Plausibility of Kosminski

[mariab]

Interestingly the 'Batty Street lodger' story had never been published in a Ripper book until the publication of The Lodger in 1995.{...}

Well, I'm grateful that someone;-) brought it forward in 1995. As for interpretations, they are bound to change with new evidence.

Despite not being convinced by the Pittsburgh Press quote brought forth by Mr. Hainsworth (which is sooo hearsay, it doesn't even spell Macnaghten's name correctly), his Examiner articles on Druitt are also on my reading list. Eventually it will happen (that I catch up with all this).

[Chris]

Do you think that there's a TV series in it for us?

Of course, not all TV detectives make criminals shake in their shoes ...

[Stewart P Evans]

Who cares...

Of course, not all TV detectives make criminals shake in their shoes ...
[ATTACH]12586[/ATTACH]

Who cares about making criminals shake in their shoes, as long as we get a TV series.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you think that there's a TV series in it for us?

Maybe Jeff Leahy can pull a few strings, A re make of Pinky and Perky ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then we are both ex-police officers and some might suggest that we are a tad too cynical. I like to think that I am realistic and that I have great experience of all sorts of human beings and how they act - including senior police officers.

Amd if you were being led into battle some of them you wouldnt want leading the charge

[Fleetwood Mac]

no conviction would have been obtained on that alone. For goodness sake, the witness didn't even see a murder taking place.

Which is not what we're talking about.

The question we're discussing is this: would an ID have been attractive to the police? I believe it would have been for reasons including and excluding a possible conviction, regardless of whether or not the likelihood of a convcition was remote.

Anderson (and Swanson), however, are seriously saying that the witness 'instantly' identified the murderer but that the witness simply refused to make a sworn statement to that effect so the police simply let the identified murderer be returned to his family and freedom.

I agree with this to an extent.

I'd imagine had he been identified, and the suspect could have been detained in an asylum, then the police would have moved heaven and earth to have had him detained. The only plausible solution is that the suspect wasn't clearly insane at this point, which, of course, argues against Anderson's ID bid; assuming we have only one ID. The next best bet was to watch him 'day and night', and perhaps the attack on his sister 'shortly after' was the trigger for him being sent to an asylum.

A better question would be why is there no contemporary record, in any shape or form, official or otherwise, of any such identification ever taking place?

I'd suggest that this detracts from confidence in the ID, but does not rule it out.

It was not until 1910 that Anderson revealed the incredible fact that the police had identified Jack the Ripper and knew who he was but that their witness simply refused to give evidence and was 'caged in an asylum'. At that time his claims (inter alia) did meet with derision and accusations of boasting and telling tall stories.

I believed they did.

But, not due to the idea that he couldn't have secured a conviction.

None of it makes sense - unless, of course, Anderson was inventing the identification story to support his belief as to the identity of the murderer. But, then, he wouldn't lie - would he?

He could have been.

We've talked about authority being important when reviewing a source document.

Likewise, the objective of the author is important.

Memoirs are irretreivably bound up with reputation.

As an example: all of the high ranking ministerial figures in the belligerent nations of WW1, wrote in their memoirs that WW1 was inevitable; that events had overtaken them; that they had no choice and therefore should bear no responsibility. What the British did not reveal, for example, is that they did have a choice: they chose to go to war to prevent the Germans from dominating the Northern French coast, which of course was not a stated war aim of Germany; there was no source evidence to suggest the Germans planned to challenged British trade and the wider British Empire. It suited British and other high ranking ministerial figures to, effectively, lie because their reputations were at stake.

There are countless examples of senior officials writing memoirs that are littered with attempts to have themselves seen in a good light; after all, reputation and legacy matter to these people.

In my view, it is far more likely that Anderson is lying than it is he couldn't remember 4 simple variables, although does this mean he colluded with Swanson?

[tji]

Who cares about making criminals shake in their shoes, as long as we get a TV series

New tv series coming soon to your tv - The Researchers.

I would watch it


Tj

[Stewart P Evans]

'Nobody'

I realize that I am beating a dead horse here and that many will find this post too long to read- especially from a nobody from Tennessee- but for some time I've believed that many who have analyzed this aspect of the case have been viewing it through the wrong end of the microscope; placing Sir Robert Anderson and his words at the front of the Kozminski mystery and Swanson as the loyal lieutenant that follows along with his 'old master'. This is understandable to some extent because of the high profile and public figure that Anderson was. He was controversial in his own time. Swanson exhibited almost no public persona.
...

I'd like to think that no one posting on these threads is regarded as a 'nobody' by anyone. You make some valid and interesting points and everyone has the right to his say.

That said, I do agree that overlong posts and multiple point answers may become confusing and fail to hold the attention of some readers. I hasten to add that I am not saying that this is the case here. It is also another reason why, when I address a long post, I often break it down when answering, to individual points with specific answers. That way it's easier to digest and often less confusing.

By the way, I enjoyed my one visit to Tennessee (Memphis) back in 1979 and thought it was a nice place.

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Natalie

Didn't it mean soon after the attempted identification? The attempted ID was itself two years after walking the dog. So the indication is that the Seaside Home encounter and the described caging in the asylum were spring 1891 onward.

Hope to see you at the Whitechapel Society conference, Natalie....

C

Thankyou Chris and I look forward to seeing you there too.

Regarding the 'seaside home' identification, I find it such an implausible rigmarole from start to finish that I am never quite sure what is meant viz

Blackwood's magazine 1910-Robert Anderson:

.....I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum,the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him,

Pretty clear then that Aaron was already 'caged up' and out of harms way.
However-here come the inconsistencies---on 12 July 1890 when admitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse for just three days before being released home, the papers state he had been ' two years insane.'So had he been privately 'safely caged' soon after 'an identification' by Lawende or possibly Schwartz -ie between 1888 and 1890?

