Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

My apologies, 1888 it is, you are correct.

kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

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.

Well, the marginalia is relevant to identifying "Kosminski" as Anderson's suspect, and even before the marginalia came to light it had been argued by Martin Fido that the "Kosminski" named in the Macnaghten memorandum was likely to have been Anderson's suspect. There consequently seems little reason to doubt that this was the case. However, if further research indicates that Anderson's suspect wasn't "Kosminski" then we'll know a bit more about who thought what and why.

[Jonathan H]

To Rob

Well, that is where you and I disagree.

I don't see Anderson as a deceitful figure at all.

Conceited and egocentric, sure, but not deliberately misleading the press between late 1888 and early 1895.

Later, ego trumped a fading memory, and Anderson redacted and telescoped the messy events of 1888 to 1895 into a simpler narrative. This happens all the time in memoirs -- and is especially expected in a case with no legal resolution.

PS

But here is where we sort of agree:

On the other site, Rob, you have stumbled onto something that I realized a few years ago and which was one bit of the jigsaw leading me to theorize that Druitt was probably the fiend, or at least was sincerely -- if perhaps wrongly -- 'believed' to be so by his family, an MP, and a police chief (and, I argue, by an unidentified Anglican priest and an unidentified Vicar).

You have noticed -- with rigorous logic -- that Macnagnten, in the official version of his 'Report' seems to be saying, in a clumsy and contradictory way (almost Pythonesque) that whilst nobody ever saw the murderer, and that whilst Druitt was only one among three very minor suspects he was known to his family to be a homicidal 'sexual maniac'?!

Huh? How does that make sense?

One way it does make sense is that, let's say if Mac was ordered to rewrite his rejected draft -- the 'Aberconway' version in which Mac is pretty sure, rightly or wrongly, that Druitt is the murderer -- yet he still wanted the real truth about Druitt to be on the official record.

Consequently, he swapped places with the family to shoehorn that opinion into the record; now the family 'believe' wheras before they only 'suspected', and where he was previously certain (eg. 'strong feelings about No. 1 ... if my conjections (sic) be correct') he now only mildly suspects this suspect, one so marginal the police had not bothered to ascertain if he was a doctor or not.

I say 'sort of ...' agree because you think Macnaghten latched onto Druitt perhaps because he was gay, or was dismissed for perceived deviance. It's plausible. It's just not backed up by the sources, eg. Macnaghten, or the MP titbit, or the 1889 obits.

Much simpler and more likely is that Druitt was dismissed -- if this happened whilst he was alive -- because he was absent on the nights of the murders, when he was supposed to be at the school looking after the boys. That's the import of Mac's cagey comments in 1914, as I understand them.

[PaulB]

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

Just to clarify some of the points raised here:

1. This was written by Anderson in October 1888 and the indications are that “Kosminski” did not come to the attention of the police until 1890, possibly late 1890 and perhaps even as late as early 1891, so what Anderson wrote in October 1888 is largely irrelevant.

2. The same applies to the statement to R. Harding Davis in 1889. However one might also observe that Anderson was referring to the warren of alleys that enabled the murderer to escape and says that on seeing this geographic landscape it is easier to understand how the police failed to catch the killer. Which is not saying that the killer was never identified and his identity known, and if they didn't actually catch him, but he came to their attention for other reasons, then it was fair comment. Furthermore, the suspect had never been charged, tried or convicted, and Anderson is hardly likely to have confided personal beliefs and suspicions to an American journalist he didn't know and had no reason to trust. But, as said, it's all irrelevant because the interview pre-dated "Kosminski".

3. Dr. Anderson does not say “The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes...”, as you state. The journalist wrote those words and you cannot attribute them to Anderson or even suppose that they were expressed to Anderson. Anderson in facts considered himself an "unfortunate man" to have taken office on the day of the first Whitechapel murder and he either voluntarily or in response to a question from the journalist about Ripper theories, produced photographs which he said showed that the crimes had been committed by a madman - which appears to be what he actually thought or knew to be the case.

4. In the Daily Chronicle article in 1908 Anderson described the situation as it was on his return from abroad in 1888; he wrote Harcourt instead of Matthews, which is understandable given Anderson's long, up-and-down relationship with Harcourt, and the dominance of that man as a Home Secretary compared to the ineffectual Matthews, but is otherwise a repeat of what he said in The Lighter Side... and applies to what he said to Matthews in 1888.

