Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

Would they 'destroy it easily'?

Were I the prosecution I'd argue:

"The witness naturally was cautious, that's a reasonable standpoint for any human being. Also, at no point did he say he wouldn't recognise him again. On balance, he had doubts. Just as you or I have doubts about realising our aspirations - doesn't mean we won't get there. A sensible man has doubts; there is always room for alternative events. So, now that we've shown that we all have doubts, and sometimes they turn out to be misplaced, we can now turn to the witness sighting. The witness saw this man's height, clothes and colouring from 9/10 feet away; while photographic evidence would have proven useful it turns out that when faced with the suspect he recognised him instantly. What matters here is not the 'doubt', rather these two simple propostions from our witness: he saw a man on the night; the man he saw sits over there. The witness is adamant in this".

Now, it may not work, Stewart, but are we seriously saying that the man who gave everyone the run around, the most notorious man around, wouldn't have been placed in a court of law (with a witness sighting and no alibi for each of the nights, plus a few other bits and pieces such as the man's character)?

On the insanity issue: there is ample evidence of people being taken into asylums and released, say 6/8 weeks later. Clearly, these people weren't that 'mad'. Perhaps this man was detained because the police fancied him for it, and they had something that led to detention without him being evidently a lunatic.

And, were it so unbelievable that this man could have been placed in front of a court of law during Victorian times, then why did Anderson risk his reputation with his statement and why is there no contemporary record of anyone laughing Anderson out of court (or is there)? Imagine a high ranking police officer today saying something that was clearly ridiculous - the press would have had a field day - prior to his resignation.

Very quickly, I understand that once charged the suspect would appear in a magistrates court to make his further detention legal. At this hearing the police would have been required to give reason for detaining the suspect and presented the evidence on which the charge was based. It is at this point, or even before the evidence was heard, that the suspect would have been examined by a doctor and, if insane, been certified. At this point he would probably have been deemed unfit to plead, no trial would have taken place and the suspect would have been whisked away to an asylum Take a look at Cutbush. We do not know why the police did not charge the suspect, but by returning him to his brother's house the family were able to seize the opportunity to have him committed themselves and thus circumvent the magistrates hearing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Very quickly, I understand that once charged the suspect would appear in a magistrates court to make his further detention legal. At this hearing the police would have been required to give reason for detaining the suspect and presented the evidence on which the charge was based. It is at this point, or even before the evidence was heard, that the suspect would have been examined by a doctor and, if insane, been certified. At this point he would probably have been deemed unfit to plead, no trial would have taken place and the suspect would have been whisked away to an asylum Take a look at Cutbush. We do not know why the police did not charge the suspect, but by returning him to his brother's house the family were able to seize the opportunity to have him committed themselves and thus circumvent the magistrates hearing.

Sounds reasonable, but it seems that in those days a person detained in an asylum wasn't clearly 'insane'; unless, of course, the authorities made a habit of detaining 'insane' people in an asylum prior to releasing them into the community.

And, as said, assuming Anderson's statement was clearly ridiculous, i.e. the suspect could never have been charged, then why is there no response to his memoirs in a newspaper or the like; either the opinion of the editor or a letter from a member of the community? Clearly, no one was particularly troubled by Anderson's statement and the plausibility of a conviction, except for those stating 'he only thought he knew'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Good choice. John Thaw v. James Mason would be epic!
S.

Clash of the titans, with Prince Eddie the identified suspect.

[Monty]

Thanks for that Paul, most reassuring. Life is too short to be at each other's throats all the time, albeit in the pursuit of personal beliefs and interpretation. I am sure that others enjoy us having a friendly exchange rather than bitching at each other.

Stewart,

As I've just said to Rob, I'm really enjoying this exchange here and learning a lot.

I appreciate the input by all, even Trevor.

Monty

[Monty]

Well its nice to know we are in total agreement all we need now is a few more to come forward and join our cartel

Trevor,

You do realise, as Robs carer, that everywhere he goes I go.

Its a bit like you and Phil

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Trevor,

You do realise, as Robs carer, that everywhere he goes I go.

Its a bit like you and Phil

Monty

Clack and Bell, the famed Ripper Siamese Twins. Almost as famous as the A to Z Triplets, Begg, Fido, and Skinner, likewise joined at the hip.

[Archaic]

Questions

Very quickly, I understand that once charged the suspect would appear in a magistrates court to make his further detention legal. At this hearing the police would have been required to give reason for detaining the suspect and presented the evidence on which the charge was based. It is at this point, or even before the evidence was heard, that the suspect would have been examined by a doctor and, if insane, been certified. At this point he would probably have been deemed unfit to plead, no trial would have taken place and the suspect would have been whisked away to an asylum.

Hello Paul. I agree with that assessment.

I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper, and he is not my usual field of study, but here are a few questions for all of you if you don't mind:

Say certain members of the police, officials, etc., believed Kosminski to be the Ripper, or felt strongly that he "probably" was the Ripper. If they were confident that Jack the Ripper was actually caught, but then he was certified insane (which meant that he could not be made to face criminal prosecution) what would be the public's reaction to this news? Wouldn't the fallout be tremendous?

