Plausibility of Kosminski

[TomTomKent]

Though I will suggest that is an avenue that may offer more of an insight into the police investigation, or possibly the manner in which the officials continued their intrest after the close of an official investigation rather than the identity of the Ripper.

On the other hand if we imagine the sliding scale of suspects that unknown reason is enough in my (subjective) opinion to place Kosminski far above many others. He is moreplausible than Sickert, murdering masons, black magicians, poets, playwrites, or dozensof others. Though perhaps not yet at the far reaches of the scale. Plausibility is ananalogue scale with varying shades, not a binary state of "right" and "wrong" suspects.

[Stephen Thomas]

That's why I say that Kosminski is the primary candidate for research. If we could understand why Anderson thought he was the Ripper then we'd be able to properly assess the probability of him being right (or wrong).

But we simply don't know that Anderson 'thought' that Kosminski was JTR.

Why are you saying that?

And yes, I do know all about the marginalia.

[Wickerman]

The observation that a definite and a possible 23-year-old seem unlikely candidates for a suspect originally described by witnesses as in his thirties is obviously a fair comment, even if I personally don't find it conclusive.

There's precious little across this whole case where we can claim anything is conclusive, though some will persist to argue with me that they know different.
In this case, a 23 yr old as the suspect, it is not just the age. A man in his mid 30's carry's himself different, his posture and manner are, in general, more mature. A man in his mid 30's has been shaving for nearly 15 years longer, his voice will be deeper, reactions and actions slower, his walk more relaxed, composure more at ease. A 23 year old is still wet behind the ears in comparison. It isn't just a case of "looking older" his whole presence of self, his physique, his actions, all must be taken into consideration.

And, of course, I find the Seaside Home placing of the ID extremely mysterious. We know from the Harriett Buswell case that when necessary IDs were made in the place where the person being identified was.

The suggestion that the suspect was brought before the witness is the first red-flag that something is amiss. Especially in the case of a supreme Ripper suspect, you keep him locked up until a successful I.D. has taken place.
Therein may lay a clue that the man they held under suspicion was not such a strong suspect at the time, but his importance, like the appreciation for a fine wine, apparently grew with age?

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fairness

Well if you dont now belive Kosminski was JTR why did you get involved with the making of The definitive JTR or whatever it was called telling the world that Kosminski was the ripper

In fairness to Paul I don't think that he has ever actually believed that Kosminski was the Ripper. He has always argued for the fact that Anderson was in the best position to know and, therefore, that made Kosminski the most viable suspect and thus worthy of further investigation.

[Stewart P Evans]

Kosminski

It's no secret that at one time 'Kosminski' was my preferred suspect (that was when I did have preferred suspects and didn't realise that such a thing was obstructive to objective analysis).

If we look at what Anderson actually wrote we find that he actually specified the suspect criteria that they were looking for when making house to house enquiries in October 1888. He stated, '...investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.' We also know that the officers were issued with special notebooks for use whilst making these enquiries.

Anderson followed this with the remark that 'And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews...' Finally he states, 'And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.'

Macnaghten gives an indication as to what made 'Kosminski' a suspect listing 'a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class', 'strong homicidal tendencies', removal to a lunatic asylum and his mysterious 'many circs' which made him a 'strong suspect'.

I have suggested in the past that when Kosminski's name came into the frame, and I don't think that was until 1890, the 1888 notebooks were checked and Kosminski's name was found amongst those fitting the criteria given by Anderson. I hasten to add that this is just my opinion. The biggest mystery of all, though, is the uncorroborated identification alluded to by Anderson and Swanson (in the annotations in the Anderson book).

We all know the arguments and debate that has gone on for many years now with no consensus of opinion being reached. I don't think it ever will be and people will decide for themselves what they wish to believe and that will be that. But it cannot be denied that 'Kosminski' was, indeed, a police suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's no secret that at one time 'Kosminski' was my preferred suspect (that was when I did have preferred suspects and didn't realise that such a thing was obstructive to objective analysis).

If we look at what Anderson actually wrote we find that he actually specified the suspect criteria that they were looking for when making house to house enquiries in October 1888. He stated, '...investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.' We also know that the officers were issued with special notebooks for use whilst making these enquiries.