So, on balance, those four comments do not “outweigh the infamous "Polish Jew" comment..”

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Excellent that you are in putting forward opposing opinion... I maintain that what the Ass. Commissioner wrote in 1888 DOES have relevance. The fact that anything pre-dates Kosminsky IS the point. At the time of the murders.. or Pre 1895 was my point if you had not been so selective in your judgement. It was put together with 4 other people (at least) and their contemporary comments.

Are you going to put down all the other comments by all the other poicemen to the press to re-balance the question?

The overall point is that the police had no idea of who the murderer was in 1891 (at least) or 1895 (at most) or they would not still have been chasing him. Now that rules out very many. And 1891 is pretty crucial to the thoughts on Kosminski, Cohen, Druitt, etc etc.

Until someone can come up with contemporary evidence of policemen naming anyone as a suspect in 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891.. perhaps up to 1893.. as far as the known comments from many officials go.. they had no idea who the murderer was, and the crimes were unsolved. That's their words. Not mine.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

In answer to your question, the 'West of England' MP story of Feb 11th 1891, in 'The Bristol Times and Mirror', essentially matches sir Melville Macnaghten's memoir chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', of 1914.

[TomTomKent]

It is of course entirely possible that "Kosminski" was not uncovered by those who name him untill some years after the crimes but remains a valid suspect. Simply being named at the time is not enough to ensure, or the only way to ensure, a suspect "was" the Ripper. It is perfectly possible for the suspect to have been brought to light years later when all the pieces fell into place and an identification arranged (assuming that statement was based on something).

Being named at the time would be a boon, but it remains that there was, an as yet unknown, reason that 18 months or 2 years later the suspect was given some level of confidence by key players.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Excellent that you are in putting forward opposing opinion... I maintain that what the Ass. Commissioner wrote in 1888 DOES have relevance. The fact that anything pre-dates Kosminsky IS the point. At the time of the murders.. or Pre 1895 was my point if you had not been so selective in your judgement. It was put together with 4 other people (at least) and their contemporary comments.

Are you going to put down all the other comments by all the other poicemen to the press to re-balance the question?

The overall point is that the police had no idea of who the murderer was in 1891 (at least) or 1895 (at most) or they would not still have been chasing him. Now that rules out very many. And 1891 is pretty crucial to the thoughts on Kosminski, Cohen, Druitt, etc etc.

Until someone can come up with contemporary evidence of policemen naming anyone as a suspect in 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891.. perhaps up to 1893.. as far as the known comments from many officials go.. they had no idea who the murderer was, and the crimes were unsolved. That's their words. Not mine.

kindly

Phil

I'm not putting forward an opposing opinion. I am simply stating that what Anderson wrote on 23 October 1888 shows that he didn't know who Jack the Ripper was at that time, but that is irrelevant to any consideration of the viability of a suspect who was possibly unknown until February 1891. The same applies to the second report you cite. In the third you attributed to Anderson something that Anderson did not say. And in the fourth Anderson is relating what he said to the Home Secretary in 1888. None of those quotes therefore have any bearing on "Kosminski".

As for your final paragraph, that a policeman did not air his suspicions publicly does not mean he didn't have any, so your extrapolation that "they had no idea who the murderer was" is founded on a false premise and is wrong. For example, the Jack the Stripper murders were and are unsolved, but John Du Rose, the chief investigating officer, stated after his retirement that he believed the police knew who the murderer was at the time and used publicity to lay a trap, but that the murderer committed suicide. Had Du Rose said nothing then we'd be saying today that the police were clueless about the identity of the murderer, whereas they weren't. Wrong, possibly, but not without a solid suspect. The parallels aren't great, but it serves the purpose of illustrating a case where policemen had serious suspects at the time the murders are committed, but did not voice them until later.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=PaulB;189294]Just to clarify some of the points raised here:

1. This was written by Anderson in October 1888 and the indications are that “Kosminski” did not come to the attention of the police until 1890, possibly late 1890 and perhaps even as late as early 1891, so what Anderson wrote in October 1888 is largely irrelevant.

What are those indications then I am sure we are all dying to know or are you just saying that in an attempt to prevent Aaron Kosminski`s ship from sinking without trace

[Stewart P Evans]

Hans Christian Marriott

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"

I don't know how to take your remark, inserted in the text of my post, coming, as it does, from Hans Christian Marriott.

