Plausibility of Kosminski

[The Good Michael]

In his notes, Swanson states the idenification was enough for the suspect to have been hanged. That has to mean it was a: "yes, that's the man", as a 'belief' or 'interpretation' based on body language or whatever would not have been enough to convict him and quite clearly Swanson would have known this.

and if Swanson were to have elaborated further, that ID would have been enough for the man to hang had the witness signed a sworn statement and had he then gone to court to act as witness of rthe prosecution. I totally undestand waht you are saying here, but the ID has to go hand in hand with a sworn statement. Without both, it could have been a verbal ID or an opinion by the observers that there was an ID, and it wouldn;t make a difference, and Swanson would have also known that the sworn statement was the important thing. Had there been a verbal ID, they would have kept the man locked up, in my opinion and the witness would have been threatened with anything from deportation to imprisonment had he said, 'That's him, but I'm not signing anything." Misleading words from Swanson, yes, a lie... not that I can see.

Mike

[PaulB]

Hello Garry,

Nice post. I wonder why, and for which particular reason, the suspect is taken to the witness, and not, as is far more usual I believe, for the witness to be taken to the suspect?


kindly

Phil

Small point. He was "sent", not taken. It adds a different complexion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

and if Swanson were to have elaborated further, that ID would have been enough for the man to hang had the witness signed a sworn statement and had he then gone to court to act as witness of rthe prosecution. I totally undestand waht you are saying here, but the ID has to go hand in hand with a sworn statement. Without both, it could have been a verbal ID or an opinion by the observers that there was an ID, and it wouldn;t make a difference, and Swanson would have also known that the sworn statement was the important thing. Had there been a verbal ID, they would have kept the man locked up, in my opinion and the witness would have been threatened with anything from deportation to imprisonment had he said, 'That's him, but I'm not signing anything." Misleading words from Swanson, yes, a lie... not that I can see.

Mike

Swanson's notes include something like: "if the witness had given evidence the suspect would have been hanged and he didn't want that on his conscience".

This seems clear cut to me. Swanson is saying there are two conditions to meet: a) evidence b) declaration of evidence in court. He clearly states that the problem is declaration of evidence.

Also, the fact that he states "witness didn't want that on his conscience" cements my contention. The reason being that to establish the witness's reluctance they must have first established that the suspect was the man seen by the witness.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Yes. It does.. but the principle of suspect to witness instead of witness to suspect is the same. For what particular reason?
That is one heck of a distance to get the two together in any case.
To "send" this suspect to Brighton would require him being accompanied. Therefore the word "taken".
I hardly think he would have toodled along of his own free will.
Doctor from the asylum? Policemen?

We know nothing and have heard nothing of this detail. As opined previously, it is simply wrong to assume that it was a police home anyway. We simply do not know with certainty. If the identification happened in the way it did or where it did...or not at all. Far too much up in the air.

kindly

Phil


kindly


Phil

[The Good Michael]

Also, the fact that he states "witness didn't want that on his conscience" cements my contention. The reason being that to establish the witness's reluctance they must have first established that the suspect was the man seen by the witness.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean there was anything verbalized. A witness not wanting something on his conscience can be surmise on the observer's part as well.

Something like this: "We saw the way you looked at each other. This is the man, right?"

"What would happen to him if I said so?"

"You would sign a a statement and we'd ensure the man never hurt another woman."

"How would you do that?"

"he'd be convicted and hanged and you'd be a hero for that."

"I don't know the man."


Simple, but melodramatic and the words of course are not authentic, but a scenario that plays out well, imo.

Mike

[mariab]

As I say in the book, the main reason this in interesting in regards to Kozminski as a suspect is that the reports suggest that the Police were conducting surveillance on a location in the east end which was the residence of a foreigner, a ladies tailor (apparently a master tailor), and which was located a few hundred yards from the site of the Stride murder. All of which fits Kozminski exactly. Still it is speculation on my part, and indeed there were other master ladies tailors in the area. The reports also say that information about the suspect was given to the police by a woman who lived with the suspect... and I have speculated that this may have been one of Kozminski's relatives.