Anderson followed this with the remark that 'And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews...' Finally he states, 'And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.'

Who else was he referring to when he says "We"
Macnaghten gives an indication as to what made 'Kosminski' a suspect listing 'a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class', 'strong homicidal tendencies', removal to a lunatic asylum and his mysterious 'many circs' which made him a 'strong suspect'.

I have suggested in the past that when Kosminski's name came into the frame, and I don't think that was until 1890, the 1888 notebooks were checked and Kosminski's name was found amongst those fitting the criteria given by Anderson. I hasten to add that this is just my opinion.

You are right Stewart it is just your opinion if you keep these coming I will soon have to refer to you as Hans Christian Evans

The biggest mystery of all, though, is the uncorroborated identification alluded to by Anderson and Swanson (in the annotations in the Anderson book).

We all know the arguments and debate that has gone on for many years now with no consensus of opinion being reached. I don't think it ever will be and people will decide for themselves what they wish to believe and that will be that. But it cannot be denied that 'Kosminski' was, indeed, a police suspect.

Perhaps the wording should be " A man who was only known by his surname that being Kosminski was named as a likely suspect. To date he has not been positivley identified"

[Phil Carter]

Facts

Hello all,

Apologies for a long posting.

In considering Kosminski, one has to either try to alienate oneself, if at all possible, from the comments of Anderson (Polish Jew) and Swanson (naming said Polish Jew) which as Stewart correctly says, is the real mystery.

In conjunction with that, Garry's comments about the known comments by Sir MM and Anderson, confuse the issue further (one saying no one ever saw the murderer, one saying that one person did see the murderer). The whole scenario when one enters the notes of these three wise men (Swanson, Anderson and Macnaghten) into the equation becomes contrary to each other and confusing.

One explanation suggested is that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Another suggestion is professional pride. A third suggestion is that it could be a rivalry thing. A fourth could be that in one case (and perhaps two in Sir MM's case) a book was being touted. There are numerous other explanations and possible reasons for the ever discussed differences.

So is it possible to relate to Kosminski in a way that doesn't include these three gentlemen's comments and references? Or are we forgetting that other comments that are just as important were made by these men as well?


1. On October 23rd 1888

Dr. Robert Anderson, Ass. Comm, Met Police said (HO144/221/A49301C, f.117)

..but that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.

2. In August 1889, printed in the Pall Mall Gazette, 4th November 1889

Dr Anderson admits to " our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him" in an interview with American Journalist R.Harding Davis.

3. In June 1892, in Cassell's Saturday Journal,

Dr. Anderson says

..The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes...

4. On 1st September 1908, speaking retrospectively, Daily Chronicle

Dr Anderson said

..I told Sir William Harcourt that I could not accept the responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes..
referring to the destruction of clues (Clay Pipe, Writing on wall)

Surely these 4 comments from Anderson outweigh the infamous "Polish Jew" comment..on balance?

In 1894, Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten wrote his now famous "memoranda" in which he first says, in comparison with the "suspect" Cutbush..

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, many homocidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.
He then goes on to list 3 most likely suspects, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.

But here Sir MM is writing of the suspicion in 1888 is he not?

As has been previously shown...

A Commissioner (Monro 1890, ...Excluding the unique series of outrages in Whitechapel, - at the non-discovery of the perpetrators of which none grieved more than the Metropolitan Police, - I cannot call to mind half a dozen really serious cases of murder which, within the last five or six years, have remained undetected; and the number of such offences committed is really small....and in Cassell's that same year he stated that the police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.)

The Assistant Commissioner (Anderson,various comments, see above),

A Chief Inspector (Abberline, 1903..We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind....)

A Superintendant(Arnold, 1893..We had some of the finest men from all parts of London, but all their efforts were useless had ALL said that nobody knew who the culprit was).

This shows very clearly that Sir MM cannot surely have been writing from any basis of known fact the other Police Officers based their comments upon.. This is confirmed a year later in 1895 by

A Chief Inspector (Swanson), who was possibly chasing Grainger as the Ripper. This shows that they... the police... were still trying to find Jack the Ripper.

