Plausibility of Kosminski

[lynn cates]

altar ego

Hello Mr. Evans. You are called a god of Ripperology. Looking at your posts #739 & #740 I can see why.

I think I owe you an oblation. Thigh bone of a heifer do?

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

The higher the pedestal...

Hello Mr. Evans. You are called a god of Ripperology. Looking at your posts #739 & #740 I can see why.
I think I owe you an oblation. Thigh bone of a heifer do?
Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, I'm not quite sure of how to take that.

There are no 'gods' in Ripperology, nor is there any one 'expert'. If anyone called me that it would result in embarrassment on my part and an increased fear of the response I should get to the next error that I made. The higher the pedestal the further you have to fall.

Yes, I am very familiar with the subject, and so I should be after fifty years of reading about it. In my opinion no single person stands out above the rest as the leading authority on the subject, and I am certainly no better than others such as Paul, Martin or Phil.

And it is not all about knowledge of the facts, for there are those who are highly skilled in interpreting the facts, such as Paul, who can give me a run for my money any day.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Stewart, Trevor,

You two could play good cop-bad cop.

Pinky and Perky?.. or Sooty and Sweep?

kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

humans

Hello Mr. Evans. Humility appreciated, but your suggestions seem to tally with how humans act and think, which was my point.

I approve--for what little that is worth.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

As you and others have repeatedly pointed out, there are a myriad of possibilities as to the why's and the wherefore's in all of this. Trying to read Anderson as to what he meant, why he meant it, and in what context he wrote it, is difficult enough.. but the possibility that he wrote things because of a sense of his own importance and involvement, misguided or not, or his truthfulness or not, makes it terribly complicated.

Added to this mix are the comments of Swanson, Anderson's immediate underling, and man who was in overall charge of the case. Additionally, we have Abberline, who was one of the central players in the investigation, dismissing in 1903 the idea of lunatic being caged etc. Together with these, we have Read, who dismisses any idea out of hand. We have other players in this game, Griffiths, Dew etc, making their pitch known too.

Finally, to make the whole thing a ball of confusion, MacNaghten pops into the scenario.

We try to interpret the reasons for Swanson's writings, note his discrepancies, and do the same with the memoranda presented by MacNaghten.

And very few of the officers at the time seem to agree.

The fact is that Special Branch were in some way or another, large or small, involved in the case.. a bunch of local murders. Which suggests the involvement of other senior policemen as well... Littlechild etc, for example. We know from the letter to Sims that he at least knew enough to be able to comment upon it all, seemingly with some authority.

Whether we discuss or argue for or against Kosminski, or the reasons for his candidacy as a killer or not, and whether we use the caveat that files have gone missing or not, there isn't a scrap of factual evidence to call Kosminski a killer.. which has been pointed out frequently.

The title of this thread is Plausibility of Kosminski. Is it plausible that Aaron Kosminski, proposed suspect of the Whitechapel murders, was exactly that.. a murderer..nay a multiple murderer?

Imho, given the amount of discrepancies presented through conflicting papers and documents, almost unilateral disagreement between the officers involved at the time, and combined with a total lack of evidence to prove any known damage-causing attack on any woman by this man, it is not logically plausible that Aaron Kosminski was a killer, let alone a multi-murdering, swift, deft and "brilliant" murderer.

In the end I would suggest it just comes down to our own individual opinion. The weight of which can be measured by each individual expressing each argument in whichever way they deem plausible to their conclusion.


kindly


Phil

[Hunter]

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.

LOL... I'm not sure if we would agree that Memphis is a nice place, but I hope you tried the barbecue.

For the most part, I try to keep posts within the 3 paragraph rule that I learned in composition, way back in school. Most of these posts are for historical clarification on a point another poster has raised. With this subject, however, it is much more complicated and certainly subjective because of conflicting and incomplete data. A compilation of series of events is required along with a comprehensive biographical study of the persons involved.

I've yet to write an essay on this subject, but in consideration that it is difficult to frame in bits and pieces on scattered posts, maybe it is time to tackle this particular subject in that framework. Much has been written about Macnaghten and Anderson; maybe its time to attempt to put the man who really investigated this case in some comprehensive perspective that draws him out of the shadow of Anderson and lets him stand in his own light... Yep, three paragraphs.

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

LOL... I'm not sure if we would agree that Memphis is a nice place, but I hope you tried the barbecue.
...

Well, what I saw of it I thought was nice.

We stayed at the Holiday Inn and I was guest speaker at the reunion of the 390th Bombardment Group (H), held at that hotel. I got to climb all over the B-17F Memphis Belle which was under restoration at that time. It was nice to see this legendary aircraft 'up close and personal' having seen the WWII William Wyler movie of that name. Truly an experience to be remembered.

We arrived in Memphis on a chocolate brown Alleghany 727 and I was greeted by the heaviest humidity I had ever experienced. Soon the most dramatic thunderstorm I had ever witnessed erupted, the hotel power was cut (necessitating a climb on the stairs to the thirteenth floor) and the sky was lit by the most fantastic display of lightning.

