Plausibility of Kosminski

[Fleetwood Mac]

You think it because it suits you to beleive that.

Not at all, Trevor.

I'm more interested in the conflicting sources and how they can be pieced together than the name behind JTR.

It doesn't suit me to believe it was Kosminski or anyone else.

But, there's no getting away from the fact that the recollections of two comtemporary senior police officials take precedence over a claim that there is some evidence in a ledger that one person alone has seen, and refuses to place this information into the public domain because, in his own words, 'he's playing poker'. I know which of the two would take precedence in a court of law, and so do you.

As it stands, Kosminski has to be one of the more plausible suspects. Swanson recalls an ID, the suspect was positively identified, that suspect's name was Kosminski. Regardless of any other details that has to be a source document of the utmost importance.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

However, if the attempted identification had been viewed as a complete failure I'm not sure why Anderson would have mentioned it at all.

I think he mentioned it because he really did want people to believe he was on top of the WM case. I think it is a self importance style bluff.. or lie..depending on what take one has on Anderson's personality.


kindly


Phil

[The Good Michael]

I think he mentioned it because he really did want people to believe he was on top of the WM case. I think it is a self importance style bluff.. or lie..depending on what take one has on Anderson's personality.

Yes, and if the ID was a non-verbal one and a failure as Chris was asking about, he didn't lie, literally, for he didn't detail what the ID actually entailed. The ID was positive and that's that... in his mind, and I'm nearly sure his recollections were accurate and that's another good reason not to bother with details.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Non-verbal failure being the important point here. Would this be a reason for it not being officially written down? (supposing it wasn't and that any official written ID evidence wasn't lost or purloined)


kindly

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Non-verbal failure being the important point here. Would this be a reason for it not being officially written down? (supposing it wasn't and that any official written ID evidence wasn't lost or purloined)

I'd suggest that there had tp have been an ID else Anderson wouldn't have gotten away with what he wrote, even years later. I suggest also that the suspect was known to many, and it was also known that there was no official identification, and that there was nothing to hold him on. In the minds of Anderson and perhaps a few others, there was no doubt that this man was identified, but that was as far as things could go without a verbal or written statement. I think ther must have been a file on the suspect, but it was culled like so many others. JJUst speculation, Phil.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Swanson's signature on reports subsequent to that date show that he was still at the head of the investigation.

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.

How many Chief Inspector's would they have had at the CID?, I only ask because apparently Abberline was promoted to Chief Inspector in Dec. 1890.
So wouldn't he have been at the helm while Kosminski was under surveillance and subsequently admitted to Colney Hatch?

Thanks, Jon S.

[mklhawley]

Hi All,

Swanson's role as desk-officer [Warren's "eyes and ears" on the Ripper investigation] was short-lived.

In 1889 Chief Inspector Swanson appeared before a "Departmental Committee Upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation" appointed by the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews.

The Chairman was Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office.

The Committee were Sir Arthur Lawrence Haliburton, KCB; Francis Mowatt Esq., CB; Alfred Richard Pennefather, and James Monro, Esq., CB.

Mr. D. Swanson, 29th November 1889.

[Question 2157] The Chairman: “You are a Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police?”
Swanson: “I am.”

[2158] The Chairman: “In the Criminal Investigation Department?”
Swanson: “Yes.”

[2251] Mr. Monro: “You were employed in the Whitechapel cases?”
Swanson: “Yes.”

[2252] Mr. Monro: “What were your hours then?”
Swanson: “I had to be at the office at half-past 8 in the morning; then I had to read through all the papers that had come in, which took me till 11 pm, and sometimes 1 and 2 in the morning; then I had to go to Whitechapel and see the officers - generally getting home between 2 and 3 am.

[2253] Mr. Monro: “How long did that go on?”
Swanson: “That went on from September till December.”

On assuming the Commissionership, James Monro appears to have relieved Swanson of the task of desk-officer on the Ripper investigation.

Regards,

Simon

...keeping in mind that no one witnessed the murders...

So, Monro -and maybe Anderson- took Chief Inspector Swanson off the Whitechapel Murder case in December. We know Anderson himself dismissed any of the December murders as being victims of the Whitechapel killer. It seems as though by early December 1888 the top brass were confident that the killer was not going to select another victim in the London area. If true, suspects that fit the bill would be Tumblety, Druitt, and maybe Kosminski (did they keep an eye on him until he was admitted in the next few months?).

If Anderson and Swanson believed Kosminski to be the killer, the fact that the killings stopped -as seemed to be predicted- must have reinforced their belief.

