Plausibility of Kosminski

[Abby Normal]

Phil,

Yes, we are all off topic -- but I think we also felt there was a need for some time out. Anyway, how do you suppose I know how to spell naive? That trick was taught me by an old editor for whom I worked and is a great help.

Don.

Yes, i agree
(whew!)


OK i'll start- I like turtles.

[Tom_Wescott]

Jiminy Christmas, what a thread!

“Reading a book isn't going to change the facts, but there is a fair chance that reading a book will tell you what the facts are.” – Paul Begg

My goodness, if that isn’t the Ripperological quote of the year, I don’t know what would be.

From Commercial Road to Dutfield's Yard he would have only a back view. You do not know how close he was when the assault took place and the attacker called out to him across the road. Your claim that the Schwartz sighting was 'superior' is in your opinion only.

Actually, I think most researchers would agree with Garry on this point. Schwartz was on top of the couple as they spoke and Liz got do-si-doed to the ground. He got a great look at them. After crossing to the other side of the street, Schwartz turned to see BS Man yelling ‘Lipski’. Again he looked at him. Schwartz was able to identify Stride with certainty, whereas Lawende only knew he saw a woman dressed in black. Having said that, I don’t believe Schwartz was used as a police witness, either because he migrated to America, or because they didn’t consider him as reliable as Lawende.

The question one has to ask is what was Stride doing in Berner Street outside The Club in the first place. Was she soliciting if she was then as likely as not she was propositioning almost every man that walked past. If that be the case could it be that in fact the man seen "attacking" her was no more than a man who she had accosted and who pushed her away to get rid of her and not her killer ?

This is definitely possible. It might even have been a frustrated Morris Eagle trying to clear a whore out of his gateway so he could return to the club. Not that he’d ever admit it was him! We know he arrived within roughly 5 minutes of when Schwartz made his sighting, as all the people in the club agreed on this time.

I think Broad shoulders might have been a club member evicting Stride from the Yard. That's my opinion.

Saw this after I wrote the above. Oh my goodness! Rob might change his mind after he realizes I published this idea some time back. He wouldn’t want to be seen agreeing with me!

Even as a newbie I know the feeling.

15 months and 2000 posts. You’re not a newbie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

House on fire

From this, Tom Wescott deduced that Le Grand had invented the story of the Batty Street lodger

Yes, that’s all it was, because I’m a fantasist who makes giant leaps in reason that he can’t back up. Hardly the case. Clearly, as we’re all aware, there is absolutely no doubt that a bloodstained shirt existed and originated from Mrs. Kuer’s house. This is a matter of fact, attested to by one of the lodgers in a letter to the newspaper. But the idea that a lodger in the house left the bloody shirt was a pure myth that MUST have been invented by someone. As we see Le Grand in the fore of the case, someone who was already inventing the Packer Grapeman, it’s worth considering that Le Grand may have used the bloody shirt to invent yet another Berner Street suspect. Couple this with the fact that he spoke German and could have operated as an interpreter, and was still on the scene and in the case, bringing forth Matthew Packer yet again to claim that Grapeman and the Lodger were both one in the same. And weren’t there supposed to be two detectives or policemen at Mrs Kuer’s house? Le Grand and Batchelor were in the neighborhood representing themselves as detectives. It is certain that Le Grand used the factual bloody shirt and the fictional lodger to his own advantage, so isn’t it possible he was also the catalyst for the whole farce?

So I really do not see how you have deduced from this one Northern Eastern Gazette article that the whole story was "fictitious," unless you are simply relying on the fact that Tom Wescott told you it was so.

It is not a “fact” that I told Maria anything. I don’t recall ever having discussed Batty Street with her. But what I can assure you is that ‘Tom Wescott’ relied on a lot more data than this one report in order to suggest that Le Grand was knee deep in the Lodger affair, and more than one press article proves that. Coupled with his spearheading the phantom Packer suspect at the same time, one street away, I believe the idea deserves more consideration.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

...None of it makes sense - unless, of course, Anderson was inventing the identification story to support his belief as to the identity of the murderer. But, then, he wouldn't lie - would he?

To suggest Anderson was inventing the story of an ID does not account for Swanson also mentioning the ID.

Anderson's portion in this scenario boils down to..
- Suspect was a Jew.
- Suspect caged in asylum.
- Witness unhesitatingly identified suspect.
- Witness refused to give evidence against him.