Yes, I perfectly understand this position, which is speculative but fair in a Kozminsky-as-a-suspect oriented book.

There is evidence that the police were trying to suppress the story, as this is stated explicitly in at least one of the articles, if not more. There is also evidence that the Police talked with Mrs. Kuer prior to October 9. Again, the articles explicitly state that a) the Police learned about the story from a neighbor during house-to-house inquiries following the Stride murder. It is known that these inquiries took place around October 1-3. I think it is quite clear that if the Police learned about this story from a neighbor, they would have immediately gone to Mrs. Kuer and spoken to her directly about it. Which is indeed what is stated in these articles. So I think it is quite obvious from reading all these articles that the police were well aware of the bloody shirt story about a week before Le Grand reported it to them.

I disagree with your interpretation of the timing in which the police became aware of Ms. Kür's story, still, I need to re-read the Gavin Bromley article and addendum to refresh my memory on some of the details, plus I'm interested in attempting a “comprehensive“ newspaper search pertaining to this (and else) in a few weeks (when my deadlines are done and when I'm less mobile).

[Stephen Thomas]

Small point. He was "sent", not taken. It adds a different complexion.

Oh, he went on his own did he?

[mariab]

I see the nonsense on jtrforums.com is still rumbling on. Really my patience with this has run out now.
Let me make this crystal clear. The Ripper research I've done has been done in my own time and at my own expense. I have no obligation to tell anyone what I find out, and no one has any right whatsoever to criticise me or complain about how much I reveal, or when or where I choose to reveal it.
So far I have been posting the results of that research on Casebook. Whether I shall continue to do that remains to be seen. At the moment I doubt it.

Chris, I understand your frustration, but please don't leave Ripperology.

[robhouse]

In my opinion, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the marginalia as follows:

The witness did identify the suspect, but was not very certain about his identification. Anderson says that the witness "unhesitatingly" identified the suspect. This does not mean the witness was positive... instead he simply may have not hesitated in saying, "Yes, that looks like the man. But I cannot be certain." i.e. "I cannot swear to it." If the man had been positive of his identification, the police would have forced him to testify.

The witness was clearly under the impression that if he did testify that he was certain Kozminski was the man he saw, he would have been convicted and hanged. This in no way means that the identification was positive... in fact, it seems to imply the exact opposite. Again, Swanson never states to what degree the witness was certain of his identification, merely that "the suspect had been identified" and that "he knew he was identified" and that the witness refused to testify because "his evidence would convict the suspect"... "His evidence" clearly means a definitive, positive identification. Since he did not testify, I think should be clear that even though the suspect was indeed identified (unhesitatingly), the witness could not have been certain about it.

RH

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean there was anything verbalized. A witness not wanting something on his conscience can be surmise on the observer's part as well.

Something like this: "We saw the way you looked at each other. This is the man, right?"

"What would happen to him if I said so?"

"You would sign a a statement and we'd ensure the man never hurt another woman."

"How would you do that?"

"he'd be convicted and hanged and you'd be a hero for that."

"I don't know the man."


Simple, but melodramatic and the words of course are not authentic, but a scenario that plays out well, imo.

Mike

Mike,

It could have happened that way.

But, in order to make it fit we're suggesting something that has no basis in the evidence.

Surely, when Swanson says there was an identification he means identification as defined by common knowledge, i.e. "yes, that's the man".

Then, I suppose we have Anderson's supporting statement which says something like 'on learning he was Jewish', which strongly suggests he was identified first and then declined to testify after the event (which would navigate away from your suggestion above).

I've read pretty much the entire thread, and I have no horse in this race - doesn't matter to me whether or not it was Kosminski. But, the one solid argument to me, after reading most of the posts, is that there was a positive ID (positive meaning "yes, that's the man").

