Plausibility of Kosminski

[Scott Nelson]

Yes - I think that is the one way in which Macnaghten's and Swanson's "Kosminski" could be referring to someone other than Aaron.

But the difficulty is that if someone was recorded in both the workhouse and the asylum records under another surname, and also had his death registered under another surname, it would seem strange for the police to be referring to him by his original surname. To my mind that makes it an outside chance, even if we can't say it's impossible.

Agreed. But it would be nice to know what Cohen's original Polish name was -- a birth record perhaps. And a little more about Cohen's life in London and who the mysterious "N. Cohen" was...

[Jonathan H]

To Martin Fido

I think your 1987 book is a terrific achievement, a great read, and the dogged, primary source work you did in finding the Polish Jew suspect(s) absolutely invaluable.

Your characterization of my revisionist assessment of a sly, even deceitful Macnaghten as 'fanciful' is a fair enough opinion.

It is also the overwhelming opinion of the majority, for all that is worth (eg. not definitive, but worth noting for sure).

Ironically, I like and admire Sir Melville Macnaghten very much (too much some would say) and thus do not think that he was some kind of low-down liar harming people for personal gain. Nor was he ruthlessly shanghaing into the mix an innocent and tragic suicide to advance some kind of selfish agenda.

However, I do think that the extant record reveals an efficient, hands-on, police administrator who, to put it politely, manipulated information regarding the Ripper, depending on whom he was communicating with. He did this because he believed that he had discovered the identity of the Ripper two years too late, and then sought to both reveal and conceal 'Jack' -- to have his cake and eat it too.

Here are three examples of Mac's deceit, to show where my new take on this police chief originates.

1. Mac's 1913 retirement comments, at having destroyed all records of the 'private informatio' which came his way about Druitt, is demosntably false. Not only was there his report gathering dust in the Scotland Yard archive, but he did not even destroy an alternate version of the same report which he used to write the memoir chapter in 'Days of My Years' (and which he falsely claimed was written entirely from memory). His own daughter, in 1959, thought this must be a fib to fob off his nosy cronies.

2. In 1903 Sims claimed that Abberline was dead wrong dismissing the Drowned Doctor because Major Griffiths had seen the 'Home Office Report' by the 'Commissioner', -- in which the doctor suspect loons large -- and that totally trumped the ex-cop's rejection of this suspect. We know that this was actually the draft, or backdated rewrite, of a document which had never made it to that dept. Yet Macnaghten, via Sims, characterized it as a definitive opinion of state when it was nothing of the kind. In fact, Druitt in the official version is a minor suspect. Either Griffiths and Sims were in on this ruse, or their pal was misleading them. Whichever, the public was misled to a certain extent (though not necessarily about Mac's certainty about Druitt's guilt). In fact, all the Home Office knew about the Drowned Doctor suspect was what they read in the press.

3. In 'Aberconway' the 'family' are clearly mentioned as suspicious of their member. This was changed for public consumption into 'friends', in both Griffiths and Sims. It makes the 'doctor' into an orphan with concerned pals, like Dr. Jekyll. I think Mac also told Sims that 'Dr D' had been 'twice' in a lunatic asylum, then in his memoirs he debunked this very detail -- which is correct as Druitt had never been sectioned.

These examples are all harmless, and in fact discreetly, even cleverly, hide the Druitt family (and police embarrassment), and also render the Druitt tar-baby libel-proof, but it is still not telling the gospel truth.

PS
I also enjoy very much your various interviews in Ripper docos.

[Garry Wroe]

But, of course, in the vexed question of the unnamed Anderson witness Philip did discover and publish, for the first time, the attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper reported in the Daily Telegraph of February 18, 1891. And that report makes it pretty clear that the witness used was Lawende.

Agreed, Stewart. But the Sadler and Kosminski identifications were two discrete events, each with its own unique set of situational and operational dynamics. The point I am making is that, in detailing the latter event, Anderson stated that his suspect was positively identified by the only witness who ever got a good view of the killer. Thus, if we compare and contrast the Schwartz and Lawende sightings, it was Schwartz who had the best view of the supposed killer, and for a more extended period than that which encompassed Lawende’s Church Passage sighting. On top of this, Lawende expressed considerable doubt that he would be able to recognize the man if confronted with him.

Again, I am merely evaluating the issue based upon the parameters laid down by Anderson, on which basis Schwartz is clearly the stronger witness. And by a distance.

You obviously feel that what we have on Schwartz's witness sighting is more persuasive than what we have on Lawende's, despite Lawende's apparent use as a witness at a later date(s).

As I’ve already stated, Stewart, Anderson was quite explicit with regard to the calibre of his witness. But since on a purely evidential basis I’m convinced that the Stride killing was an unrelated crime, I don’t think that Schwartz sighted Jack the Ripper in any case.