Swason's contribution, is as follows..
- Witness was a Jew.
- Suspect "sent" for ID.
- ID conducted at Seaside Home.
- Suspect was identified.
- Suspect returned to his brothers house.
- Suspect watched by City CID.
- Suspect sent to Stepney Workhouse, then Colney Hatch.
- Suspect died soon after.

I can readily see how some might be enamoured with the idea that Anderson had confused details of the arrest & identification of Sadler with the detainment of Kosminski. However, for this to work we have to use claims made by Swanson in order to finger Anderson.
Anderson's claims taken in isolation are not sufficient to carry the argument.

On reflection, Anderson's claims with respect to this issue alone are insignificant when compared to those made by Swanson.
That being the case, a more satisfactory hypothesis might be to suggest it was Swanson who confused the two (Sadler/Kosminski), and Anderson was only inspired by Swanson.
But then, how to explain that Anderson used Swanson's 'confusion', and how was this 'confusion' transmitted?
A more serious question also arises. Swanson was more actively involved in both investigations, compared to Anderson at only arms length. Therefore, how could someone as well informed as Swanson remotely confuse the two investigations?

I think this proposed solution creates more questions rather than providing satisfactory solutions, and yes, I know it was only a suggestion.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

I just woke up and caught up with the thread's further development.

To Rob House:
No offense whatsoever, but allow me to point out some innacurracies in your post:

{...}The "story" about a supposed lodger was clearly doing the rounds of Batty Street before Le Grand ever showed up on the scene, since Mrs. Kuer told the story to her neighbor, who apparently started spreading the story around. She told it to the Police during the house to house inquiries around October 1-2, and she undoubtedly told it to others in the neighborhood. In other words, it was undoubtedly common knowledge in the neighborhood gossip. Le Grand probably simply heard this gossip during the course of his "investigations" in the area, and then passed his information on to the newspaper.

I don't expect that you have any evidence on this, Mr. House, particularly on the highlighted parts? I assume that if there was evidence, I would have been familiar with it. I don't consider it at all a good idea to use the adverb “undoubtedly“ here. The story printed in The Northern-Eastern Gazette as early as October 10th proves that Ms. Kür was interviewed by 2 private detectives before the police approached her. That is, exactly like Matthew Packer. Hmmm... A coincidence?

You seem to be implying by your post that Debra's discovery somehow proves that this is a "fictitious story." I do not agree with this, and I think if you read the subsequent articles on the Batty Street suspect, it is clear that the story is not fictitious, although it was clearly misreported in the earliest versions of the story that appeared in the papers.

Debra Arif's discovery that the “bloody shirt incident at Ms. Kür“ was connected via The North-Eastern Gazette to both Le Grand and Packer, who were documentedly obstructing the Stride investigation since about a week at that point, is a very strong argument that the entire incident might have been fictitious. And you didn't give any evidence or argumentation pertaining to why you are disagreeing with this, Mr. House. Also, the subsequent reports in the press about the alleged “Batty Street Lodger“ got increasingly more exaggerated than the initial reports, so the reception of that story was rather the other way around as how you're perceiving it.

15 months and 2000 posts. You’re not a newbie.

Did I already reach the 2.000 mark? I had no idea you were calculating my vital statistics, Tom. ;-) I actually keep considering myself a newbie (or an “advanced beginner“, if you will), until I manage reading up on all the lit on my reading list, and have published a couple articles.

Stewart has shown a propensity to look at Tumblety quite differently in different books by himself and collaborators on this case. For example, 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006), with Don Rumbelow, does attempt to debunk Anderson's suspect (devastatingly I think) bot does not then regurgitate arguments for Tumblety from the earlier work -- nothing of the kind.{...} In other words, a terrific, rich historical work will do just that; it will inspire in the discerning reader other possibilities, other avenues to explore -- not block them off. That is why to characterize 'The Lodger' as flawed by bias, or the odd mistake here and there, is a totally anemic opinion.

Yep, agree, without claiming that this is “the gospel truth“. ;-)

Ironically, I agree with Rob -- up to a point -- and not Stewart, about something fundamental. I also think that the case was probably solved, at the time, specifically in 1891. I just think that the police chief who did this was Macnaghten, rather than Anderson, regarding Druitt, and not Aaron Kosminski, a provisional opinion based on limited data.