[Fleetwood Mac]

"Yes, that looks like the man. But I cannot be certain." i.e.

RH

Does it follows that Swanson would have been confident that the man would have been convicted? I don't think so. A juror wouldn't convict on that basis.

[robhouse]

I disagree with your interpretation of the timing in which the police became aware of Ms. Kür's story...

On October 15, the Echo reported the following:

"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—a few yards from the seat of the tragedy—and remarking, “I shall call in two or three days,” departed in a hurried manner. "

You seem to be claiming that either this was completely wrong, or that the house-to-house inquiry did not take place before October 9. Again, assuming the above statement is true, the Police discovered this incident a week before Le Grand reported it to the police.

In truth, the only reason I am continuing to reply to this is that you originally stated that the entire story was "fictitious" and you implied that it had been invented by Le Grand. I would like to point out that I respect Tom Wescott's research and views on Le Grand, although I disagree with his conclusions in this particular regard.

Indeed, I am in no way convinced that this has anything to do with Kozminski anyway, although I do think it is an interesting possibility to think about, since if it were true, it would upend a lot of the assumptions about how and when Kozminski came to the attention of the Police. But as has been pointed out, there were plenty of other ladies tailors in the area.

It is interesting to note, however, that Anderson seemed to imply that the Ripper was (perhaps) discovered as a result of “a house-to-house search” that took place while he was out of the country, and that investigated every man who could “go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret.” So I speculated that this was perhaps a recollection of this blood-stained shirt incident. But it is really just some thoughts I wanted to throw on the table... I have no specific conclusions one way or the other.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Oh, he went on his own did he?

Hello Stephen,

Yes, you can imagine the chat can't you...

"Kosminski old chap? Would you mind ever so and pop on down to Hove and stand to be identified as a serial killer at the Seaside Home?.. You could be Jack the Ripper.. now that's something to tell the family isn't it!! Far better than being known as a public masturbator, with or without your collarless woof woof in tow. Go on, be a sport.. go make a name for yourself. I'll arrange the day out from the asylum, and arrange expenses. You can even have a free pint on the way and one on the way back. There.. can't say fairer than that can I?"

"I'm sorry Donald, can you find someone else.. I'm busy this week and am planning a fit or two...sorry old bean"


kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Hi...

No, it most certainly isn't okay and I didn't say or mean to imply that it was. I merely observed that he made a spirited defence of Rob House and went on to make comments about your book that were indefensible. And yes, I did miss him calling you a liar and hypocrite on these boards, otherwise I'd have waded in in your defence. We've had our disagreements, but your honesty and sincerity has never at any time been remotely in question. I was only intermittently on the boards and only then for relatively short periods, so I didn't follow all the exchanges I'm afraid. That's why I was taken aback by the brief reference made earlier. I don't particularly like accusations of bias, as you know, but it doesn't in any sense justify calling your book crap, which it wasn't/isn't, especially when one can appreciate the difficulty of researching a name from a passing reference.

Hi Paul, thanks very much for that, I guessed that was probably the case and it's kind of you to say so. Best Wishes Stewart

[Tom_Wescott]

Strange behavior

Stewart and Paul,

What shocked me wasn't that Menges called Stewart's book crap. He paid his money and has that right. I've said that books were crap before, such as MJ Trow's, which was pointless and belittling to the reader, or crap for short. However, if Trow were posting on these boards, I couldn't imagine myself demanding that HE admit his book was crap. That was way out of character for Menges, so I'm thinking he wasn't quite himself when he wrote that. Or at least I'm hoping so.

Chris,

The idea that you would fabricate material is not an idea that could ever catch on either here or at the forums. It's so ridiculous that it's a laugh and nothing more. What's even more hilarious is that you were accused of holding back info and not sharing your sources. When the link to your 'offending' post was provided, the first thing I noticed was that half your post was taken up with the reference from the book that you were referring to. LOL. Don't let this affair bug you too much, just enjoy it as a humorous interlude.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott