Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

In view...

Thanks Stephen. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the part of the marginalia (or more correctly the endpaper annotations) naming Kosminski was there as early as 1981 when Jim Swanson sold the story to the News of the World. As for earlier than that, I'm afraid that we have no information.

In view of my wording here, and to avoid any confusion, I do not believe that there is any fakery involved in the marginalia.

[PaulB]

Hello Martin,

If one uses the line "...but there must have been some form of information that led Macnaghten to suspect Druitt"... then one can also ask what evidence led the same man to place Ostrog in the frame as a suspect?

That is why I have grave doubts about the MM. No known evidence against Kosminsky, no known evidence against Druitt and no evidence at all against Ostrog as he wasn't even in the country at the time.

My doubts do not use the word decietful, but based on the comments of the other police officers at the time (at least).. there wasn't a known suspect with any known evidence against them at all.

As regards Druitt, that from the private information the family or friends or aquaintances of Druitt believed him to be the murderer is, I propose, a red herring. There were very many other people who "believed" "x, y or z" to have been the murderer. Being a family or person of position in society doesn't mean that they should be warranted any more weight of opinion on labelling someone a murderer than a poor family's opinions. How many times did a wife or aquaintance suspect her husband or a.n.other of being Jack? It was reported often, both in the newspapers and the courts.


kindly

Phil

One must ask what evidence led to Ostrog being placed in the frame. That should go without saying. But what answer have you got? And why do you appear to conclude from it that it casts some sort of doubt on the Macnaghten memoranda? And Macnaghten doesn't say that he suspected that Druitt was the Ripper just because Druitt's family did.

[The Good Michael]

In actuality, Macnaghten says that Kosminski is a 'strong suspect.' He doesn't say this about the others. Unless he said more that I don;t know about, and because I am in Tajikistan without any books (I donated 'The Facts' and Tully's book on Kelly to the Kazakhstan Law and HUmanities University library before leaving), I can only go by memory (not a good thing, I know). Macnaghten also said there were several or many circumstances regarding Kosminski that made him a strong suspect, but he didn't elaborate on what they all were. In my opinion, this makes Macnaghten as much a Kosminski-ite as Anderson or Swanson. Ostrog seems an afterthought.

Mike

[Wickerman]

......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,...

Paul.
I think therein lies the crux of the problem, Anderson offers his opinion as if he is reflecting back to 1888 with his identifying his suspect. The reality appears to be that the police only developed suspicions about Kosminski after 1890, possibly 1891.
Anderson's opinions are therefore not based on evidence but on unspecified suspicions, perhaps bolstered by the fact he was insane and that he lived in the area. And, more importantly, suspicions not directly connected with the previous Ripper murders which ended in Nov. 1888.

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.

Agreed, and with that scenario in mind we need to seriously ask what were the basis of their suspicions, if nothing more than heresay?

It also seems reasonable to conclude that this controversial I.D. took place in 1890. Is this I.D. the sole basis for police suspicions, even though it failed? Kosminski was only placed under surveillance after the identification, there does not appear to be any reason to conclude the police harboured suspicions against him before that, certainly not in 1888.
If this is the case, what triggered the I.D.?

Regards, Jon S.

[Stephen Thomas]

In view of my wording here, and to avoid any confusion, I do not believe that there is any fakery involved in the marginalia.

OK, Stewart. Fair enough.

You think Swanson thought that someone called Kosminski was JTR.

Got it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Ostrog

Ostrog appeared as a suspect, presumably, because he met various of the criteria that were listed by Macnaghten, i.e. 'a mad Russian doctor', a 'homicidal maniac', 'habitually cruel to women', carried surgical knives and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could not be established (Aberconway version) or 'Russian doctor', a convict 'subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac' etc. (official version).

But what we don't have is Macnaghten's source for these claims about Ostrog. What is odd is the fact that Ostrog was never 'detained as a homicidal lunatic' and he was detained in France at the time of the murders. A little research by Macnaghten could have clarified these points and corrected his errors. Add to this the fact that Ostrog appeared in the Police Gazette of October 26, 1888 as 'A Polish Jew', 'on 10 March 1888 he was liberated from the Surrey County Lunatic Asylum', was considered for 'special attention' as a 'dangerous man' and wanted on warrant at the time of the murders, we can see why he was a suspect.

He shouldn't have been a suspect and Macnaghten should have checked his facts before writing his 'memorandum'. Macnaghten, presumably, was compiling his list of 'better alternatives' to Cutbush from some papers on the murders he had easy access to and felt that he had enough information on the three, for the purpose to hand, without bothering to do deeper research.

[Stewart P Evans]

Did I say that?

OK, Stewart. Fair enough.
You think Swanson thought that someone called Kosminski was JTR.
Got it.

Did I say that? Did I write that? Did anyone ever hear me say that?

What I did write was that I don't believe that the annotations were faked and that I believe that Swanson wrote 'Kosminski was the suspect.' Saying someone was a suspect is an entirely different thing to saying that someone was 'Jack the Ripper'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Druittite (?)

In actuality, Macnaghten says that Kosminski is a 'strong suspect.' He doesn't say this about the others. Unless he said more that I don;t know about, and because I am in Tajikistan without any books (I donated 'The Facts' and Tully's book on Kelly to the Kazakhstan Law and HUmanities University library before leaving), I can only go by memory (not a good thing, I know). Macnaghten also said there were several or many circumstances regarding Kosminski that made him a strong suspect, but he didn't elaborate on what they all were. In my opinion, this makes Macnaghten as much a Kosminski-ite as Anderson or Swanson. Ostrog seems an afterthought.
Mike

In view of the fact that Macnaghten preferred Druitt as the Ripper, and openly espoused this belief, one would hardly call him a Kosminskiite. He was a Druittite (?), Druittist (?), MJD-ite (?), or whatever.