While many people would welcome the news that the Whitechapel Murderer was in custody, many members of the public would clamor that he should still be hung for his crimes. Might the officials even fear some kind of domestic pogrom against other Polish Jewish immigrants?

Does anyone have an opinion as to how far could the situation might have gone, both socially and politically? Might people have actually rioted?

If the police were so afraid of trouble of this kind that they erased the Goulston St. graffito without even photographing it, I can see how the belief that after all their years of effort they have ended up with an un-prosecutable mentally ill Eastern European Jewish immigrant that their witness either can't or won't swear to is a nightmare situation, and one those at the top would likely prefer to keep quiet.

Again, I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper, but I'm curious as to how officials who did believe he was - or "probably" was - the Ripper might have viewed so complicated a dilemma given the contemporary environment.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[ChrisGeorge]

I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper, and he is not my usual field of study, but here are a few questions for all of you if you don't mind:

Say certain members of the police, officials, etc., believed Kosminski to be the Ripper, or felt strongly that he "probably" was the Ripper. If they were confident that Jack the Ripper was actually caught, but then he was certified insane (which meant that he could not be made to face criminal prosecution) what would be the public's reaction to this news? Wouldn't the fallout be tremendous?

With due respect, Archaic, I think you might be overestimating what the public reaction might have been. In some ways, 1888 and the years thereafter were much worse than today in having news daily or monthly of solutions to the case. This was happening in the newspapers constantly during the Autumn of Terror, and it happened with the arrest and executions of Cream, Deeming, and Chapman. Plus the stories that were reported of people such as Major Griffiths and George R. Sims saying they thought the Ripper drowned in the Thames. So I would rather say that the reaction of the public might have been "Ho hum not another solution to the case!"

While many people would welcome the news that the Whitechapel Murderer was in custody, many members of the public would clamor that he should still be hung for his crimes. Might the officials even fear some kind of domestic pogrom against other Polish Jewish immigrants?

Does anyone have an opinion as to how far could the situation might have gone, both socially and politically? Might people have actually rioted?

If the police were so afraid of trouble of this kind that they erased the Goulston St. graffito without even photographing it, I can see how the belief that after all their years of effort they have ended up with an un-prosecutable mentally ill Eastern European Jewish immigrant that their witness either can't or won't swear to is a nightmare situation, and one those at the top would likely prefer to keep quiet.

Again, I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper, but I'm curious as to how officials who did believe he was - or "probably" was - the Ripper might have viewed so complicated a dilemma given the contemporary environment.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Archaic, you bring up a most cogent point about the possibility of East End riots, an excellent point for discussion. We know that is the very thing Sir Charles Warren was anxious about when he asked that the Goulston Street graffito be washed from the wall, don't we? But such a possibility is left totally undiscussed by Sir Robert Anderson, perhaps surprisingly so. He is intent as we know to blame the Jews for not giving up Kosminski as a Ripper suspect, and doesn't touch at all upon the specter of anti-semitic unrest in the streets of the East End.

Could this though be part of the answer why only Anderson and Swanson pushed Kosminski's candidacy, and why few at the Yard knew of the attempted Seaside Home identification???? That is, that the fear of potential East End protests led to it being as it were an identification done almost by subterfuge so that few officers at Scotland Yard knew about it, and that apparently, if we are to believe it, even Abberline didn't know about it? Hmmmmmm. Food for thought. Thanks again, Archaic for your interesting questions.

Best regards

Chris

[Natalie Severn]

I have never understood what was meant by Aaron being caged in an asylum 'soon after'.
Soon after what? Mary Kelly's murder?
If so then Anderson /Swanson were wrong on this because Aaron Kosminski was out and about walking the dog in Cheapside in November 1889---a full year after the last murder.Unless he was in and out of the bin like a fiddler's elbow--- which is what it sounds like.
Best,
Norma

[ChrisGeorge]

I have never understood what was meant by Aaron being caged in an asylum 'soon after'.
Soon after what? Mary Kelly's murder?
If so then Anderson /Swanson were wrong on this because Aaron Kosminski was out and about walking the dog in Cheapside in November 1889---a full year after the last murder.Unless he was in and out of the bin like a fiddler's elbow--- which is what it sounds like.
Best,
Norma

Hello Natalie

Didn't it mean soon after the attempted identification? The attempted ID was itself two years after walking the dog. So the indication is that the Seaside Home encounter and the described caging in the asylum were spring 1891 onward.

Hope to see you at the Whitechapel Society conference, Natalie....

C

[Wickerman]

Is it necessary to keep repeating that such an identification, if it took place as described, would be worthless in a legal sense?

But Stewart, this is not a situation where layperson's are suggest there should have been an ID. This is two Police official's who suggested there was such an ID.
Telling us that the ID would have no legal standing doesn't answer the question as to why two police officials, who presumably were well aware of the legal situation, both claimed the suspect was subject to an ID.