I met some of my most admired WWII 8th Air Force veterans that day, including the 'legendary' General Tom Jeffrey wartime commander of the 'Bloody Hundredth' Bomb Group, claimed to be one of the units that the movie '12 O'Clock High' was based on, with part of the Gregory Peck character, Savage, based on Tom Jeffrey.

[Stewart P Evans]

Allegheny

...
We arrived in Memphis on a chocolate brown Alleghany 727...

That should read Allegheny.

[robhouse]

I very much doubt that the alleged “Batty Street Lodger“ saga can be attached to the Kozminski case at all, since the fictitious story of the blooded shirt at Ms. Kür has already been identified as a planted story in the Northern Eastern Gazette pertaining to another suspect last spring (through a find by Debra Arif).

Hello Maria,

The press report you are referring to was printed in the The North-Eastern Daily Gazette on Wednesday, Oct. 10th, 1888. The relevant extract is this:

"Messrs Grand and Batchelor, private detectives, received information yesterday afternoon which induced them to make enquiries in Batty-street,
Whitechapel. They ascertained that a man, name unknown, recently left with
Mrs. Kail a shirt, the sleeves of which were stained with blood."

From this, Tom Wescott deduced that Le Grand had invented the story of the Batty Street lodger... as he put it that Le Grand was "the original source for the story." I assume this is what you are referring to.

I have failed to see how this report tells us much of anything, except that Le Grand was apparently the first person who brought the news of this story to the press. The "story" about a supposed lodger was clearly doing the rounds of Batty Street before Le Grand ever showed up on the scene, since Mrs. Kuer told the story to her neighbor, who apparently started spreading the story around. She told it to the Police during the house to house inquiries around October 1-2, and she undoubtedly told it to others in the neighborhood. In other words, it was undoubtedly common knowledge in the neighborhood gossip. Le Grand probably simply heard this gossip during the course of his "investigations" in the area, and then passed his information on to the newspaper.

You seem to be implying by your post that Debra's discovery somehow proves that this is a "fictitious story." I do not agree with this, and I think if you read the subsequent articles on the Batty Street suspect, it is clear that the story is not fictitious, although it was clearly misreported in the earliest versions of the story that appeared in the papers.

The earliest reports were based on neighbors' garbled accounts ... garbled in all likelihood because Mrs. Kuer did not speak English very well if at all. As the paper put it, the information came "from various statements made by the neighbours."

Clearly there was no "lodger" at all. The evidence for this is in which printed both an interview with Mrs. Kuer herself, and a letter from an actual lodger in her house. From these two sources, it is clear that there was no lodger, and that the man who dropped off the shirts was a foreigner, and "a ladies tailor who worked for a West-end house". Nor was this man the owner of the bloody shirt... the shirt belonged to another man who lived on the premises of the ladies' tailor. Both of Aaron Kozminski's brothers were ladies' tailors. Aaron's brother Isaac lived just a few hundred yards north of the location of the Stride murder, and as I have speculated, it is possible that Aaron lived in the workshop of his brother Isaac... who was a ladies tailor who likely worked for a West-end house, since he was a master tailor, ie. a subcontractor.

So I really do not see how you have deduced from this one Northern Eastern Gazette article that the whole story was "fictitious," unless you are simply relying on the fact that Tom Wescott told you it was so.

I starkly disagree with Rob House that the fact of agreeing with previous posters on specific details should be considered as these details “being repeated like the gospel word by various people“.

Stewart stated something related to the fact that a positive identification would be legally worthless. After this, several other posters repeated the same assertion, as if it was a fact. This is what I meant when I said it was being repeated "like the gospel word."

I admit I disagree with the assertion that a positive identification would have been legally worthless. Yes, a defense lawyer would likely have an easy time undermining its value as evidence... this does not make it worthless. This is what defense lawyers try to do with all the evidence that is presented in a trial.

I am certainly not debating the fact that the witness is not likely to have been very certain about his identification (at all), given the obvious factors which I stated in my original post on the subject. Passage of time, a brief passing look at the man, the dark conditions etc. And it is for this reason that I agree with Chris Phillips' interpretation, that the witness refused to testify because "he could not swear to being correct in his identification."

Clearly, such an identification would be worthless... or at least worth very little. (This is not what I was debating... I was debating whether a very confident and positive identification would be worthless.)

In my opinion, the police had other information on Kozminski (in the form of information provided by relatives, or other circumstantial evidence for example), which as Anderson well knew, would not be sufficient to get a conviction, (although it may have convinced Anderson that Kozminski was guilty). In my opinion, the police may have thought that a positive identification, when added to this other evidence, may have been sufficient to get a conviction.

I am sorry if I have offended you or anyone else on this thread, but frankly I am getting a bit sick of the way people jump to fairly unfounded conclusions about things, and then present these conclusions (really just assumptions) as if they were fact.

Rob H

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abbey.

It is really impossible to answer this question, since the sequence is not known for sure. I do not like to make assumptions... such as assuming the knife incident caused the family to bring Aaron to the workhouse in july 1890. We simply do not know when this happened. That said I will give you one possible conjectural sequence for some of the incidents you listed:

first admittance to the workhouse - July 12, 1890
ID at seaside home - July 13-14 1890 (ie. Immediately following admittance at workhouse)
surveillance of AK - July 15, 1890 to some unknown date
second stint at workhouse/asylum - Feb 4, 1891 admitted CH Feb, 7 1891

This could be the wrong sequence of events of course, but this seems perhaps the most likely scenario (to me anyway).