[Phil Carter]

I'd suggest that there had tp have been an ID else Anderson wouldn't have gotten away with what he wrote, even years later. I suggest also that the suspect was known to many, and it was also known that there was no official identification, and that there was nothing to hold him on. In the minds of Anderson and perhaps a few others, there was no doubt that this man was identified, but that was as far as things could go without a verbal or written statement. I think ther must have been a file on the suspect, but it was culled like so many others. JJUst speculation, Phil.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Fair comment Mike. In connection with this, I post this link from jtrforums.. where I asked a perhaps naive question.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=13341

In Parliament, it seems... and I put it no stronger than that... from this little snippet, that the killer was still regarded as unknown on 28th July 1910, via The Times newspaper.. after the release of Anderson's book TLSOMOL. I find that quite interesting.


kindly

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

...keeping in mind that no one witnessed the murders...

So, Monro -and maybe Anderson- took Chief Inspector Swanson off the Whitechapel Murder case in December. We know Anderson himself dismissed any of the December murders as being victims of the Whitechapel killer. It seems as though by early December 1888 the top brass were confident that the killer was not going to select another victim in the London area. If true, suspects that fit the bill would be Tumblety, Druitt, and maybe Kosminski (did they keep an eye on him until he was admitted in the next few months?).

If Anderson and Swanson believed Kosminski to be the killer, the fact that the killings stopped -as seemed to be predicted- must have reinforced their belief.

Oh do get real.The whole of Whitechapel if not London was up in arms that the Ripper was still at large in December 1888.The police were under intense pressure to capture him and get a conviction.
No mention whatever is made of a man named Kosminski by the Chief Commissioner of the City of London police,Sir Henry Smith who was at the scene of the Mitre Square murder, which is a lot more than can be said for Sir Robert Anderson.In fact Smith insisted [Jack] 'had them all beat and still had them beat -even 20 years later' No mention at all is made of Kosminski by Inspector Abberline who led the Investigation on the ground.
Macnaghten's prime suspect was Druitt !
Surely these men would have known? Anderson says they did ---and that it was common knowledge but it was not and Abberline and Smith said so in no uncertain terms!

[The Good Michael]

In Parliament, it seems... and I put it no stronger than that... from this little snippet, that the killer was still regarded as unknown on 28th July 1910, via The Times newspaper.. after the release of Anderson's book TLSOMOL. I find that quite interesting.

Thanks for that post. More interesting to me than anything is that the article, if taken at face value, says that there was never a home office rule against offering rewards (Hutchinson anyone), but back to Anderson: again, we are not necessarily left with a scenario in which he lied and no one knew about his suspect. We are left (possibly) with a scenario that only he and a few others actually witnessed or knew about the positive ID, and despite having no written statement or verbal verification (my conjecture), passed it through as gospel regardless of what others thought. It still is possible that a passel of of officials knew about the suspect (perhaps Kosminski), but because there was nothing concrete, never gave him much thought.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mike,
I sometimes wonder if Sir Robert was the kind of fantasist who believed he had messages from God.
Best
Norma

[Phil Carter]

Hello Norma,

Nice to see you.

Now just how many threads could you put this last posting on?.. he muses with a smile..


kindly

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

On whether or not the suspect was definitely identified:

Swanson had this to say: "he refused to give evidence because the evidence would have convicted him" (or something like that in his notes).

In my mind, there must have been a definite identification along the lines of "that is the man I saw". Otherwise, Swanson would not have stated the evidence would have convicted him; only a clear and final identification would have sufficed, and inference through body language would not have been enough.

1) Would standing outside of mitre square have been enough? I certainly wouldn't have found him guilty on that basis were I a juror.

2) So, what else did they have? Was the witness someone other than Lawende, and the witness more or less caught him in the act? Surely for Swanson to be so confident of a conviction, in an age of no dna testing etc, whatever the witness saw it must have been damning.

[Chris]

In my mind, there must have been a definite identification along the lines of "that is the man I saw". Otherwise, Swanson would not have stated the evidence would have convicted him;...

Except that there was no witness to a murder being committed, so in any case it's not true to say the evidence would have convicted the suspect.

As I said, one possibility is that everything Anderson (and Swanson) wrote was literally true. But that leads to a number of difficulties, of which this is only one.

Otherwise we have to allow for the possibility that there are some errors and/or exaggerations in what they wrote, and try to find the likeliest interpretation of it that's consistent with other evidence.

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Norma,

Nice to see you.

Now just how many threads could you put this last posting on?.. he muses with a smile..


kindly

Phil

luv ya Phil!
Will you be at the Whitechapel conf? Clive Bloom will be brilliant-I've heard him before ......