[The Good Michael]

In view of the fact that Macnaghten preferred Druitt as the Ripper, and openly espoused this belief, one would hardly call him a Kosminskiite. He was a Druittite (?), Druittist (?), MJD-ite (?), or whatever.

OK Stewart, as I said, I haven't any books with me in this godforsaken country, Please tell me where I can find these statements by Macnaghten. I don't see any glowing praise of Druitt in the Memorandum, but I know better than to not believe your words on this. Still, he did say that Kosminski was a Strong suspect. That makes him at least Kosminski-esque if not -ite.

Mike

[Wickerman]

... Macnaghten, presumably, was compiling his list of 'better alternatives' to Cutbush from some papers on the murders he had easy access to and felt that he had enough information on the three, for the purpose to hand, without bothering to do deeper research.

If Macnaghten was saying that any one of our best suspects are far more likely than Cutbush to have been the murderer, it would not have had as much impact as saying, any one of our worst (least likely) suspects are far more likely, etc. etc.
Macnaghten does offer two possibilities for the cessation of the crimes, that the killer committed suicide, or was incarcerated in an asylum.

With these criteria in mind Macnaghten offers three names from the bottom(?) of the pile, not from the top, as evidenced by his offering no evidence for Druitt except to say his candidacy was explained by "private suspicions" (hardly the result of intense police work). Then followed two names of incarcerated lunatics, one of whom they could not even establish his whereabouts in 1888.

Not a convicing selection, so we might consider those names were not the best suspects, if we remember, the gist of the reply was Macnaghten attempting to criticize the Sun for making a ludicrous suggestion, was there a hint of sarcasm contained in his selection?

I have to wonder if Macnaghten's use of the term "strong 'suspect'.", was perhaps because he knew of the failed identification associated with Kosminski.
Thereby creating for us a circular argument.

Regards, Jon S.

[PaulB]

Paul.
I think therein lies the crux of the problem, Anderson offers his opinion as if he is reflecting back to 1888 with his identifying his suspect. The reality appears to be that the police only developed suspicions about Kosminski after 1890, possibly 1891.

Anderson's opinions are therefore not based on evidence but on unspecified suspicions, perhaps bolstered by the fact he was insane and that he lived in the area. And, more importantly, suspicions not directly connected with the previous Ripper murders which ended in Nov. 1888.

Agreed, and with that scenario in mind we need to seriously ask what were the basis of their suspicions, if nothing more than heresay?

It also seems reasonable to conclude that this controversial I.D. took place in 1890. Is this I.D. the sole basis for police suspicions, even though it failed? Kosminski was only placed under surveillance after the identification, there does not appear to be any reason to conclude the police harboured suspicions against him before that, certainly not in 1888.
If this is the case, what triggered the I.D.?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,
Exactly. We don't know what brought an insane but ostensibly harmless man to the attention of the police, let alone made them suspect him of being Jack the Ripper and go to the trouble of arranging an identification (the witness's refusal to give evidence was a bummer, but otherwise I'd say a positive identification was a success not a failure), but something did. Or, as Stewart has speculated, Anderson got his cases mixed up.

[PaulB]

In view of the fact that Macnaghten preferred Druitt as the Ripper, and openly espoused this belief, one would hardly call him a Kosminskiite. He was a Druittite (?), Druittist (?), MJD-ite (?), or whatever.

Montaguist?

I guess that rules out the Capulets among his supporters.

[Stephen Thomas]

What I did write was that I don't believe that the annotations were faked and that I believe that Swanson wrote 'Kosminski was the suspect.' Saying someone was a suspect is an entirely different thing to saying that someone was 'Jack the Ripper'.

Of course, Stewart.

But the annotations accompany Anderson's statement that JTR was apprehended and therefore the annotations must logically refer to the un-named person that Anderson said was JTR.

[Stewart P Evans]

True, but...

Of course, Stewart.
But the annotations accompany Anderson's statement that JTR was apprehended and therefore the annotations must logically refer to the un-named person that Anderson said was JTR.

True, but Swanson merely enlarged on Anderson's words and stated that Kosminski was the suspect being referred to. He didn't actually say that he agreed with Anderson that the suspect was actually the murderer. Hence his words have been described, in the past, as giving 'tacit' support to Anderson.

But, as I have suggested in the past, Anderson may have been repeating information that originated with Swanson in the first place. This has all been discussed time and time again in the past and I don't think that we need to regurgitate it all again. Swanson's words show that 'Kosminski' was the suspect, they do not state, nor do they show, that 'Kosminski' was the murderer.

You are still left with an extremely unsatisfactory claimed identification (the identification being claimed 20 years after the event), for which there is no independent corroboration anywhere. Because Anderson felt that the alleged identification made it 'morally certain', and the suspect was the murderer, cannot be accepted as correct.

If, however, you wish to believe that Anderson was correct, that what he said was confirmed by Swanson, and that the case was solved that is your prerogative. Patently you do not understand the nature of evidence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Also...

Of course, Stewart.
But the annotations accompany Anderson's statement that JTR was apprehended and therefore the annotations must logically refer to the un-named person that Anderson said was JTR.

Also we may look at this another way. In Martin Fido and Paul Begg you have the two leading Ripper authors who most support Anderson and what he said.

You have a virtual consensus of opinion that the suspect 'Kosminski' named by Macnaghten, the Polish Jew suspect referred to by Anderson, and the suspect named by Swanson as 'Kosminski' are all one and the same and are, in fact, all references to Aaron Kozminski.

All that said, what do we find? We find Martin unable to believe that it was Aaron Kozminski and opting for an alternative Jew, Cohen, and we have Paul stating, here, that he does not believe that Aaron Kozminski was Jack the Ripper.

What do you believe?