But all that aside, we are asked to believe that an identification carried out around two years after the event, based on a brief sighting, at night, in less than ideal circumstances, be the witness Lawende or Schwartz, was good enough for a positive identification of a suspect as the murderer, bearing in mind neither Schwartz nor Lawende witnessed a murder taking place. Sorry, I simply cannot subscribe to that idea.

Couldn’t agree more. And nor do I think that the Crown would have stood an earthly of securing a conviction on the basis of such ‘evidence’.

The fact that Anderson did make such a claim, in my opinion, does reflect upon his credibility.

Absolutely. He even went so far as to assert that the killer’s family had been accessories to the murders, a curious contention given the dearth of proof linking Kosminski to the actual crimes. This would appear to raise questions about his personality as well as his credibility. But then Swanson, who seems to have been cut from different cloth, made no attempt to qualify or moderate the more questionable aspects of Anderson’s narrative, which to my mind implies that he didn’t construe them as being in any way extreme or inappropriate.

Straightforward it isn’t.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Paul.
Not to go off on a tangent, but the claim by Swanson that this man was watched by City CID reminds us of what was reported in the Echo 13th Nov. 1888.
Some dispute over which suspect description to follow, the City had their own line of inquiry and the Met. were induced to follow the description provided by Mary Ann Cox...

Quote:
The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.

With this in mind, we recall Swanson saying Kosminski was under surveillance by City CID, even though Swanson's comment must surely refer to a time some 18 months after Kelly's murder.
This might suggest that Kosminski was under surveillance in connection with the Mitre Sq. murder, more circumstantial evidence for Lawende (or Levy?) being Anderson's witness?

Lastly, the City police (in the above quote) were of the opinion that their "suspect" did not fit the description given by Cox. This is the "Blotchy" rough-looking character.
So what did their "suspect" dress like? something more up-scale? is that what they are hinting at? (Certainly the description given by Swanson in his 19th Oct. report is "up-scale" when compared to Blotchy).

Which then begs the question, if the City "suspect" is the one wanted for the Mitre Sq. murder, and Swanson suggests this "suspect" was Kosminski, and the City police say he was not "rough-looking" then did Kosminski dress somewhat borderline "Gentlemanly"?
Being the youngest brother of a rather wealthy Tailoring family, he may have had no shortage of suitable attire to go on his nightly jaunts.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Independent evidence...

Agreed, Stewart. But the Sadler and Kosminski identifications were two discrete events, each with its own unique set of situational and operational dynamics. The point I am making is that, in detailing the latter event, Anderson stated that his suspect was positively identified by the only witness who ever got a good view of the killer. Thus, if we compare and contrast the Schwartz and Lawende sightings, it was Schwartz who had the best view of the supposed killer, and for a more extended period than that which encompassed Lawende’s Church Passage sighting. On top of this, Lawende expressed considerable doubt that he would be able to recognize the man if confronted with him.
...

Whilst we have independent evidence, albeit the Daily Telegraph report, of an attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper (supported, however, by the fact that the official records show that consideration to Sadler being the Ripper was given) we have no independent evidence of any identification being made of any 'Kosminski'.

We have Lawende's statement but we don't have Schwartz's. We do have Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement but we don't know if Schwartz stated whether he would recognise the man again or not. We do not know that Schwartz had a better view of his man's face or not, and any sighting of the man's face would be only whilst passing the couple, as was Lawende's. Lawende's words were 'I doubt whether I should know him again.' That there was a possibility that Lawende might recognise his man again is evidenced by his later use as a witness.

The above also requires consideration of the point that there is some evidence that Schwartz may have lost credibility as a witness by the very next day, albeit this is stated in a report in The Star which is subject to the usual caveats.

The obvious questions are also raised as to why Lawende was not used in an attempt to identify the Polish Jew suspect and as to why Schwartz was not used in an attempt to identify Sadler. I have already pointed out that the identification described (two years after the event based on a brief sighting) was legally valueless and the police would know that. I thus suggested that the identification as described would probably have been more of an exercise in frightening the suspect into a confession, had the witness claimed to have identified him.

I simply cannot agree that any witness ever got a good view of the murderer which is what Anderson claimed. The reasons being that (a) the known sightings were in far from ideal conditions and (b) no murder was seen being committed (so how can you say that anyone got a good view of the murderer) and (c) the alleged identification was carried so long after the event as to be totally valueless.

I cannot see how you can say that Schwartz's view of the man's face was 'for a more extended period than that which encompassed Lawende's Church Passage sighting.' Both men would have had a worthwhile view of the man's face only as they actually passed him and the content of the descriptions given very similar.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pleased to see...

...
Again, I am merely evaluating the issue based upon the parameters laid down by Anderson, on which basis Schwartz is clearly the stronger witness. And by a distance.

As I’ve already stated, Stewart, Anderson was quite explicit with regard to the calibre of his witness. But since on a purely evidential basis I’m convinced that the Stride killing was an unrelated crime, I don’t think that Schwartz sighted Jack the Ripper in any case.

I'm pleased to see that we do agree on some points.

You state that you are 'evaluating the issue based upon the parameters laid down by Anderson, on which basis Schwartz is clearly the stronger witness. And by a distance.' That statement cannot be valid. For a start we have discussed the dubious nature of Anderson's claim and we don't know which witness he referred to. It may have been Lawende. You are merely assuming he referred to Schwartz based on your own interpretation of the available information.

What has to be understood is that any evaluation of the available record will always be, to some degree, subjective. Thus Sugden, a qualified historian, concludes Anderson's witness was Lawende, whilst you, presumably not a qualified historian, conclude it was Schwartz. I'm not a qualified historian and I base my reasoning on what I have read and personal experience.

On the point of whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not, I have to say that I keep an open mind and I am not convinced either way. As to whether or not Schwartz saw Stride's killer I am not convinced, bearing in mind the caveats stated by the police at the time. Plus we simply cannot ascertain the quality of Schwartz as a witness.

[Stewart P Evans]

You see...

...
Absolutely. He even went so far as to assert that the killer’s family had been accessories to the murders, a curious contention given the dearth of proof linking Kosminski to the actual crimes. This would appear to raise questions about his personality as well as his credibility. But then Swanson, who seems to have been cut from different cloth, made no attempt to qualify or moderate the more questionable aspects of Anderson’s narrative, which to my mind implies that he didn’t construe them as being in any way extreme or inappropriate.
Straightforward it isn’t.

You see we again return to Anderson and his claims made in memoirs twenty years after the event, supported in some measure by scribbled annotations made by Swanson of unknown date(s).

In making his annotations Swanson was hardly making a detailed analysis of what Anderson had written and, if for his use only, was probably merely expanding on what was said. Also the annotations containing error, and odd wording, are confined to the rear endpaper and, recent analysis has shown these may have been written some years later than the marginal notes.

The arguments on going full circle always return to the credibility of Anderson himself. His other secular books show that what he wrote cannot be taken, simply, as totally correct.

[mariab]

Ostrog's inclusion in the MM

The above also requires consideration of the point that there is some evidence that Schwartz may have lost credibility as a witness by the very next day, albeit this is stated in a report in The Star which is subject to the usual caveats.
{...}
I have already pointed out that the identification described (two years after the event based on a brief sighting) was legally valueless and the police would know that. I thus suggested that the identification as described would probably have been more of an exercise in frightening the suspect into a confession, had the witness claimed to have identified him.

I'm glad that someone is mentioning both these points.

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?

Ostrog seems an afterthought.

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.

Agree with Mr. Evans here, plus I have a suspicion that Macnaghten might have possibly mixed up Ostrog with the alleged* contemporary suspect Charles Le Grand, plausibly due to their common alternate names (Grant/Grand) and to the fact that both had been criminally active in Paris, while the MO discussed in the MM rather fits Le Grand than Ostrog. Philip Sugden discusses a letter written by Macnaghten in May 1891 to the Banstead Hospital where Ostrog was incarcerated. The full content of the letter in question is unknown and I'd be extremely interested in perusing it. Rob Clack is currently trying to locate said letter in the LMA (possibly under the case files).
By the by, I recently located Ostrog's indictment in Paris (discussed but not quoted by Sugden), which mentions that Ostrog was impersonating a forensic pathologist. However, Ostrog was clearly NOT indicted for carrying any knifes on himself, surgical or not, which would have been punished separately by French law and mentioned specifically in the indictment.
The original document and its translation have been posted here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5756


* see the latest discoveries pertaining to this by Marc Ripper, Mike Covell, and Howard Brown, discussed in the JTRForums and in an article in Examiner 2.

[mariab]

Montaguist?
I guess that rules out the Capulets among his supporters.

Just loved this. :-)

Plus we simply cannot ascertain the quality of Schwartz as a witness.

Trying to work on this, but the new information turning up is frustratingly scarce.

[PaulB]

Maria,
For the sake of clarification, when I wrote:

"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?“

I was responding to something Phil Carter had written to Martin Fido. Martin had said that whilst we don't know what the evidence was that persuaded Macnaghten that Druitt was the murderer, ".. there must have been some form of information that led Macnaghten to suspect Druitt". Phil Carter responded that we "can also ask what evidence led the same man to place Ostrog in the frame as a suspect" and went on to say, "That is why I have grave doubts about the MM.,,"

This seemed to me to be a complete non-sequitur; yes, we have to ask why Ostrog was suspected, but why does asking that question lead to "grave doubts" about Macnaghten? The one doesn't lead to the other, hence I assumed he'd asked the question, got an answer, and reached his conclusion about the memoranda. I asked what the answer was and why he'd reached the conclusion from it.