In 1891, after the murder of Francis Coles on 13th February that year, the police believed that they had found the Ripper.. Sadler. However, he was found not to be Coles' killer, and he faded into obscurity. The ripper still had not been found.

It is therefore, to my (some say) simple mind, quite simple.

The evidence shows that no person known to have died (Cohen, Druitt et al) can have been the Ripper. (Because of the comments afterwards)
No person known to have been followed by any policeman, for ex. Sagar, Cox, (re Kosminsky, Cohen, Levy et al) could have been the Ripper.
No person known to have been locked up or incarcerated before 1895 could have been the Ripper either (Kosminsky, Le Grande et al)

Unless every single comment made by all the above men is a lie, (Anderson, Abberline, Swanson, Monro, Arnold) no person was known to have committed the Whitechapel Crimes by 1895.

That means that anything written before the date of 1894, in pinning the tail on the donkey...Sir MM must have known of, by referring back to 1888 in his memoranda of 1894, that his writings were could not possibly be true.

It also means that if Swanson was still chasing Jack the Ripper in 1891 (Coles-Sadler) and possibly 1895 (Graham-Grainger).. then HE didn't believe that Kosminsky was the Ripper either at that time. That causes doubt as to why the same man would change his view completely in a copy of Anderson's memoirs from 1910, that Kosminsky WAS Jack the Ripper.
(Re. Stewart's comment about the mystery, and Garry's comment about "so much for official comment)

On top of that, Reginald Saunderson in 1894 was also linked with the Whitechapel crimes, and incarcerated away. Superintendent Ferrett, Chief Inspector Swanson, and Detective Inspector Smith watched the case for the police in court.

We can go around in circles over this. But the sheer fact is that by dint of actually dated comment, no known and named person pre-1895 was opined upon, by the policemen, at the time, to be Jack the Ripper.
Infact, the contrary. The identity was unknown and the crime unsolved.

That is why Kosminski, in my view, can be ruled out. If the man was suspected of the crimes at the time had been incarcerated, then surely someone of all these erudite gentlemen, would have said so. Anderson and Swanson especially.

If the Commissioner (Monro) didn't know in 1890, then it is obvious to see that none of his fellow officers under him knew either. The Assistant Commissioner(Anderson) to at least 1892 stated he didn't know.
Chief Inspector Swanson (who reported directly to Anderson) still didn't know in 1895 because he was connected to the linking of Grainger as JTR, and Sir MM was Anderson's second-in-command, and in 1893, didn't know either. Chief Inspector Abberline didn't know, as they were "swamped in theories" by 1892, and add to that Edmund Reid stated that nobody had a clue as to whom the killer was, and even the Inspector of Prisons, Arthur Griffiths said
in Windsor Magazine under the pen-name of Alfred Aylmer..

(of Anderson), talking of undiscovered crimes in 1895, that...

...Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders.


Exit stage left any suspect..Kosminsky, Le Grande, Ostrog, Druitt, Cohen, Levy, you name him... all cannot have been Jack the Ripper, because the police themselves from the very top on down, all said that nobody was identified and the crimes were unsolved. There is no known evidence either to suggest that they were suspected of being JTR either...at the time.

It all comes from the collective horse's mouth.

That is why Kosminski, the poor soul, and it is my honest suggestion, cannot have been "The Whitechapel murderer alias Jack the Ripper".. even if Kosminski came into the frame in 1890, as Stewart has previously suggested, after a collective re-think and look through the special note-books..which we have never actually seen.

So.. these are facts that come from the very people some lay weight on their later , written words.

Compare and opine. As Stewart says, I doubt if there will ever be a concensus of opinion.. but surely the time to realise that the two sides of the Kosminski coin, have, after careful scrutiny, been balanced and the weightier side suggests he was not a murderer at all. There just isn't the opined evidence. Officially.


kindly

Phil

[Wickerman]

Nothing drives the point home better than listing the actual quotes and opinions of the officials of the day (thankyou Phil).
It doesn't matter what they choose to publish decades later, or for what reasons they choose to make the claims they did, only contemporary opinions are worthy of primary consideration.

You have created your own, Carter Memorandum, there Phil, a required reading reminder for anyone engaged in using Official memoirs as evidence of "who knew what, and when they knew it".

When a man's name only surfaces in 1890, his consideration as a suspect must be greatly diminished for the principal reason the police have nothing whatsoever to connect him with the crimes. This scenario induces little confidence that they have their man.
Michael Caine's words might have echoed down through the mists of time, "Do you want the killer, or will anyone do?"

Regards, Jon S.

[robhouse]

Hello Phil,

I have asked this several times and never got a very good answer so I will ask again. Let's go through a conjectural scenario:

According to Anderson the Ripper's identity was known, but the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him. This is fairly straightforward interpretation of what Anderson wrote on the subject. The exact nature of the "evidence" the police did have is a bit beside the point I am making, so let's just assume that this is essentially the truth of Anderson's written position on it. The killer's identity was, as Anderson put it, a "moral certainty." We can assume that Anderson knew exactly what the term "moral certainty" meant.

Now just take the above scenario as a given, and play through this little conjectural scenario.

Say the press asks for a statement from the Police re: the Ripper. What ever happened to the Ripper? What about this guy Cutbush, was he the Ripper? etc etc.

Now say you are Anderson, or Monro, or somebody at the top echelon of the MET... someone who knew about Kozminski, knew exactly what happened with him, knew he was very strongly suspected, to the point that Anderson (at a minimum) was convinced that Kozminski was guilty. Now put yourself in their shoes. What sort of statement to you release to the press about this? About the Ripper? About Kozminski? Say you are talking to someone from the press? What do you tell them?

Can you answer that question for me? Because so far no one has.

Everyone seems to assume (incredibly in my opinion) that the Police would have simply declared.. "Oh yeah, the Ripper was discovered. We know who he was, beyond much of a doubt. He was put in Colney Hatch... name's Kozminski."

Is that really what you believe? I mean... seriously? If not then what exactly would they have communicated?

In my opinion, this is a very important question, and the fact that no one has apparently considered it is quite surprising.

RH

[Scott Nelson]

"who knew what, and when they knew it".

This is key. Suspicion of the Polish Jew was limited to very few investigators. Subsequent interviews by various police officials in newspaper reports demonstrate the lack of consensus (they weren't "in" on the meeting which analyzed the shortlist of suspects which ultimately picked "Kosminski" as the best fit).

[Jonathan H]

To Rob

Your question rests on a fallacy, which maybe why the answer -- I and others have given it before -- gains no traction with you.

Anderson from 1895, and Macnaghten in 1913 and 1914 (and behind the scenes from 1898) began doing exactly that.

They began saying they knew who the murderer was but due to reasons beyond their control, eg. mad or dead, they could not bring the culprit to justice.

Of course there would be no names given; for reasons of due process, and propriety, and to avoid a libel action.

You're right that it is still quite a thing to do -- and they both did it -- so much so that Abberline does not realize that the 'drowned medical student' and the 'locked-up lunatic' suspects originate from the very 'we' (eg. Scotland Yard) he says rejects those ludicrous press beat-ups, and which come from high up on the bureaucratic food-chain at that.

Littlechild did tell Sims, a famous writer, about Tumblety, but never published an account of this suspect himself. If he was judging Sims to be proud to publish a 'scoop' against himself, he was vindicated.


To Phil H

I think that is a lucid and legit interpretation of the sources, for sure.

And, yes, I subscribe to the theory -- up to a point -- of a bitter rivalry between the honest but inaccurate Anderson and the charming yet deceitful Macnaghten. The latter's memoirs refutes the former's virtually point by point, about the Ripper.

The counter-argument to what you wrote Phil, which in my opinion is stronger, is encapsulated in your words 'at the time'.

In 1914 Macnaghten makes clear in his memoirs that Druitt was an entirely -- and embarrassingly, though not for Mac personally -- posthumous suspect only discovered 'some years after', and about whom 'certain facts' led to a 'conclusion' regarding his guilt as a 'sexual maniac'.

tMacnaghten describes [the un-named] Druitt as 'protean', in the sense that he could assume many faces: he could appear as a perfectly normal, 'Simon Pure' gentleman, whilst behind this misleading mask even his 'body' was probably riddled with this 'disease' (sic) too.

On p. 101 of 'Days of My Years', Mac describes how people bump into Ripper-psychos in the street and would never know it. That the plastic, 'Protean' qualities of the shape-shifting criminal (eg. Cricket anyone?) are too convincing. Thus if Druitt had not imploded, and taken his own life, he would have kept killing harlots as the constabulary (eg. Anderson) were without a clue. Only the Ripper could stop the Ripper, and thankfully he did.

This totally trashes, rightly or wrongly, what Anderson wrote four years before.

This theory, arguably, fits with the sources you compiled in your previous post, assuming that Macnaghten then kept the information he learned about Druitt, 'some years after', to himself.

Certainly, no other police of that era seem to have ever heard of him whatsoever (Abberline's boastful 1903 comments only expose his ignorance about Druitt, and 'Kosminski' for that matter, not any insider cognition)?

Obviously, Macnaghten was discreet because the murderer could never be arrested, never be charged, and never have his day in court and so Macnaghten had to tread carefully and slyly, as if navigating his way through a burning building. For 'the dead cannot defend themselves' (Sims, 1917) and the reputations of the Druitt family and of Scotland Yard were on the line (in fact, Mac had Griffiths change 'family' into 'friends', for the public version of the tale, in order to protect them and the Yard).

The same line of thought can be argued for Anderson and/or Swanson and the Polish Jew suspect.

From 1895 Anderson began bragging that 'Jack' was not, as he had previously claimed, an undiscovered criminal.

In 1910 the clincher-witness tale appeared for the first time in the extant record.

I agree with you that the agitation over Sadler in 1891 (Lawende said: no) and then Grant in 1895 (Lawende said: yes?) strongly indicates that 'Kosminski' was unknown to them until after that Sailor suspect was dismissed, as the Whitechapel fiend.

This is because in the same 'Pall Mall' article of 1895 you have Swanson asserting that the best suspect was dead (Druitt or 'Kosminski', presumably the latter?) and Anderson, later the same year, now bragging through Griffiths -- under the latter's pseudonym, 0f Alred Aylmer -- that he was sure that a local, sectioned madman was the culprit.

Notice that there is, as yet, no witness identification, and Anderson seems to think, quite wrongly, that the murderer was only temporarily at large before being incarcerated.

Whereas in his memoirs, by implication, Macnaghten judged 'Kosminski' to be a suspect of the same value as Ostrog -- nothing!

An absolute zero.

just one of many suspects who were found in the East End (and the West) he writes dismissively.

On the other hand, perhaps Mac was way too dazzled by Oscar Wilde, who was a guest in his home with his lover Lord Alfred Douglas, and thus with Wilde's masterwork 'The Portrait of Dorian Gray', with its protean protagonist. That his critical faculties were also too influenced by his loathing of his pious superior, and compelled by an adolescent need not to be 'six months too late' for a case which which he was obsessed, and thus fell in love with the hermetically sealed-off Druitt tale, via a loose-lipped upper class twit, that had emerged out of Dorset.

Historical methodology would argue that a Ripper suspect, one local, mad, foreign and obscure -- and thus with none of the 'sexiness' of Jekyll-and-Hyde and Dorian Gray -- who was claimed (and in one case named) by the operational head of the case, and backed by the administrative head of the case, must remain a police suspect forever, if not the suspect.

That it is unsafe to write off Aaron Kosminski, or 'Kosminski, absolutely.

To Trevor

Paul has totally exposed the fact that you thought that the Fido video was a new opinion. Of course, it is nothing of the kind.

But you claim to have evidence which exonerates 'Kosminski', or exonerates Aaron, or both, or something? Well, that's potentially terrific. But those are empty boasts if you don't produce the goods for others to assess.

You've sort of turned into Anderson.