We can resort to claiming both Swanson & Anderson were both lying, or were both mistaken. Or, that they had no intention of charging the suspect (given his condition), but required to know if this was the man everybody had been looking for, and should that be confirmed they had every intention of locking him up for good as "insane".

As I've said before, memoirs have a curiosity value and, in my opinion, cannot be relied upon for accuracy. That said, I wouldn't expect the ID to have been purely invented given that Swanson confirmed it privately. And I find it hard to believe it was a "mistake of recollection", for the same reason.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Where can you prove the police became aware of him in July 1890.?

Trevor.
We are working with the material we have been dealt. Specifically Swanson's notes where he suggests the ID took place before Kosminski was returned to his brother's house and watched night & day by City CID.
We know he was returned to his brother after his July stay at Mile End, this leaves little choice of the date.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

I realize that I am beating a dead horse here and that many will find this post too long to read- especially from a nobody from Tennessee- but for some time I've believed that many who have analyzed this aspect of the case have been viewing it through the wrong end of the microscope; placing Sir Robert Anderson and his words at the front of the Kozminski mystery and Swanson as the loyal lieutenant that follows along with his 'old master'. This is understandable to some extent because of the high profile and public figure that Anderson was. He was controversial in his own time. Swanson exhibited almost no public persona.

The question about Abberline (and why he wasn't aware of any ID attempt), earlier in this thread, reminds me of the prominence that he has been placed as well - notably from Phil Sugden - in the overall scheme of things. The 'clerical' Donald Swanson was no more than a footnote... and in the end, suffered from the same delusions that Anderson did. But no one can produce any evidence of that... and Abberline was back at CO in March of 1889. The suspects largely discussed came to notice after his involvement in the investigation had ceased.

I believe that after 1889, Swanson continued the investigation on a more limited scale; thus very few would be involved at that level. This would include ID attempts and a probable roundup of area 'lunatics' that had some perceived sexual disorder. What Anderson learned, he learned from Swanson - not the other way around - and because this 'Kosminski' became prominent in Swanson's mind as a good suspect, Anderson latched onto him and made him his own; reinforced by what he came to believe as a 'moral certainty' based, again, upon Swanson's report on this ID attempt, Anderson's assertion that someone knew of his behavior but had been hiding him and possibly Dr. Houchin's assessment of Kozminski's mental condition.

When Swanson received his copy of his 'old master's' book, he was impressed at the confidence that Anderson appeared to have... that amongst the many 'homicidal lunatics' processed through the investigation, his lieutenant might have snared the culprit. This would explain Swanson's extensive annotations in that segment of the book, adding almost exclusively, the procedure of the ID attempt, which was his undertaking.

Thus, it was a three tiered process (four, if you count Macnaghten's 1894 notes that probably came from Swanson as well).

Swanson comes up with Kozminski in 1890-91 and highly suspects him. The Coles murder prompts him to take personal charge of that investigation because of what already had transpired. It is deemed that Sadler killed Coles; making any previous suspect still viable.

Macnaghten mentions 'Kosminski' in his 1894 memorandum; based on a report by Swanson and possibly Dr. Houchin. The 1895 Grainger incident prompts another investigation, but Grainger is 'cleared' so any previous suspect is still viable. It it around this time that Anderson 'hints' that he may have settled upon a suspect.

Anderson writes several articles that culminate in his 1910 book. He has chosen the 'Polish Jew' suspect to be the murderer, but given his proclivity to be judgmental and expand to what may go beyond his prominence of involvement - as Churchill put it 'How Bill Adams won the Battle of Waterloo' - he invites criticism from several quarters.

Swanson reads the part about the Polish Jew and remembers what took place. He adds notations to expand upon what Anderson had written because it was he who conducted the investigation... Suspect 'was sent by us'.

Through all of this some errors are evident; starting with Macnaghten and extrapolated by the egotistical Andeson. This post has already gone too long to go into further detail, but there are enough similarities in it all to make an objective student to take notice that something was there to provoke three top officials to write about it.

How all of this possibly came down is more important to me, than whether Kozminski was ever Jack the Ripper or not. I'm inclined to agree with Don Rumbelow... that when we reach the pearly gates and ask the question that was on our minds during life... when we receive the answer, we will probably say "Who?".

[curious]

That's true. But then presumably the police would have reassured him that the suspect would not be executed and he'd have given evidence.
Paul

Presumably, BUT with very different cultures and very differnt backgrounds, would the witness have been likely to have believed the police?

[Wickerman]

What Anderson learned, he learned from Swanson - not the other way around - and because this 'Kosminski' became prominent in Swanson's mind as a good suspect, Anderson latched onto him and made him his own; reinforced by what he came to believe as a 'moral certainty' based, again, upon Swanson's report on this ID attempt, Anderson's assertion that someone knew of his behavior but had been hiding him and possibly Dr. Houchin's assessment of Kozminski's mental condition.

You are correct of course. We tend to view this "who-knew-what-and when-did-they-know-it" problem in an authoritive sequence from the top down, rather than following the information stream which runs from the bottom up.

Which only makes some of what Swanson said all the more perplexing considering he was the one who held all the cards.

Regards, Jon S.