Plausibility of Kosminski

[Tom_Wescott]

I didn't know the names of the old, balcony-dwelling, heckler muppets.

Paul and Stewart, I believe. Trevor is the guy in the crowd throwing onions at them.

Despite the manner in which Trevor sets forth his views,he is correct in stating that an identification has never been proven to have taken place,and in consequence,Kosminski has never been identified as being a killer.I also believe that.

Hi Harry. I’m envious of how you’re always able to say what you want to say in three sentences or less. But as for Kosminski, I have yet to see any reason to write him off, and in fact put him near the top of the list of best suspects (number 2), although I have to say this might largely be because we know so LITTLE about him and the case against him. With the other suspects we have reams of material to dissect and draw from and make our conclusions. Perhaps if we had more on the Koz we could make a more educated decision and either dismiss him or nod in agreement with Anderson.

Garry,

Yours was the best argument I’ve ever seen arguing for someone other than Lawende as Anderson’s witness, and this is coming from someone who thinks Lawende was the guy. You’ve definitely given me something to think about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

What Major Smith does say, is:

(Describing the witness)
"One, a sort of Hybrid German, was leaving the club - he was unable to fix the hour when he noticed a man and woman standing close together. The woman had her hand resting on the mans chest.......... this was without doubt the murderer and the victim.
The inquiries I made at Berners Street, the evidence of the constable in whose beat the square was, and my own movements, of which I had kept careful notes, proved this conclusively.......
I think the German spoke the truth because I could not "lead" him in any way.
Source, From Constable to Commissioner.

I did not see where Smith said anything about not knowing who the killer was.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. Smith is describing Lawende, not the killer. He concludes that Lawende was telling the truth and that the man he saw was the killer. That's a far cry from saying the identity of the man Lawende saw was known. But thanks for bringing this up, since we're talking about Smith. Are there any other quotes that should be considered?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Another way of arguing this, as others have done long before me, is that the nervy figure of Israel Schwartz was the witness who identified 'Kosminski'.

Perhaps he was not so emphatic?

Perhaps Schwartz had a sensible reluctance to testify in court as he was pretty certain -- but not absolutely certain.

As memory faded, and a disappointed ego grew, this sincere ambivalence on Schwart's part was recalled, bitterly, and maybe somewhat unfairly, as sectarian treachery?

When Coles was killed on Feb 13th 1891, perhaps Anderson and/or Swanson considered that Schwartz might be mistaken after all.

Since the prime suspect for Coles was a Gentile sailor, Tom Sadler, they dragged in Lawende, who had described a Gentile-featured sailor with Eddowes (though he had also described a younger, lither man). The top cops quietly had their original opinion, about 'Kosminski's' likelihood, confirmed -- as this Ripper witness said 'no' to this Ripper suspect.

Why wouldn't they then have had Lawende get a look at the Polish Jew suspect in the madhouse?

Perhaps because with Aaron Kosminski already being sectioned, permanently, it was quite inappropriate, from a number of differtent angles (legal, medical) and, furthermore, could do nothing good for the Yard if such a tale leaked to the vulture press.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan,

But Schwartz didn't describe a Jew, and Lawende said he had the appearance of a sailor (probably the result of a leading question), not that he was a sailor. Let's say for a moment that Lawende was not Anderson's witness, wouldn't you think Harris a better candidate than Schwartz?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Yes a strong counter-point, for sure.

From the few accounts we have, Schwartz was not only not describing a person of Jewish appearance, but also seemed to be suggesting that the person being thuggish with Stride was also threatening in an Anti-Semtic way, eg. 'Lipski'.

Personally, I subscribe to the sub-theory that 'Knifeman' was Lawende's 'Jack the Sailor'.

[PaulB]

Since the majority of posters appear to believe that Lawende was indeed Anderson’s witness, I’d like to touch upon something that has bothered me for some time.

Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

It is also a matter of record that Major Henry Smith not only took a keen interest in the case, but was desperate to lay hands on the killer.

Likewise, although it is easy to forget, Lawende was a City witness. He was also a man who greatly impressed Major Smith.

Bearing all of these factors in mind, is it likely that City detectives (presumably under the watchful eye of Major Smith) would have taken an interest in Kosminski, embarked on an intensive surveillance operation, discovered nothing of an incriminating nature, only to then abandon proceedings with a resigned shrug of the shoulders and no further action?

I personally consider this doubtful. Extremely so. After all, a lack of observable criminality cannot be accepted as proof of innocence. Hence the most logical course of action would have been that Lawende was called upon to view Kosminski, whether overtly or covertly. Only then would detectives have been able to determine whether to continue devoting time and manpower to the Kosminski investigation.

The relevance of this observation lies in the fact that Major Smith subsequently declared that he had no clue as to the killer’s identity. It therefore follows that if Lawende was summoned to view Kosminski, he could not have identified him as the Church Passage man. And if this was the case, there is no realistic possibility that he was the witness who ‘unhesitatingly’ identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home.