So it's time, to use the Aussie vernacular, to put up or shut up.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

According to Anderson the Ripper's identity was known, but the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him. This is fairly straightforward interpretation of what Anderson wrote on the subject. The exact nature of the "evidence" the police did have is a bit beside the point I am making, so let's just assume that this is essentially the truth of Anderson's written position on it. The killer's identity was, as Anderson put it, a "moral certainty." We can assume that Anderson knew exactly what the term "moral certainty" meant.

Now just take the above scenario as a given, and play through this little conjectural scenario.

Say the press asks for a statement from the Police re: the Ripper. What ever happened to the Ripper? What about this guy Cutbush, was he the Ripper? etc etc.

Now say you are Anderson, or Monro, or somebody at the top echelon of the MET... someone who knew about Kozminski, knew exactly what happened with him, knew he was very strongly suspected, to the point that Anderson (at a minimum) was convinced that Kozminski was guilty. Now put yourself in their shoes. What sort of statement to you release to the press about this? About the Ripper? About Kozminski? Say you are talking to someone from the press? What do you tell them?

Can you answer that question for me? Because so far no one has.

Everyone seems to assume (incredibly in my opinion) that the Police would have simply declared.. "Oh yeah, the Ripper was discovered. We know who he was, beyond much of a doubt. He was put in Colney Hatch... name's Kozminski."

Is that really what you believe? I mean... seriously? If not then what exactly would they have communicated?

In my opinion, this is a very important question, and the fact that no one has apparently considered it is quite surprising.

RH

Hello Rob,

I will attempt a suggestion of an answer. It may not be correct.. but as you say in your excellent posting, it's a conjectural scenario. Ok.. Let's have a go...

Firstly.. there is one very important comment that may be overlooked here..

1. On October 23rd 1888

Dr. Robert Anderson, Ass. Comm, Met Police said (HO144/221/A49301C, f.117)

..but that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.

That is from an OFFICIAL Home Office document. Not a reporter asking him a question. And the date is important. October 23rd 1890. Almost 2 years after the Kelly murder, Anderson is without a shadow of a doubt stating that the murders of the 5 women, whom we know he means the C5, are without the police having "the slightest clue of any kind".

That is unequivocable. It cannot be ignored.

Oh.. so we continue with the posting..

You stated..

According to Anderson the Ripper's identity was known, but the police lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.

This is not the case. Not by 23rd October 1890. That Home Office document is contemporary official evidence.

You then state..

The killer's identity was, as Anderson put it, a "moral certainty." We can assume that Anderson knew exactly what the term "moral certainty" meant.

Well, in the famous book written on many top Scotland Yard Officials called "C.I.D. Behind the Scenes at Scotland Yard", by H. L.Adams, he refers specifically to an example of Anderson's "moral certainty". He writes..

What I may term as a pet theory of Sir Robert's was the difference between moral and legal proof....

He continues to relate an incident that "positively thrilled" him...

There had been a mysterious murder in the West End, and as no clue had ben left behind by the culprit the police were at a loss. A woman had been strangled in bed. A certain man, a relation of the dead woman was abusive towards the police for failing to arrest the murderer. In fact he was so active in his hostilitythat he aroused Sir Robert's suspicions. So he decided to apply a test. He gave orders that this man should be summoned to Scotland Yard, and that he should be shown into his, Sir Robert's, private room. Then, with the man seated in front of him, and nobody but their two selves in the room, the Commissioner, fixing a steady gaze upon his visitor, declared the murderer had been found.

He continued...

The man turned deathly pale and trembled in his chair, but said nothing. Then Sir Robert went on to describe how a test had been applied to the eye of the dead woman. A photograph, a "close up" photograph, had been taken of one of the eyes, with the result that a clear image of the murderer was found imprinted upćon the dead woman's retina! It was partly an invention. Such an experiment had in fact been made, but proved futile. However the man did not know. "Then", exclaimed Sir Robert, "I was morally certain that I had the murderer before me!"

H.L.Adam said in closing..

Nothing, however, unfortunately could be done. It was merely moral and not legal evidence. So the murderer went unpunished.