Swanson when he takes up the rigmarole confuses it even further by saying 'he died soon after'----What????

Sorry-whenever this queer to do took place Aaron Kosminski was certainly not dead but alive and kicking for many years after---until 1919 in fact.

What is also fundamentally contradictory in Anderson's statement,in my view,is the inference that 'the suspect'----Kosminski was ,at the time of the murders ---and forever after--- a 'loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower lever than a brute.'
So a glimpse is given of a man utterly out of control--behaving like a wild beast.
But everything that remains on record of Aaron Kosminski-that we know of-- indicates that the medical staff at the Colney Hatch and Leavesden asylums found him 'not dangerous.'-ie from admission onwards----apart from one incident when he picked up a chair and threatened a staff member---easy to understand when someone is surrounded by people with severe mental health issues and staff are in the firing line.

And I come back to the fact that Aaron was blithly walking the dog in Cheapside a full year after the most gruesome murder of all in November 1889.This is on record.

Aaron Kosminski never had a single conviction for violent behaviour ---or any other criminal behaviour ----except when , in 1889 , he was prosecuted for walking that dog in Cheapside in November 1889 without a muzzle.
Best
Norma

[The Good Michael]

The idea of a positive ID might have been an embellishment based on something about the reaction of the witness upon exposure to the suspect rather than upon words that were actually spoken. By this I mean upon a feeling of certainty by the detectives/officers present based upon how the witness and the suspect both responded when confronted with each other, that made it certain in their minds that these two had seen each other before. This would have been a positive ID in the minds of the officers, but without any words spoken that could lead to further detention or a course of prosecution.

This scenario would not have been an outright lie. In their minds, the suspect would have been positively ID'ed, and the witness would not have signed a sworn statement, because he never would have actually made one.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Mike---well thankfully---or should I say 'hopefully' such a maverick 'identification' would be thrown out of any court.It would be a nonsense.
Best,
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Of course

Which is not what we're talking about.
The question we're discussing is this: would an ID have been attractive to the police? I believe it would have been for reasons including and excluding a possible conviction, regardless of whether or not the likelihood of a convcition was remote.
...

Of course an identification would be attractive to the police. That is obvious. As I suggested ages ago, if only to try to 'scare' a confession out of a recalcitrant suspect.

We are examining all options. We have to. And an invented identification, complete with an excuse as to why it wasn't used, in order to bolster a belief that he knew who the offender was would also be very attractive.

[Stewart P Evans]

Caveats

...
I'd imagine had he been identified, and the suspect could have been detained in an asylum, then the police would have moved heaven and earth to have had him detained. The only plausible solution is that the suspect wasn't clearly insane at this point, which, of course, argues against Anderson's ID bid; assuming we have only one ID. The next best bet was to watch him 'day and night', and perhaps the attack on his sister 'shortly after' was the trigger for him being sent to an asylum.
...

Apart from all the caveats attached to this idea, and the story, are you saying what it appears you are.

That if the suspect had been positively identified as Jack the Ripper (the most wanted and possibly most dangerous killer ever known to the Metropolitan and City Police) by a witness (who refused to give evidence), had been merely returned to freedom to be 'watched day and night' by detectives. Not only that, and bearing in mind the logistics involved, no mention has survived by any other police officer, except Cox of the City Police whose timing for his observations does not even fit Kosminski?

[Stewart P Evans]

One and only...

...
We've talked about authority being important when reviewing a source document.
Likewise, the objective of the author is important.
Memoirs are irretreivably bound up with reputation.
As an example: all of the high ranking ministerial figures in the belligerent nations of WW1, wrote in their memoirs that WW1 was inevitable; that events had overtaken them; that they had no choice and therefore should bear no responsibility. What the British did not reveal, for example, is that they did have a choice: they chose to go to war to prevent the Germans from dominating the Northern French coast, which of course was not a stated war aim of Germany; there was no source evidence to suggest the Germans planned to challenged British trade and the wider British Empire. It suited British and other high ranking ministerial figures to, effectively, lie because their reputations were at stake.
There are countless examples of senior officials writing memoirs that are littered with attempts to have themselves seen in a good light; after all, reputation and legacy matter to these people.
In my view, it is far more likely that Anderson is lying than it is he couldn't remember 4 simple variables, although does this mean he colluded with Swanson?

The one and only source document for the identification is Anderson's 1910 book and, more importantly, Swanson's annotated copy of that book.

It is surely a given that this is not the best sort of historical source material, being written twenty years after the event and in the form of boastful memoirs. Historians do not need to be told about agendas, bias, propaganda, beliefs, prejudices, reputation, etc., all are factors to be considered and weighed.

I agree that it is more probable that Anderson was lying than that he would misremember four simple variables. As to whether or not there was any 'collusion' is another debate.

I'm afraid that, as so often in the past, we return to the vexed question of Anderson's credibility and reliability. A question perhaps left to points raised in past thereads now consigned to the archives.

[Stewart P Evans]

Have you read...?

...
Memoirs are irretreivably bound up with reputation.
...

There are two important books to read, Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement by Sir Robert Anderson, London, John Murray, 1907 and The Lighter Side of My Official Life by Sir Robert Anderson, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1910.

In my humble opinion, these two secular books give you all the insight you really need to have into Anderson's character and way of thinking. They also, if internalised and studied in context, and against other published works, tell you all you need to know about Anderson's reliability and credibility.

Have you read them? In my opinion no one should be debating on this thread to any depth unless they have done so.