[Stewart P Evans]

Apropos of...

...
As for your final paragraph, that a policeman did not air his suspicions publicly does not mean he didn't have any, so your extrapolation that "they had no idea who the murderer was" is founded on a false premise and is wrong. For example, the Jack the Stripper murders were and are unsolved, but John Du Rose, the chief investigating officer, stated after his retirement that he believed the police knew who the murderer was at the time and used publicity to lay a trap, but that the murderer committed suicide. Had Du Rose said nothing then we'd be saying today that the police were clueless about the identity of the murderer, whereas they weren't. Wrong, possibly, but not without a solid suspect. The parallels aren't great, but it serves the purpose of illustrating a case where policemen had serious suspects at the time the murders are committed, but did not voice them until later.

Apropos of this, Paul, it may be of interest to note that in 1971 I was on my police continuation course at Nutfield where officers from various other forces were also on the same course. One told me that he had completed an attachment with the Met and had seen the closed 'Jack the Stripper' file. There was a confessional suicide note in the file from the man the police believed to be the murderer. They considered the case closed with this note.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't know how to take your remark, inserted in the text of my post, coming, as it does, from Hans Christian Marriott.

Now now Stewart just becuase you missed the cermonial burning its not too late for you to board "The HMS Aaron Kosminski" on its final voyage to the depths

[Stewart P Evans]

Moral certainty

...
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.
...
RH

The 'evidence' couldn't have been up to much as no arrest was made. 'Moral certainty', Anderson's fallback, is purely subjective and was whatever Anderson himself defined it as in this case. We have an idea, from his writings, how he determined 'moral certainty' as he gives an example.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;189304]

Just to clarify some of the points raised here:

1. This was written by Anderson in October 1888 and the indications are that “Kosminski” did not come to the attention of the police until 1890, possibly late 1890 and perhaps even as late as early 1891, so what Anderson wrote in October 1888 is largely irrelevant.

What are those indications then I am sure we are all dying to know or are you just saying that in an attempt to prevent Aaron Kosminski`s ship from sinking without trace

You don't know what those indication are! Gosh, what a surprise that is.

Had you read Martin Fido's 25-year-old book, Trevor? Did you have any idea whatsoever what his thinking was before you disparagingly and wrong-headedly labelled him a Kosminski-ite? Are you ever going to answer this question? Do you actually know anything deeper than scratch-level superficiality about the Kosminski argument?

I'm afraid the only ship that's sinking around here is the one carrying your credibility. Well, that's not true. That ship sank back when you so confidently argued that there was no evidence that Eddowes was wearing an apron!

Well, Trevor, Aaron Kosminski is the only Kosminski thus far found in the asylum records and he was committed in February 1891, from which it is reasonable to infer that serious suspicion fell on him about that time, but Swanson states that following the identification the suspect was kept under City C.I.D. surveillance and “in a very short time” was taken to Stepney Workhouse and thence to Colney Hatch, from which there is no justification for inferring that any great length of time separated the identification from his 1891 committal. Thus, the indications are that “Kosminski” did not come to the attention of the police until 1890, possibly late 1890 and perhaps even as late as early 1891. (I've underlined these words so that you will hopefully realise that I do leave room for alternative thinking, such as that which argues on no plausible evidence that the marginalia is a fake.)

So, no, Trevor, I'm not saying something in an attempt to prevent Aaron Kosminski's ship from sinking, and what does it take to drive into your brain that since I don't believe Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, I don't care a damn whether his ship joins your credibility in the depths of a metaphorical ocean or not.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nice hypothesising

...
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?
...
RH

Nice hypothesising Rob. What militates strongly against any idea that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, or that the police believed he was, is the fact that he was wandering around freely and at large after the horrific murders of 1888, to the degree that he was walking a dog in the City in December 1889 when he was taken to court for the dog being unmuzzled.

His freedom continued until February 1891 when he was finally incarcerated. Further to that Swanson seems to have known nothing about the fact that Kosminski remained alive (Swanson thought he died shortly after his admission) and incarcerated until 1919 in far from maximum security accommodation. This seems a bit odd if he was believed to actually be the Ripper as, surely, they would have kept tabs on him at the very least.

These problems aren't simply going to go away and they cannot be sidelined or ignored.