Now let's be honest about this. The man in the chair could well have been trembling with rage at wanting to get hold of the killer of his relative. No wonder he went deathly pale. Most would..and would tell you that they felt sick to the stomach too.
The fact that the Ass. Commissioner stated, upon seeing the man's reaction, that he was a murderer, says a heck of a lot for his methodology in police work and about being "morally certain" of a man's guilt... I suspect that Anderson would have sent this man to the gallows if he could, so certain of his moral guilt theory was he.

That is the nearest I can come to an answer...by providing a rendition of Anderson playing the moral guilt game, and obviously, delighting the writer, H.L.Adam, in the process.

If that is an example of what I am supposed to take as a reason for believing in Kosminski's moral guilt, please do excuse me if I turn my back on it. I would rather read an official Home Office Document with Anderson's meanings in them (as shown again, above).. and even quote upon quote of these men in the newspapers.

Two final quotes from H.L.Adam's book.

Sir Robert was sometimes rather mysterious. For instance I find in one of his letters to me the curious paragraph: "You have no idea how I am watched and criticised as regards my acts and words..."

and this one, which I find fascinating...

In 1893-4 Sir Melville Macnaghten represented the police on Mr. Asquith's Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of the Identification of Criminals, in which he rendered invaluable service..."

"the Identification of Criminals"...? Ahhh... now could it just be that the MM was in fact not a paper prepared to the Home Secretary about the Sun articles... but a small part linked to his "Identification of Criminals", representing the police, for Mr.Asquith's Committee?

I do not know. I have never seen any report about this to Mr. Asquith nor his Committee. Has anybody seen this report? Has anybody copies of it?


Food for thought?

kindly

Phil

[Wickerman]

Say the press asks for a statement from the Police re: the Ripper. What ever happened to the Ripper? What about this guy Cutbush, was he the Ripper? etc etc.

Now say you are Anderson, or Monro, or somebody at the top echelon of the MET... someone who knew about Kozminski, knew exactly what happened with him, knew he was very strongly suspected, to the point that Anderson (at a minimum) was convinced that Kozminski was guilty. Now put yourself in their shoes. What sort of statement to you release to the press about this? About the Ripper? About Kozminski? Say you are talking to someone from the press? What do you tell them?

Can you answer that question for me? Because so far no one has.

Do I take that last line as an open invitation?

I think your scenario requires a date for that question to be asked, if the press asked your question before the summer of 1890, then the replies Anderson gave are quite fitting.
(..but that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.
Dr Anderson admits to " our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him" in an interview with American Journalist R.Harding Davis.)

However, if the press asked this same question after 1890, when Kosminski's name had surfaced, if he had been the principal suspect he was later claimed to have been the answer could have been entirely different.

If I am not mistaking your point you suggest the police might choose to cover up the fact they missed their quarry. The story which has emerged is that Kosminski was only a suspect after-the-fact, but what led the police to draw that conclusion, beyond simple suspicion, has not come down to us.
Even Macnaghten only mentions Kosminski as more likely than Cutbush, not that Kosminski was a prominent suspect, quite the contrary, he was one of three to whom suspicion was attached.

Replies to the press are one thing, but what about internal police memo's, or notes of future investigations (post 1890), why do they not support Kosminski as a contemporary suspect, or thee principal suspect, in your opinion?

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

Thanks for the kind comments... and from your later posting, it looks like we were thinking along the same lines in replying to Rob. I agree with your posting.

kindly

Phil

[robhouse]

I am sorry if I am missing something, but the quote from Anderson you supplied "without our having the slightest clue of any kind" etc is from an internal Police memo from October 23, 1888, not October 23, 1890 as you state. (although you give both dates in the same post) ?? Am I missing something? I am assuming that Anderson did not become certain about Kozminski's guilt until later... quite possibly in 1890 or thereabouts.

The 1890 reference to our failure to find Jack the Ripper is entirely within the scope of the scenario I am describing. I assume that Anderson would have stated such a thing to a journalist like R. Harding Davis, for various reasons... the main one being that officially speaking, the investigation did end in the Police failure to convict the Ripper, even if they thought they knew who he was. And the next reason is what I essentially implied... that the "official line" from the police to the press is that the case was unsolved, end of story.

Rob H