Even more ironically, I too have a feeling (based on evidence) that the case was “solved“ around 1891, albeit regarding another suspect.

Rob writes that he wrote a book to answer the question: What if Anderson was right? He has my empathy, in principle, because I am writing a book asking a parallel question: what if Macnaghten was right? I just think that Rob's would have been a stronger book if it had fully outlined the arguments for Anderson being wrong, and then show how they (eg. the Sailor's Home theory) are less compelling than the counter-argument that this police chief was probably right.

I understand, and I think I agree, but I'm withholding an opinion until reading Mr. House's book, to which I'm looking forward.

[mariab]

BS a member of the IWEC?

By the by, pertaining to Rob Clack's (and Trevor Mariott's) assumption that BS might have been an IWEC member throwing Stride out of the Yard, possibly Morris Eagle (of whom by the by we have a sketch, and he doesn't look particularly “broad shouldered“), Rob and I have talked about this privately before, and I consider this as a plausible possibility. There are many other Ripperologists who are entertaining this idea. Jeff Leahy comes to mind.
The fact that Schwartz characterized the man dealing with Stride as "BS" might simply have been a ruse, so as to keep the description as far away from Eagle (or any other IWEC member) as possible.

[Hunter]

Hi Stewart,
Its good to know you got to see the Memphis Belle, knowing your lifelong interest in the 8th Air Force. Sadly, when I was referring to Memphis, what happened to her was a classic example. After years of neglect the City seemed to have no concern for her. Thanks to several dedicated individuals, she was restored to her former glory and given a special place at Mud Island.

Swanson was more actively involved in both investigations, compared to Anderson at only arms length. Therefore, how could someone as well informed as Swanson remotely confuse the two investigations?

Good question.

Swanson wrote annotations in several books in order to enumerate relative passages that he felt he could add or clarify some specific point. He did the same with reports that passed his desk when he was with SY and was in the habit of signing or initialing such notations. It would be interesting to know if any errors were found in his other annotations not relative to the subject here.

I'm still surprised at the well read people who don't believe Swanson was in charge of this case at least through 1896. There have been two on this thread that have stated or implied such a belief.

[robhouse]

The "story" about a supposed lodger was clearly doing the rounds of Batty Street before Le Grand ever showed up on the scene, since Mrs. Kuer told the story to her neighbor, who apparently started spreading the story around. She told it to the Police during the house to house inquiries around October 1-2, and she undoubtedly told it to others in the neighborhood.

I don't expect that you have any evidence on this, Mr. House, particularly on the highlighted parts? I assume that if there was evidence, I would have been familiar with it. I don't consider it at all a good idea to use the adverb “undoubtedly“ here. The story printed in The Northern-Eastern Gazette as early as October 10th proves that Ms. Kür was interviewed by 2 private detectives before the police approached her. That is, exactly like Matthew Packer. Hmmm... A coincidence?

"Mrs. Kuer denied that she gave information to the police, who were told of the circumstances by a neighbour."
Echo, October 17, 1888

"From various statements made by the neighbours, the landlady had a lodger, who..." etc
Echo, October 15, 1888


"It appears that Detective Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White, of the Criminal Investigation Department, made a house-to-house inquiry in the locality of the Berner street murder. They then discovered that on the day after that crime a German left a bloodstained shirt with a laundress at 22 Batley (sic) street..."
Echo, October 15, 1888

"She explained the presence of blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred to a man (other than the one taken into custody) who was living on the premises, and that the police would have known nothing of it but for her having indiscreetly shown it to a neighbour."
Evening News, October 18, 1888

NOTE: The house-to-house inquiry took place immediately after the Stride murder, i.e the first few days of October. Clearly the neighbor was shown the shirt by Mrs. Kuer (and told about it) prior to the time when Thicke and White found out about it it. They would have learned about it sometime around October 2 or so.

Note #2: clearly the "two detectives" were Thicke and White. To me it seems likely that the earliest report of the incident was severely garbled and confused, and that Le Grand and Batchelor were simply repeating rumors they had heard.

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman

Consider how Swanson seems to have acted over his hot 'marginalia' revelation. He told nobody, he shared it with nobody, he made no effort to defend Anderson in public by a timely letter to a newspaper -- and his own family were unaware of the bombshell scribble until chancing upon it by accident generations later.

To me it's a source essentially ignorant of the real Aaron Kosminski, this tale was never tested anywhere at the time, and we do not know for sure that it is even Swanson's own opinion?

Evans and Rumbelow argued, in 2006, that the desk-bound Anderson relied on Swanson for his information. That the Kosminski-Lawende-Sadler confusion begins with Swanson's fading memory, and influenced Anderson's memoir fumble. That Swanson perhaps read what his ex-superior had written and made a private annotation, clarifying and/or correcting the more circumspect version in the book, eg. adding the suspect's name which Anderson with-held.

Perfectly plausible to me.

Nevertheless, I think it was the other way round; that Anderson told Swanson, when the latter sought private and respectful clarification in 1910, about this Polish Jew suspect who was positively identified by a Jewish witness, yet frustratingly no arrest, for being the Ripper, was made.

Of course, in 1895, apparently there was a Jewish witness (Lawende?) who did indeed affirm when 'confronted' with a Ripper suspect (Grant) and yet, frustratingly, no arrest was made of the same suspect for those crimes.

One of the reasons I think this is because from the same year, 1895, Anderson completely reversed himself in talking with Major Griffiths. Now there was a strong 'theory' about a top suspect: a locked-up lunatic (no hint of a slam dunk witness until 1910 though).

Anderson repeated this story -- more of a cameo than a story even in his own memoirs -- in source after source as the years passed.

Whereas Swanson, at least in the extant record, never publicly repeated the theory of a 'deceased' suspect after 1895.

That is why I believe this sincere but muddled tale, with the melodramatic addition of a Jewish witness (Lawende) who said 'yes' (Grant) and 'no' (Sadler), a witness who actually described a Gentile-featured man dressed as a Seaman (eg. Seaside Home), all originated with Anderson.

One senior policeman kept repeating (and embellishing?) a self-serving tale and another did not. Thus the tale is likely to the former's and the latter's.

What did Swanson know, and when did he know it?

I think in 1895 he learned from Macnaghten that there was a local lunatic, 'Kosminski' (fisrt name forgotten), locked up in the asylum soon after the murder of the final, young, pretty prostitute (Coles and Kelly merged) and that he was long, long deceased.

If the witness i.d. was so good, allegedly sometime before 1895, then why did Swanson think Coles was a Ripper victim, and go so hard for Sadler and later Grant?

Answer: he didn't because this element of the mythos did not yet exist.

Macnaghten knew in 1894 that 'Kosminski' was 'probably' still alive in the madhouse (in a document which may have been composed as late as 1898) and who also, via Sims, says that this weak suspect was out and about for a very lengthy time after the Kelly murder.

If Macnaghten knew that, why did Swanson and/or Anderson think that 'Kosminski' died 'soon after' the final murder and his being incarcerated?

Did Mac mislead them? Apparently, he told Inspector Tom Divall that the chief Ripper suspect fled to the States and died there in an asylum.

Sound familiar?

I think Mac was better informed about 'Kosminski' than either Anderson or Swanson.

I also think that the annotation about 'Macnaghten, Chief Const.' being the un-named police officer in the Anderson memoir who allegedly made a fuss about a threatening letter, also comes from Anderson to Swanson -- the latter just as perplexed as to who on earth this was, as much he was about the identity of the Jewish witness who supposedly 'confronted' a Jewish suspect?

That slur does not match the Macnaghten of all other sources, but it does match Andreson as conceited and egocentric. Macnaghten praises Swanson in his memoirs whereas he obliterates Anderson altogether -- along with 'Kosminski'.

[mariab]

To Rob House:
Yes, I know of these newspaper reports plus several other, and they are for some part (typically) conflicting.
It appears that Detective Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White, of the Criminal Investigation Department, made a house-to-house inquiry in the locality of the Berner street murder. They then discovered that on the day after that crime a German left a bloodstained shirt with a laundress at 22 Batley (sic) street..."
(The Echo, October 15, 1888)
I'm not sure how you are concluding that the detectives in question having question Ms. Kür were Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White since they are referenced in the press 5 days LATER than Le Grand and Batchelor in The Northern Eastern Gazette of October 10, 1888. There's not any evidence for an investigation at Ms. Kür's on October 2 either, though at some point I'd like to re-attempt a “comprehensive“ newspaper search – if someone else doesn't beat me to this, which would be nice. :-)

[Stewart P Evans]

Unfairness

Thanks, Phil.
Left Field is, as Stewart mentioned, not unexpected as he has continually refused to admit to the research mistakes in his Tumblety book, which has readers to this day. Stewart and I have spoken of these issues on the phone and so I feel that when he accuses an author of bias towards a suspect, he should first acknowledge his own mishaps and not blame co-authors or publishers. Nice and Pleasant thread for you, maybe, but not for me.
That is all.
JM

The unfairness of all this is the fact that when we wrote The Lodger research was at a very primitive stage. Neither Paul Gainey nor I even had Internet connection and I put the book together on a borrowed computer used only as a word processor.

