Plausibility of Kosminski

[Rob Clack]

Does anyone think Lawende's testimony would have been enough to convict the man seen with Eddowes? Whoever the witness was, Swanson believed his statement would have been enough to convict the man.

Would you have convicted him on the basis of being stood at the Duke Street/Church Passage corner, probably with the victim, 10 minutes before a body was found in the corner nearest Mitre Street? Gotta say, that wouldn't be enough for my conscience. I'd want more than that before hanging a man.

I believe Lawende was the witness, and no there wouldn't be enough to convict anyone in my opinion.

Schwartz was right on top of the couple when BS Man pulled Stride out from the gateway and onto the pavement, started pulling her across the street, then turned her around and threw her down. Only THEN did Schwartz cross the street. It could only have been during this time that he got his close look at Stride. As you noted, the gateway was far too dark. As Schwartz was watching the incident up close and observed Stride, it stands to reason he observed BS Man during this time as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Quite an exaggeration of what actually happened, but anyway, in my opinion BSs back was to Schwartz for most of the time, and the only time Schwartz would have seen BS face was when he was on the other side of the road.

Rob

[Wickerman]

The Schwartz episode does not instill me with confidence.
I think we need to take into account Schwartz frame of mind. If Schwartz had challenged BS or injected himself into the situation, even stood to take account, we might take his description as worthy.
The frame of mind that Schwartz conveyed was to high-tale and run, "exit stage left", he had no intention of taking detailed notice of facial features, no-one in that frame of mind does.
Schwartz conveyed the frame of mind of someone who did not wish to get involved so only obvious details were remembered, like physical appearance. But to notice small details like facial features are unlikely given his position, his direction of flight (whatever happened to gallantry?) and his frame of mind.

Regards, Jon S.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

and the only identifying issue anyone knows about relates to Sadler

[Trevor Marriott]

A quick answer, no, he identified her clothing only.

This also shows the naievety of the police in 1888

[Stephen Thomas]

Whilst not wanting to paint an unnecessarily unkind complexion upon SRA, may I point out that many of his anecdotes in TLSOMOL can be demonstrated as extremely unlikely.

He truly seems to have been a product of his own imagination, a person who never quite received the recognition he felt he so richly deserved.

Oh no not you too, Simon.

The UK's top spymaster back then was some deluded moron?

Yeah, sure.

The ruling class and politicians always lie when needed in whatever society.

JTR was nobbled not long after the Kelly murder as far as I'm concerned, probably from Hutchinson's eagle-eyed witness description.

[Monty]

This also shows the naievety of the police in 1888

How so?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

For me, it's not so much a question of whether or not it was Eddowes. In my mind, I'm confident it was. Regardless, it would still not be enough for me to convict the man.

In sum, standing with Eddowes near to the murder site ten minutes before her body was found, wouldn't be enough for me to convict him. And Swanson was convinced he would have been hanged based on the witness's evidence.



I think it's safe to say it must have been something other than taking a knife to his sister's throat.

I think it was nothing more than that. After all take a look at why cutbush was talked about as a suspect an incident with a knife. Anyone who came to the notice of the police offering violence with a knife towards a female came under suspicion and there name was no doubt entered in some official docunent. I say that was the CID register. In the case of Special Branch it was their own ledgers.

If you look closely at the Churchill entry in the register it clearly shows that they sent that file to the CID registry.

We are sitting here now trying to apply logical resasoning to all of this sadly the police were not able to apply that type of logical reasoning in 1888. i.e trying to identify some through a bundle of clothes, trying to photograph a victims eyes to see if the face of the killer was there.

[Trevor Marriott]

Major Smith rides again !

Chris

Surely it's evident from what I've posted above that I don't accept that there was a "positive ID."

But in any case, we don't have any police documentation at all relating to Kozminski (except for the reference to him in the Macnaghten memorandum). If he was investigated by the City police, that's not surprising, because the City CID records relating to the Whitechapel Murders have been lost.

They may have been lost but good old Major Smith negates the sugestion that important infprmation was lost does he not i.e "no one knew who the killer was "

After all if some are ready to belieive Anderson why not Major Smith maybe its because if you beleive him all else is down the pan ? I will settle for that !

And the answer to your question number (2) is no, I don't believe a sighting by a City PC could or would have been kept off the record. Why on earth would it not have been mentioned in Swanson's report, where he discusses in detail the sightings by PC Smith and Schwartz, and compares the descriptions they gave with that given by Lawende?

[Chris]

They may have been lost but good old Major Smith negates the sugestion that important infprmation was lost does he not i.e "no one knew who the killer was "

If your definition of important information is limited to proof of the identity of Jack the Ripper, then yes. Unfortunately that kind of information is something we're never likely to have.

But no doubt a tremendous amount of information has been lost that would be important in the sense that it could tell us a lot about the investigation into the murders, including the surveillance and the alleged identification of Kozminski. There are many other interesting questions apart from "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

[Fleetwood Mac]

Surely it's evident from what I've posted above that I don't accept that there was a "positive ID."

