quarters that Kosminski was dead?

This, of course, raises the other point which is often made. That is that if the police knew that Kosminski was the Ripper then they would surely have known, and kept tabs on, his status at all times. After all, they regarded him as a 'homicidal maniac', despite the fact that he was not in totally secure accommodation such as Broadmoor.

[Chris]

We don't have a record of the witness using the words, 'I couldn't swear to it.'

What we do have is Anderson telling us, '...but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.', which is a totally different thing. The words Anderson uses here seem to indicate that the witness identified the suspect but then learned (presumably someone told him) that the suspect was a Jew. The witness then refused to make a sworn statement to confirm the identification.

Yes, I agree what Anderson wrote is a different thing. But isn't it possible that this is Anderson's spin (or muddled recollection) of the witness saying something like "It looks like the man but I can't swear it's him"?

As for the business of identifiying him without realising he was Jewish, and then learning that he was, certainly it's possible, as we've discussed. But equally, if Anderson was going to blame the witness for protecting a "fellow-Jew," he would have had to be unaware that the suspect was Jewish at the point he made the alleged identification. So I don't think it's impossible that this business of not realising he was Jewish, and then learning that he was, is an embellishment (conscious or unconscious) by Anderson.

And I have difficulty with the idea that the witness would say to the police, in effect, "I refuse to give evidence against this man because he is Jewish." But if he wasn't sure about the identification, I can imagine he might have told them that his conscience would not let him swear away the man's life, and that that would be a particularly terrible thing because the man was a fellow-Jew.

[Trevor Marriott]

Macnaghten says that he was removed to an asylum about March 1889, not that he died then.

In fact, in the Aberconway version he wrote that he believed Kosminski was still in the asylum. Was this statement removed because there was already a belief in some quarters that Kosminski was dead?

Well in 1895 Aaron Kosminski was alive and kicking swanson said he was dead then.

Ah but the cartel wont let us see the full version of The Aberconway Version so we only have your word as a cartel member on that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cartel???

Well in 1895 Aaron Kosminski was alive and kicking swanson said he was dead then.
Ah but the cartel wont let us see the full version of The Aberconway Version so we only have your word as a cartel member on that.

Cartel, what cartel???

If you take a look at the A To Z you will find reproduced, verbatim, all the references to the Ripper murders and suspects. There is nothing relevant missing, there is no 'cartel', there is no conspiracy, and nothing is being deliberately 'hidden'.

[Chris]

Ah but the cartel wont let us see the full version of The Aberconway Version so we only have your word as a cartel member on that.

Actually, you can find the Aberconway version description of Kosminski in any number of published works, starting with Cullen's Autumn of Terror (1965).

[Trevor Marriott]

Cartel, what cartel???

If you take a look at the A To Z you will find reproduced, verbatim, all the references to the Ripper murders and suspects. There is nothing relevant missing, there is no 'cartel', there is no conspiracy, and nothing is being deliberately 'hidden'.

I am not going to be drawn into arguments on this issue which have been hotly debated previous all i will ask and I think it is question which should be asked and also answered and that is Why cant the whole document be published for al to see in its entirety after all the current owners did ask that it be now published on the world wide web yet it still remains out of sight. After all the one referred to has proved to be questionable lets get it published in full so everyone can assessand evaluate it for themselves.

[Archaic]

Cartel, what cartel???

There is nothing relevant missing, there is no 'cartel'

What do you mean there's no cartel???

I already submitted my credit card number for a plastic membership card and a toy whistle!

- Heads will roll!!

Somewhat chagrined regards,
(Sigh...)
Archaic

[Stewart P Evans]

Possible

Yes, I agree what Anderson wrote is a different thing. But isn't it possible that this is Anderson's spin (or muddled recollection) of the witness saying something like "It looks like the man but I can't swear it's him"?
As for the business of identifiying him without realising he was Jewish, and then learning that he was, certainly it's possible, as we've discussed. But equally, if Anderson was going to blame the witness for protecting a "fellow-Jew," he would have had to be unaware that the suspect was Jewish at the point he made the alleged identification. So I don't think it's impossible that this business of not realising he was Jewish, and then learning that he was, is an embellishment (conscious or unconscious) by Anderson.
And I have difficulty with the idea that the witness would say to the police, in effect, "I refuse to give evidence against this man because he is Jewish." But if he wasn't sure about the identification, I can imagine he might have told them that his conscience would not let him swear away the man's life, and that that would be a particularly terrible thing because the man was a fellow-Jew.

