Plausibility of Kosminski

[Lechmere]

The trouble is we will never get such forensic evidence and have to use all sources available - including such things as possibly tainted aural evidence (eg Reg Hutchinson) or slightly inaccurate memoirs (eg Dew) or possibly sensationalist newspaper stories (eg Wheeling Register) to name but a few.

Just a quick point on Schwartz as the witness – it is often said that it seems unlikely that the same person (Stride) could have been attacked twice in 15 minutes.
That pre-supposes the first attack definitely was on Stride.
I know timings are notoriously flexible in this period, but would the Ripper have taken 15 minutes over Stride? The Stride attack was surely the quickest from beginning to end – not least as he almost certainly was disturbed. It would surely have been all over in less than a minute.
This and reports that the police had a degree of scepticism over Schwartz, his language problems, the probable difficulty in tracing him in succeeding years make it less than likely that he was ‘the witness’.

[Phil H]

The trouble is we will never get such forensic evidence and have to use all sources available - including such things as possibly tainted aural evidence (eg Reg Hutchinson) or slightly inaccurate memoirs (eg Dew) or possibly sensationalist newspaper stories (eg Wheeling Register) to name but a few.

Just a thought, but would it not be possible for someone with the right skill set, to do an analysis of newspaper reports, by date, by item of news (all separately identified) seek to trace them to a source or sources and look at how reliable, statistically, perhaps, particular newspapers were?

It would be time consuming, but potentially revealing. We would know that "reported fact 10 (as an example)" was reported 12 times, as against reported fact 9 which was only reported 6 times. If we can check accuracy, it might also reveal that some papers were right more often than others even though their stories were carried by fewer total publications...

At the very least this would show us which stories had most currency, and when. It mightr also allow us to draw some tentative conclusios on reliability.

On witnesses:

I see 3 potential approaches:

a) Lawende was the witness but there was more to him than we now know;

b) some other known individual was the witness - one of Lawende's companions? Schwartz?

c) an as yet unknown individual (or someone we know but have not placed in this context).

On 3. don't forget that until the late 1980s (Martin Fido?) no one had connected Kosminski (in Macnaghten's notes/memo) with Anderson's unnamed Polish jew. We might know the person (Macnaghten talks of a City PC does he not?) but not have made the logical connection.

Phil

Phil

[PaulB]

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. Phil

I know that Caesar's commentaries need to be treated with caution, as do almost every source we possess for pre- and immediately post-Roman occupation, but the point I was making is, as you say, that without those sources we'd have no history of that time. A lot of people don't understand that history is a fluid thing, not fixed and certain, and that when there is a paucity of information, you have to make the best use of what you've got.

[PaulB]

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.

Harry,
The point of comparison between Caesar and Anderson's remarks about the Polish Jew is that both are by and large our only sources and if you are going to start discarding sources for which we lack independent corroboration then you'll be ditching a great deal of history. And you are perfectly correct that there may have been no documentary evidence to begin with, although some might argue that the Swanson marginalia corroborates Anderson and ask how much corroboration you want.

[PaulB]

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

I couldn't agree more. Some might argue that the three things you mention have already been done, albeit somewhat superficially. The first is in definite need of analysis. As it is for most of those involved.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

Agatha Christie's drawing room solution? No, no, not at all, mate.

Because such competing through-lines are not only provisional, the best writers explain why they are provisional.

Tom Cullen made this point all the way back in 1965; that in some dusty attic would be found a clarifying source (arguably it was in an antiquarian shop in 1993) which would resolve the case.

[PaulB]

That pre-supposes the first attack definitely was on Stride.I know timings are notoriously flexible in this period, but would the Ripper have taken 15 minutes over Stride? The Stride attack was surely the quickest from beginning to end – not least as he almost certainly was disturbed. It would surely have been all over in less than a minute.This and reports that the police had a degree of scepticism over Schwartz, his language problems, the probable difficulty in tracing him in succeeding years make it less than likely that he was ‘the witness’.

Actually,they all pre-suppose that the woman concerned was the victim. Lawende could have seen someone else entirely, so could Hutchinson...

[PaulB]

The trouble is we will never get such forensic evidence and have to use all sources available - including such things as possibly tainted aural evidence (eg Reg Hutchinson) or slightly inaccurate memoirs (eg Dew) or possibly sensationalist newspaper stories (eg Wheeling Register) to name but a few.

Just a thought, but would it not be possible for someone with the right skill set, to do an analysis of newspaper reports, by date, by item of news (all separately identified) seek to trace them to a source or sources and look at how reliable, statistically, perhaps, particular newspapers were?

It would be time consuming, but potentially revealing. We would know that "reported fact 10 (as an example)" was reported 12 times, as against reported fact 9 which was only reported 6 times. If we can check accuracy, it might also reveal that some papers were right more often than others even though their stories were carried by fewer total publications...

At the very least this would show us which stories had most currency, and when. It mightr also allow us to draw some tentative conclusios on reliability.

On witnesses:

I see 3 potential approaches:

a) Lawende was the witness but there was more to him than we now know;

b) some other known individual was the witness - one of Lawende's companions? Schwartz?

c) an as yet unknown individual (or someone we know but have not placed in this context).