1) Neither of us think Swanson was lying.
2) The central tenet to Swanson's notes is that there was a positive identification. How on earth can he have inaccurately recollected the absolute central point to all of the supporting words? The equivalent would be Trevor sitting down to write an article on Feigenbaum, the central point of the essay, and actually going on to make Kosminski his preferred suspect through sheer inaccurate recollection of what he had read and seen, ie who was whom and so forth. It is inconceivable.

But, I'll put a caveat in here. My opinion assumes Swanson, or a competent representative of his, was present at the ID.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mac,

If I suggested his suicide had something to do with Kelly's death, it wasn't my intention. It is a big coincidence that her death and his expulsion happened the same evening or within a day of each other. I believe he didn't report for duty the night of her murder, or a day before or after that, I don;t think it has been specified with certainty which night it was. And again, there is no evidence that he was on loan to the WM case.

It is also curious that he denied his Jewishness and claimed Church of England when he was hired as a policeman, but that may have had something to do with assuring himself of a job in case of any bias.

Mike

I'm not so sure, Mike.

A policeman was kicked out of the force and killed himself - in a big city such as London - around the time a murder took place.

But, definitely worth a bit more research.....

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe Lawende was the witness, and no there wouldn't be enough to convict anyone in my opinion.

Swanson's unequivocal statement that the man would have been hanged based on the witness testimony - how is that squared when considering Lawende as the witness?

[Chris]

2) The central tenet to Swanson's notes is that there was a positive identification. How on earth can he have inaccurately recollected the absolute central point to all of the supporting words? The equivalent would be Trevor sitting down to write an article on Feigenbaum, the central point of the essay, and actually going on to make Kosminski his preferred suspect through sheer inaccurate recollection of what he had read and seen, ie who was whom and so forth. It is inconceivable.

The problem is that unless there was this secret witness who witnessed a murder being committed, we are all agreed on the fact that the witness's evidence could not have convicted the suspect, and in that case Swanson would equally have got a central point of the story wrong.

Is it really so inconceivable that the witness could have said, "It looks like the man I saw, but I can't be sure. How can I swear it was him when I'm not sure? If he is convicted, his death will be on my conscience" - and that decades later Swanson remembered this as "The witness identified him but he would not swear to the identification because he did not wish his death to be left on his mind"? Particularly if the police for some reason had got the impression at the time that the witness really did recognise the suspect, and was trying to shield him?

I find that much more believable than the idea that there really was a witness, unknown to us, whose evidence could have convicted the killer, but whose existence - for some unknown reason - was kept secret, even in internal police communications.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem is that unless there was this secret witness who witnessed a murder being committed, we are all agreed on the fact that the witness's evidence could not have convicted the suspect, and in that case Swanson would equally have got a central point of the story wrong.

No. The central part of the story was that there was a positive ID; the conviction was secondary to that.

Is it really so inconceivable that the witness could have said, "It looks like the man I saw, but I can't be sure. How can I swear it was him when I'm not sure? If he is convicted, his death will be on my conscience" - and that decades later Swanson remembered this as "The witness identified him but he would not swear to the identification because he did not wish his death to be left on his mind"? Particularly if the police for some reason had got the impression at the time that the witness really did recognise the suspect, and was trying to shield him?

It's possible, but unlikely.

The equivalent would be you sitting down in 20 years time and writing about the car you loved and why you loved it, when, in fact, it turns out you owned and loved a motor bike.

I find that much more believable than the idea that there really was a witness, unknown to us, whose evidence could have convicted the killer, but whose existence - for some unknown reason - was kept secret, even in internal police communications.

Seems we disagree then. Internal police documents neglected the identification, too.

[Trevor Marriott]

If your definition of important information is limited to proof of the identity of Jack the Ripper, then yes. Unfortunately that kind of information is something we're never likely to have.

But no doubt a tremendous amount of information has been lost that would be important in the sense that it could tell us a lot about the investigation into the murders, including the surveillance and the alleged identification of Kozminski. There are many other interesting questions apart from "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

[B]Its not just about the identity no one can say that the "important information" was there in the first place for it to go missing.. because looking at this from a police perspective so many police officers were involved in this investigation at the time of the murders and beyond. The only ones who have come forward with anything remotely connected to this investiagtion are Hans Christian Anderson who refers to it in 191O, and then we have Swanson margainalia which if all is authentic was writtten after 1910.

Not a whisper from any of the others from the rank or file or any Sgts or Inspectors or Chief Inspectors save for contentious suspect names in memoirs. So why nothing forthcoming from all the other officers over the years. The police didnt have a clue about trying to capture a serial killer in those days they had never had to deal with such a case before. They did the best they could but sadly they failed.

If anyone had known they would have talked. The case was to big to keep anyhting underwraps