All books contain research mistakes especially in a world of rapidly increasing research facilities on the Internet. The Dunham story was one of a few found in the New York press by Paul Gainey when he made a flying visit to the US and visited the New York Library. He then flew on to St Louis to quickly obtain Tumblety's vital records there and a copy of Tumblety's second book. We had, as I explained, a publisher's deadline of only ten months to research, write, submit typescript for publication, proofread and publish the whole book. All without any Internet facility for research. We hardly had time to research Tumblety let alone every person offering a press story about Tumblety. It wasn't a book about the civil war or Lincoln, it was a book about a newly found Ripper suspect. Paul wrote the American and Lincoln side of the story and I wrote the Ripper side.

New information that came to light after the publication of the first edition was incorporated as addenda in the second, 1996, edition. In the scramble of those opposing the hypothetical case against Tumblety many reasons were suggested attacking the idea. But that's fine that is the nature of suspect books. The critics seeking all they could didn't come up with the Conover/Dunham material until at least six years later on these boards. I first learned of it c. 1997 from a Lincoln/civil war enthusiast friend of Paul Gainey's, too late to include in our book.

Now I'm accused of accusing co-authors and publishers for 'my own mishaps'. What a really nice man this Menges is. But such is the wrath that you invoke when you have the temerity to suggest another author has bias. It's an unforgivable sin and will bring down hysterical responses like this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Own Take

...
Actually, I think most researchers would agree with Garry on this point. Schwartz was on top of the couple as they spoke and Liz got do-si-doed to the ground. He got a great look at them. After crossing to the other side of the street, Schwartz turned to see BS Man yelling ‘Lipski’. Again he looked at him. Schwartz was able to identify Stride with certainty, whereas Lawende only knew he saw a woman dressed in black. Having said that, I don’t believe Schwartz was used as a police witness, either because he migrated to America, or because they didn’t consider him as reliable as Lawende.
...
Tom Wescott

That is purely your own take on it.

All we have, officially, is what Swanson wrote, that is that Schwartz 'on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting a pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' and then Schwartz walked away...' That would also be subject to several unknown variables such as degree of lighting, whether Schwartz was trying not to look too hard at the man as he was frightened, etc.

If you translate that into what you say above and call it 'a great look' then I can only wonder at your powers of interpretation.

[Stewart P Evans]

Naive

...
Left Field is, as Stewart mentioned, not unexpected as he has continually refused to admit to the research mistakes in his Tumblety book, which has readers to this day. Stewart and I have spoken of these issues on the phone and so I feel that when he accuses an author of bias towards a suspect, he should first acknowledge his own mishaps and not blame co-authors or publishers. Nice and Pleasant thread for you, maybe, but not for me.
That is all.
JM

This really is naive. Surely any intelligent reader knows that a book written on any specialist subject is going to become outdated and in need of revision as the years pass by. You seem really rankled by the fact that I accused Rob of bias. That was as a result of his remarks against the perceived ''anti-Andersonites'. And, surely, as human beings we all have bias of some sort or another, as well as prejudices. Are you telling me Rob has no Anderson bias?

[mariab]

Here's a newbie question, as I was unable to find the answer on a very quick search (and I'd rather should be working on a paper on severe deadline right now):
Did Lawende manage to identify Eddowes at the morgue?
We know that Schwartz did identify Stride. (As well as Packer did, he he.)

[harry]

Kosminski was already being claimed as susect,before the identification.On what basis?Who conducted the identification,and how were the results of that identification communicated to Anderson and Swanson?.Were any written statements taken at the identification?They should have been.If those proposing that Anderson is correct,it may have been wise to answer those questions before rushing into print and stating that Anderson's word was enough.There has never been any evidence pointing as suspicion against Kosminski.Not one small piece.Two senior police officers made claims.Neither proved those claims.