So either the Seaside Home witness was someone other than Lawende, or the identification wasn’t as unequivocal as we have been led to believe.

Hi Gary,
There is no immediately obvious reason why the Met would have called upon the City C.I.D. to maintain surveillance on “Kosminski” after the identification – they'd have done the job themselves - so it seems reasonable to suppose that the City was keeping surveillance on “Kosminski” before the identification and if they suspected him of being the Ripper to suppose that they'd already have conducted their own identification and confronted “Kosminski” with Lawende. The Met would not have repeated this, thus the witness, assuming him to have been either Lawende or Schwartz, has to have been Schwartz. Alternatively, if they had not confronted him with Lawende, is it likely that the Met would have had a suspect under surveillance by the City C.I.D. to be identified by a City witness to a City crime? Wouldn't that have been a gross breach of protocol? Thus, if the Met took "Kosminski" to be identified, it would have been to be identified by Schwartz, the witness to a Met crime.

However, that all assumes that “Kosminski” was being kept under surveillance by the City C.I.D. because they suspected him on having committed the Ripper crimes. If he was suspected of having done something else then they would not have had him identified by Lawende. But the breach of protocol...?

I also find Anderson's description of the witness as the only person to have had a good view of the murderer a possible clue to the identity of the witness. Several people saw someone they identified as one of the victims in the company of a man shortly before the murder was or was believed to have been committed: Mrs Long saw a man with Chapman, Israel Schwartz saw a man with Stride, Joseph Lawende with Eddowes and George Hutchinson with Mary Kelly. Anderson may not have meant “murderer” literally, and since none of those named actually saw anyone in the process of committing the crime it can't be said that anyone actually saw the murderer, but is there anything which distinguishes one of the above sightings from the others? The only one is Israel Schwartz, who saw a fairly serious assault – a woman being thrown to the ground – near where the body was found and what can only have been about quarter of an hour before the murder was committed. There is no reason why Stride had to have been killed by the man seen assaulting her, but it is easy to see why it might be supposed that she was: it's possible but perhaps not probable that the same woman could have been attacked by two different men in the same location within fifteen minutes, so it may well be that Anderson did believe that she was murdered by BS man. Thus, he may have believed that Schwartz was the only person to see the murderer.

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan,

But Schwartz didn't describe a Jew, and Lawende said he had the appearance of a sailor (probably the result of a leading question), not that he was a sailor. Let's say for a moment that Lawende was not Anderson's witness, wouldn't you think Harris a better candidate than Schwartz?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"But Schwartz didn't describe a Jew" - which actually works in favour of Schwartz being the witness, because Swanson says that the witness refused to give evidence on earning that the suspect was a Jew. Clearly the suspect did not look stereotypically Jewish and therefore Schwartz wouldn't have described him as such.

[harry]

Tom,
Doesn't take more three sentences to dismiss Kosminski,based on the information to hand.(1)Anderson and Swanson submits information of a hearsay nature,and in such a manner,that historically or otherwise,the facts of the matter can not now be proven.(2)And I didn't even reach 4th grade at school.(3)

[PaulB]

Tom,
Doesn't take more three sentences to dismiss Kosminski,based on the information to hand.(1)Anderson and Swanson submits information of a hearsay nature,and in such a manner,that historically or otherwise,the facts of the matter can not now be proven.(2)And I didn't even reach 4th grade at school.(3)

Harry,
A great deal of history cannot now be proven. That doesn't mean it never happened. A great deal of historical material on which historians rely was presented in an anecdotal fashion, yet is largely accepted. Would you have us junk Caesar's Gallic Wars because we lack independent corroboration? What sort of corroborative evidence would you want?

[Phil H]

Paul

I agree with you, however, I would simply comment that while Caesar's commentaries are an invaluable (indispensible) source, any historian would be well advised to use them with care. We know that they were intended as propaganda and are "selective" (to say the least in their choice of material).

For instance in the Civil War commentaries, Cleopatra warrants a single (at the most two) mentions, yet we know she was important, politically and personally, for Caesar. On the other hand, in the absence of Gallic accounts of the wars in Gaul, we would be wholly ignorant of events were we totally to discard Caesar's account.

We have to be equally cautious about Augustan sources, since pro-Antony historioes appear not to have survived or to have been supressed. It is interesting to see how one outstanding historian, the late Sir Ronald Syme, in his "The Roman Revolution", used exisiting sources to tease out how the period from the death of Caesar to the end of the reign of Augustus might
have been perceived by an opponent of the Principiate.

I see this as being relevent to this discussion, in that while we may have (deep) suspcisions about (say) Dr/Sir Robert Anderson's writings and motives, we should not simply throw them out. We need to analyse them deeply, seek to understand them, and in whatever way possible, but them into a context. his is what academics do on other subjects/periods and we should aim to be no different if we seek wider recognition of our conclusions, or "Ripperology" as a whole.