Threatens sister with knife - this could have taken place any time really. Arguably maybe closer to Feb 1891 but who knows. Possibly just prior to July 12, 1890(??)

Police are first notified of AK (and by whom? family or doctors) - It is not known when this happened. As I argue in my book, it might have been as early as October 1888 (Batty St "lodger" incident). A more likely date may be sometime either just prior to or on July 12, 1890. Possibly it was later, like late 1890 or early 1891, but I personally believe it was July 1890 or earlier. It is also unknown how the police first learned about him. Possibly a relative (Matilda?) informed the police, or Anderson himself, about her/his suspicions. (remembering the Earl of Crawford letter for example). Perhaps the police were informed by someone at the workhouse. Perhaps the police came across Kozminski by way of some normal part of the inquiry... again maybe the Batty St lodger incident.

There are too many unknowns to assume anything unfortunately.

Hi Rob
Thanks for the detailed response on the timeline-I really appreciate it! I bought and read your book and enjoyed it thoroughly!

To me the time frame is too tight to have the ID take place within a day or so of his first admittance to the workhouse IF someone from the workhouse (DR/Staff) was the first to alert the police about AK. It seems more likely that they would have heard of AK prior to his admittance and therefore was probably from a family member.

Threatens sister with knife - this could have taken place any time really. Arguably maybe closer to Feb 1891 but who knows. Possibly just prior to July 12, 1890(??)

So i would agree with your above statement that the knife incident took place just prior to his first admittance.

I would suggest that the knife incident was perhaps the catalyst for his family's sending him to the workhouse and that they also contacted police around the same time about it. This would give the police more time to set up the ID (remember they said "with difficulty") befor he was first admitted.

Your timeline in general in my opinion looks reasonable.
Thanks again for detailing.

[robhouse]

Thanks for your reply Abby,

Again, this was only one possible conjectural sequence. I am in no way convinced that the ID took place during the four day period Kozminski was at the workhouse from July12-15 1890. It is just one possible scenario. Your points are certainly valid.

There are too many holes in what we know to come to any concrete conclusions about much of anything with reference to Kozminski. But that does not stop people from doing so, pretty much constantly, as evidenced by what has been going on in this thread.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Rob House

From Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, by Robert House, Hoboken NJ, 2011, page 200 -

'As a result of these statements, Robert Anderson has since become perhaps the most controversial figure in all of Ripperology, and a number of Ripperologists have dismissed his statements completely, characterizing him as incompetent, boastful, and untrustworthy. But one wonders whether such criticism is based on objective judgment of Anderson's character or simply on a reluctance to accept that that the most fascinating and baffling of unsolved mysteries was indeed solved more than a hundred years ago, with little applause or fanfare.'

I think that just about sets out your totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson Rob.

[Scott Nelson]

I believe Jacob Cohen was recorded as saying it was his sister who was threatened with a knife.

Swanson said that in a very short time after the suspect was returned from the identification to his brother's house and watched, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch. This suggests the identification and surveillance was just before early February, 1891.

[Natalie Severn]

From Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, by Robert House, Hoboken NJ, 2011, page 200 -

'As a result of these statements, Robert Anderson has since become perhaps the most controversial figure in all of Ripperology, and a number of Ripperologists have dismissed his statements completely, characterizing him as incompetent, boastful, and untrustworthy. But one wonders whether such criticism is based on objective judgment of Anderson's character or simply on a reluctance to accept that that the most fascinating and baffling of unsolved mysteries was indeed solved more than a hundred years ago, with little applause or fanfare.'

I think that just about sets out your totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson Rob.

-------and since there was never a trial or an arrest of Aaron Kosminski ,a man who had no history of crime whatever and who ,apart from the dog muzzle fine of November 1889 , had never seen the inside of a court of law of any kind and whose only surviving records from Colney Hatch and Leavesdon indicate he was considered 'not dangerous' from the moment he was admitted right through to his death in 1919, I consider it scandalous that Robert Anderson would suggest that he had identified him as Jack the Ripper--- twenty two years after the event and while he was still alive.If he wanted to accuse somebody why pick on a vulnerable man like Aaron Kosminski ?

[Natalie Severn]

I believe Jacob Cohen was recorded as saying it was his sister who was threatened with a knife.

Swanson said that in a very short time after the suspect was returned from the identification to his brother's house and watched, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch. This suggests the identification and surveillance was just before early February, 1891.

Did Jacob Cohen report this to the police? Its very strange that no other threat of violence at meal times for example was reported or an actual knife attack was reported, during all the years he spent in what were very liberal institutions for their time.Their reports,according to Martin Fido contained many specific and detailed accounts of the very real, actual, violence of David Cohen for example-who did die shortly after admission. And by the way Aaron Kosminski was not 'caged in an asylum' far from it.They were desperate to get him out of his shell and working in their small community but he repeatedly refused .