Yes, it is possible, but it's far more likely that the legal interpretation applies rather than the colloquial, for the request would have been made formally anyway, despite any initial refusal.

We are into the realms of speculation here anyway. You are debating the finer points of embellishment based on supposition whereas I would, rather more cynically, favour prevarication by Anderson. We shall never know the answer I fear. These arguments are specious and, quite honestly, a matter of opinion. But, given this scenario we still have the situation where a reluctant witness can be made to give evidence against suffering the penalty of the law. It would not be as simple as merely refusing on principle.

The whole identification scenario, as described, goes totally against any form of proper police procedural and smacks of a tale invented to support a personal belief in someone's guilt. I'm sorry if that is too strong and it offends anyone's sensibility, but there it is, had to be said.

[TomTomKent]

Cartel, what cartel???

If you take a look at the A To Z you will find reproduced, verbatim, all the references to the Ripper murders and suspects. There is nothing relevant missing, there is no 'cartel', there is no conspiracy, and nothing is being deliberately 'hidden'.

Good point.

All this talk of Kozminski-ites, cartels and suppression is getting dangerously close to a conspiracy theory. Even had the relevant information been missing why should I assume that is because of a cartel, the illuminatus, or anybody else? Let alone the word of Mister M, or anybody else of what documents must be hidden, what they said, or why.

Now I hope mr M, you don't misread that as a sleight to your goodself. You have taken good care to discuss quality of evidence before, and are much better placed than me to know an absence of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy.

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

I am not going to be drawn into arguments on this issue which have been hotly debated previous all i will ask and I think it is question which should be asked and also answered and that is Why cant the whole document be published for al to see in its entirety after all the current owners did ask that it be now published on the world wide web yet it still remains out of sight. After all the one referred to has proved to be questionable lets get it published in full so everyone can assessand evaluate it for themselves.

Well Trevor, I'm not in a position to argue the toss over this anyway.

However, the A To Z tells you that the 'Aberconway version' is merely a typed copy of Macnaghten's notes together with two handwritten pages, inserted by Lady Aberconway, giving the suspect details. The main point to be noted here, I think, is the fact that they are not Macnaghten's original notes anyway, merely a copy of them.

The A To Z gives a very good, and very clear, breakdown of the 'Aberconway version' and, believe me, you are not missing anything of relevance.

Possibly the attitude of some of those clamouring for a view of these notes has caused a problem, who knows?

[Chris]

But, given this scenario we still have the situation where a reluctant witness can be made to give evidence against suffering the penalty of the law. It would not be as simple as merely refusing on principle.

Yes - that's why I find this aspect of Anderson's story implausible, and feel it's more likely that the witness would have told the police he was uncertain about the identification (even if he had been trying to protect the suspect).

I think any discussion of this question is bound to be speculative, unless someone can find some more evidence about what really happened.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good point.

All this talk of Kozminski-ites, cartels and suppression is getting dangerously close to a conspiracy theory. Even had the relevant information been missing why should I assume that is because of a cartel, the illuminatus, or anybody else? Let alone the word of Mister M, or anybody else of what documents must be hidden, what they said, or why.

Now I hope mr M, you don't misread that as a sleight to your goodself. You have taken good care to discuss quality of evidence before, and are much better placed than me to know an absence of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Conspiracy your words not mine I have never suggested a conspiracy. I may well have thought it

[Stewart P Evans]

C'mon...

Conspiracy your words not mine I have never suggested a conspiracy. I may well have thought it

C'mon Trev, there's no conspiracy believe me.

I'll be back in a while, I'm just off to send some encrypted messages to some rather close friends of mine whose names I am unable to divulge.

[Stewart P Evans]

Very true...

Yes - that's why I find this aspect of Anderson's story implausible, and feel it's more likely that the witness would have told the police he was uncertain about the identification (even if he had been trying to protect the suspect).
I think any discussion of this question is bound to be speculative, unless someone can find some more evidence about what really happened.

Very true Chris, but, at least, we have your ever sensible and level-headed input, not to mention the outstanding research you have contributed.

[TomTomKent]

Or if we are open to speculation, the technical difficulties of taking old and delicate papers to be scanned or copied. Depending on the paper used and the conditions they were kept in they could be fairly fragile by now.

There are more reasonable concerns than a cartel wanting control of documents pertaining to a niche interest of limited profit.