I, o course, agree with Stewart's catalogue of the reasons given by Macnaghten himself.

[Trevor Marriott]

Maria,
For the sake of clarification, when I wrote:

"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?“

I was responding to something Phil Carter had written to Martin Fido. Martin had said that whilst we don't know what the evidence was that persuaded Macnaghten that Druitt was the murderer, ".. there must have been some form of information that led Macnaghten to suspect Druitt". Phil Carter responded that we "can also ask what evidence led the same man to place Ostrog in the frame as a suspect" and went on to say, "That is why I have grave doubts about the MM.,,"

This seemed to me to be a complete non-sequitur; yes, we have to ask why Ostrog was suspected, but why does asking that question lead to "grave doubts" about Macnaghten? The one doesn't lead to the other, hence I assumed he'd asked the question, got an answer, and reached his conclusion about the memoranda. I asked what the answer was and why he'd reached the conclusion from it.

I, o course, agree with Stewart's catalogue of the reasons given by Macnaghten himself.

Paul
I think you should speak to Stewart and get hin to explain how the police collators system used to operate. I think it will give an indication as to how names of "suspects" for not only these murders but day to day crimes were entered onto police records and by whom.

It is clear from the SB registers that in 1888 they operated a similar system and we know the CID in 1888 also had a registry so it could explain how these names have been entered in records without their being any substance to them. You only have to look at the Ripper suspects named in the SB registers as proof

For example Mrs Smith landlady has a single male lodger called Brown who keeps himslf to himself and she is aware he comes home in the early hours knowing that the murders are committed in the early hours she stops Pc Jones in the street and say "I have a lodger Mr Brown who is out to the early hours I think he could be Jack The Ripper" so Pc Jones goes back to the station and writes some brief details down abouy what she has said and hands it in. That information then gets recorded as exactly that an no doubt someone then looks at Mr Jones and no doubt perhaps then finds Mr Jones works late in a bakery. The entry regarding Mr Jones is not erasaed but the file would be marked up accordingly. So 100 years later we read that a Mr Brown was a Ripper suspect and react accordingly.

I beleive that this is how MM came to write his memo from this type of vague information contained in the records and explains its innacuracy. As we know there are no remaining police files on his suspects. That not becuase they were stolen or lost or bombed during the war its simply the fact that there when many of the police files were got rid of there was nothing in them to warrant keeping them.

[lynn cates]

Mac

Hello Mr. Evans.

"I simply cannot agree that any witness ever got a good view of the murderer which is what Anderson claimed. The reasons being that (a) the known sightings were in far from ideal conditions and (b) no murder was seen being committed (so how can you say that anyone got a good view of the murderer) and (c) the alleged identification was carried so long after the event as to be totally valueless."

And this seems to be corroborated by Mac's dictum that no one had seen . . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

All I know is...

...
Agree with Mr. Evans here, plus I have a suspicion that Macnaghten might have possibly mixed up Ostrog with the alleged* contemporary suspect Charles Le Grand, plausibly due to their common alternate names (Grant/Grand) and to the fact that both had been criminally active in Paris, while the MO discussed in the MM rather fits Le Grand than Ostrog. Philip Sugden discusses a letter written by Macnaghten in May 1891 to the Banstead Hospital where Ostrog was incarcerated. The full content of the letter in question is unknown and I'd be extremely interested in perusing it. Rob Clack is currently trying to locate said letter in the LMA (possibly under the case files).
...

All I know is what Sugden discussed. Macnaghten wrote to the Medical Superintendent at Banstead on 7 May 1891, the day of Ostrog's admission, on behalf of the Convict Supervision Office.

Macnaghten asked for immediate information to be sent to said office in the event of Ostrog's discharge. Macnaghten explained that the Magistrate at Bow Street Court had adjourned the case sine die, in order that Ostrog could be brought up and dealt with for failing to report himself if it was found that he was feigning insanity.

The records of the Banstead Hospital should be at the LMA, but were uncatalogued when accessed by Sugden.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Mr. Evans.

"I simply cannot agree that any witness ever got a good view of the murderer which is what Anderson claimed. The reasons being that (a) the known sightings were in far from ideal conditions and (b) no murder was seen being committed (so how can you say that anyone got a good view of the murderer) and (c) the alleged identification was carried so long after the event as to be totally valueless."

And this seems to be corroborated by Mac's dictum that no one had seen . . . .

Cheers.
LC

Thats if the ID ever took place and if it did where and when

[lynn cates]

Banstead

Hello Mr. Evans.

"The records of the Banstead Hospital should be at the LMA"

I wish so, but was given to understand that neither the Grove Hall nor Banstead records were there. Perhaps I should try again?

Cheers.
LC