Edited to add a response to Jonathan H

One started by Leonard Matters, in 1929, with 'the Mystery of Jack the Ripper', when he, a secondary source, upended the key primary sources which had claimed it was solved.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I once saw someone comment that Matter's book is an excellent account of the murders (the first in book form wasn't it?) but that his solution (part 2) dressed up as factual, was in fact suppositional. Matter's created a sort of docu-drama where today we might be more open in saying "this is just my idea/speculation".

Matters was an MP, so might have had some insight into the case through "establishment"/political contacts. Given that Matters was writing in the 20s, he could also plausibly have met some of the participants.

After all the attempts (unsuccessful) to find them, I doubt the S American sources ever really existed. As with the Dr Howard hoax, I think we should dismiss these from consideration, until/unless they are discovered.

On the other hand, I still regard the first part of Matter's book and the photos as excellent for its time.

Phil

[harry]

The kind of evidence I would like to see,is that which is normally given in common law crimes,and the Ripper murders were of that type.There is no comparrison with what was done in Caesar's time,and what was commited on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888,or how such events were recorded..As to what I think should now be tendered,is documentary or pictorial evidence which backs the claims of Anderson and Swanson.Many have searched for such over many years,but none seems to be forthcoming,and perhaps the answer is,there was never any in the first place.

[Phil H]

With respect Harry,

No one has suggested that there is any "comparrison with what was done in Caesar's time, and what was commited on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888".

We were discussing the nature of the historical method and how to use information that may be questionable because of who wrote it, when, the writer's bias, or the distance from events. I think this is rather different from the question of what evidence might be admissable in the court of law.

An historian may well find interest in, or need to consider "hearsay" evidence, for instance, which would not be admissable in court.

At this distance are we really likely to uncover court standard material, if/when the police at the time could not do so? I think we need to be practical.

I am not entirely certain what sort of "documentary or pictorial evidence" you feel would back "the claims of Anderson and Swanson".

I suppose if we found the file that detailed the identity parade at the seaside/seamen's home it might help. But it appears that ANY documentary evidence uncovered now meets extreme resistance - I am thinking of the 1909 Dutfield's Yard photograph and the marginalia.

Many have searched for such over many years,but none seems to be forthcoming,and perhaps the answer is,there was never any in the first place.

But we KNOW that much material and many files that are no longer available to use were there for police in the 1880s/90s and even as late as the 70s. In 987/88 several pictures of victims and other material was returned. So "stuff" may exist out there, known, in private collections, or just unrecognised. We even have at least one Casebook poster and author who seem to take delight in proclaiming that he will not reveal material he might/has unearth(ed)!! A sorry state of affairs.

Further, we cannot do more than analyse and seek to understand Anderson's views and perceptions. It might help us if we had available more of the material which passed before his eyes. But at the end of the day an opinionj is personal. As with the marginalia, drafts, other writings (hitherto unknown) or the files might cast some light on why Anderson believed what he did, but look at the Macnaghten memos. We have two versions (there may or may not be a third) but we can only guess (frankly) at how they relate to each other, the order or time in which they were written and how they relate to one another. Views on those issues can always be challenged by others.

I do think we need academic style focus on minutiae though (to cite only three examples of what I have in mind):

* authoritative analysis of Anderson's writings (secular, official and religious) with conclusions on what they tell us about the author;

* close textual exegesis and analysis of the marginalia to see how it relates to the text of the book;

* a detailed analysis of the various versions of the Macnaghten memos to see whether there is a conclusive pattern in how material changes from one to another (in other words was one an early draft of the other).

This is what would be/has been done for other historical periods and people (literary ones to). the techniques exist, but I don't think at this time that the Ripper case is considered seriously enough to warrant the sort of coverage Sugden gave. But that is what is needed IMHO.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Harry

You have the wrong mystery if you want legal or forensic evidence against a suspect. It is ever existed it's long gone now.

What is left to us is only historical evidence, and the best argument which can be made from the little we have about which of the cops was right, knowing that they could all have been wrong

For in the late primary sources we have an embarrassment of riches, in terms of several prime police suspects, two of whom explain both the cessation of the murders and the lack of an arrest, charge, trial and conviction.

One had fled the jurisdiction.

One was long dead and by his own hand.

And one, well ... seems to have got better, and calmed down for quite a while, and only then been 'safely caged', after being unsafely uncaged for years.

That is why I argue that the best secondary sources come up with a through-line which makes sense of the competing and contradictory bits and pieces -- a theory which makes them fit together as seamlessly as possible.

[Phil H]

That is why I argue that the best secondary sources come up with a through-line which makes sense of the competing and contradictory bits and pieces -- a theory which makes them fit together as seamlessly as possible.

To me, the difficulty with that, Jonathan, is that it might address all the points in the SURVIVING evidence, but what happens if there was further evidence that we have not seen (either no longer exists or is withheld somehow)?

In short, if I read what you say correctly, you propose an "Agatha Christie" drawing room puzzle solution, but NOT an historical explanation.

The difference between the two is, in my view, quite profound.

I doubt, of course, that there is a SOLUTION to this case. Hence my choise of words.

Phil