On 3. don't forget that until the late 1980s (Martin Fido?) no one had connected Kosminski (in Macnaghten's notes/memo) with Anderson's unnamed Polish jew. We might know the person (Macnaghten talks of a City PC does he not?) but not have made the logical connection.

Phil

Phil

Newspaper analysis is further complicated by the fact that stories in different newspapers can owe their origin to a common news agency report. One of the problems sometimes presented by The Times was that its stories were pieces together from different agency reports, other newspaper reports and its own journalists. Provincial papers were always a good way of identifying the source as they often published both Press Association and Central News reports.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Thanks, Tom. My argument is of course largely based upon surmise. But then so is that which would have Lawende as Anderson’s witness. It will be interesting to see what others make of it.

[Garry Wroe]

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

Writing years after the murders, Jon, Major Smith said something to the effect that he and every other policeman in London had been utterly beaten by Jack the Ripper. He also castigated Anderson for his claim that the killer had been identified as a Polish Jew. This is interesting because, according to Swanson, City detectives had investigated a Polish Jew named Kosminski. If this was indeed the case, Smith’s words provide unequivocal confirmation that Kosminski was cleared of having any involvement in the crimes. It really is that straightforward.

[Garry Wroe]

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 …

Agreed up to a point, Paul. The problem is that Anderson and Swanson’s sometimes conflicting statements introduce confusion regarding the chronology of events. Is it realistic, moreover, that Kosminski would have been positively identified at the Seaside Home and then released into his brother’s care?

There is also the issue of possible competition between the City and the Met. Did the Met share all relevant information with its City counterparts? If not, it is more than possible that City detectives investigated Kosminski whilst unaware of the Seaside Home 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.

Again, it boils down to knowledge. Did the City share details of a prior attempted Lawende-Kosminski identification with the Met. If not, the Met would have been unaware that it was repeating a procedure already undertaken by the City. Or vice versa.

Alternatively, if they had not confronted him [Kosminski] 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.

Agreed. There again we have Lawende as a witness in the Sadler case.

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 then, why would Swanson have mention the City surveillance if this operation was unrelated to the Whitechapel Murders? The central theme of the marginalia is the identification of Jack the Ripper. Not only does it make no narrative sense to allude to non-Ripper related crimes, it also beggars the question as to what precisely Kosminski might have done to precipitate a round the clock undercover surveillance operation conducted by City detectives on Metropolitan Police territory?

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.

You and me both, Paul, which is why I have consistently emphasized the quality and duration of the Lawende and Schwartz sightings.

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.

First of all, Anderson’s witness was at once male and Jewish, which would appear to rule out all but two of the known eyewitnesses. On top of this, both Anderson and Swanson emphasized the identification rather than physical evidence as being critical in context of securing a conviction. According to Swanson, the witness refused to testify against the suspect because ‘the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.’

I sometimes wonder if those who would have Lawende as Anderson’s witness have considered the semantics of this passage. The implication is glaringly obvious: Anderson’s witness did not merely see a man in the company of someone who shortly thereafter became a Ripper victim, he observed something that would connect a suspect with an actual attack. Of all the witnesses, Jewish or otherwise, only Schwartz observed a physical assault on a presumed Ripper victim. Short of either catching the murderer in the act or procuring a confession, this was the only kind of evidence that stood an earthly of convicting the suspect in a court of law. Thus the witness had to be Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

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.

That would be my reading of it too, Paul. Here, it might be worth remembering that the authorities placed a great deal of trust in the medical evidence – sometimes too much trust if the Chapman case may be taken as a reliable indication. Be this as it may, Dr Blackwell estimated Stride’s time of death at between 12:46 and 12:56am, a projection that is wholly consistent with Schwartz having witnessed the onset of an attack that would result in what was perceived to have been a Ripper murder. When one considers this combination of factors, it isn’t too difficult to understand why Anderson (and possibly Swanson) might have concluded that Broad Shoulders was Stride’s killer, and thus, by implication, Jack the Ripper. More significantly still, Schwartz is the only known witness for whom we can make such a case.

[Steven Russell]

I find this business of City / Met. fascinating. Is there any way of knowing to what extent the two forces would have shared information, or conversely, "kept it in the family"? Personally, I suspect there would have been greater co-operation at ground level than at the higher echelons but this is just supposition. Perhaps SYI can help on this point. I'm going away for a week shortly and plan to re-read it then.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Garry Wroe]

I've come across conflicting accounts in this context, Steven. Whilst some sources suggest that the two forces enjoyed a convivial relationship, others impute a rivalry that led to a lack of co-operation. Hopefully, someone out there has sufficient specialist knowledge to throw light on what for me is a very confusing picture.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

9.10.88

Sir J Fraser

My dear Fraser,

In order to prevent our working doubly over the same ground I have to suggest that our CID should be in more constant communication with yours about the W[hitechapel] murders.

Could you send an officer to Ch[ief] Insp[ector] Swanson here every morning to consult or may I send an officer every morning to consult with your officers.

We are inundated with suggestions and names of suspects.

Truly Yours,
C.W. [Charles Warren]

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

Much obliged, Simon. So it would seem that Warren was looking to establish a little more in the way of inter-force co-operation more than a week after the supposed double event. I'll bet that went down well given the animus amongst City investigators courtesy of Warren's insistence on expunging the Goulston Street writing.

Nice to see you back, by the way.