Plausibility of Kosminski

[mariab]

To Rob House:
Once again, I'm not claiming that the Echo report from October 15 was wrong (pertaining to sergeants Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White visiting Ms. Kür), but that it was (obviously) subsequent to Le Grand & Batchelor visiting her on October 9. Obviously, the “they discovered“ part in the Echo report from October 15 IS wrong, but then again, this is a newspaper report.

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.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, as the fictitious part referred to the “Lodger“ and not to the bloody shirt. For the latter I haven't yet formed an opinion if it was fictitious or not, I only know that Gavin Bromley believes it was genuine and I need to re-read his article to refresh my memory pertaining to some of the details. Apparently there was also a letter written to one newspaper pertaining to the shirt, but I've never seen it.

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.

Yes, I understand how this argumentation would fit with your book.

By the by, there's also this well-known press report, from The Echo of October 18, 1888:
EAST-END ATROCITIES – A MYSTERIOUS BLACK BAG, DAGGER FOUND
A very mysterious incident, in connection with arrest of the man at King-street Police-station, Westminster, whose apprehension was yesterday announced in The Echo, has transpired this morning. It appears that on Monday the man went into the shop of Messrs. Bellamy Bros., Railway-approach, Charing-cross, and after a brief but somewhat incoherent chat with Mr. Batchelor, the manager, he suddenly placed a black bag on the counter, and left the shop. The incident has come to the knowledge of the police authorities, but up to the present they thought it prudent to regard the affair as a secret. The bag contained a razor, a dagger (which bore more or less recent marks of blood stains), several miscellaneous but almost valueless odds and ends, together with a broken piece of looking-glass and a small piece of soap. It is regarded as somewhat suspicious that these latter articles are similar to those found on the Whitechapel victims.
MR. BATCHELOR'S STATEMENT
The shiny black bag and its contents were inspected this morning by an Echo reporter, who called at Messrs. Bellamy's in order to verify certain reports respecting their strange visitor. Mr. R. Bachelor, the manager, made the following statement:- "He was such a mysterious-looking person that I could not make him out at all, but it was not until after he left the shop that it somehow occurred to me that his mind was unhinged from some cause or other, and then the Whitechapel murders and the affair at Whitehall came across my mind. It was from reading the special edition of last night's Echo that I felt convinced the black bag was an incident worth mentioning. Well, as soon as the man came into the shop he took out a pencil and commenced to write some words which no one could read. The he straightened himself up, remarked 'You must not be surprised to hear I'm Jack the Ripper - I'm a most mysterious man' and darted out of the shop. He made use of the expression, 'I'm used to cutting people up, and can put them together again. The police are all disguised, and wherever I go I meet them.' He looked to me like a doctor or doctor's assistant, but was rather shabby." The razor and dagger found in the bag have been examined by Dr. Bond.
The Mr. Batchelor in question has not been identified so far.

[Tom_Wescott]

By the by, there's also this well-known press report, from The Echo of October 18, 1888:
EAST-END ATROCITIES – A MYSTERIOUS BLACK BAG, DAGGER FOUND
A very mysterious incident, in connection with arrest of the man at King-street Police-station, Westminster, whose apprehension was yesterday announced in The Echo, has transpired this morning. It appears that on Monday the man went into the shop of Messrs. Bellamy Bros., Railway-approach, Charing-cross, and after a brief but somewhat incoherent chat with Mr. Batchelor, the manager, he suddenly placed a black bag on the counter, and left the shop. The incident has come to the knowledge of the police authorities, but up to the present they thought it prudent to regard the affair as a secret. The bag contained a razor, a dagger (which bore more or less recent marks of blood stains), several miscellaneous but almost valueless odds and ends, together with a broken piece of looking-glass and a small piece of soap. It is regarded as somewhat suspicious that these latter articles are similar to those found on the Whitechapel victims.
MR. BATCHELOR'S STATEMENT
The shiny black bag and its contents were inspected this morning by an Echo reporter, who called at Messrs. Bellamy's in order to verify certain reports respecting their strange visitor. Mr. R. Bachelor, the manager, made the following statement:- "He was such a mysterious-looking person that I could not make him out at all, but it was not until after he left the shop that it somehow occurred to me that his mind was unhinged from some cause or other, and then the Whitechapel murders and the affair at Whitehall came across my mind. It was from reading the special edition of last night's Echo that I felt convinced the black bag was an incident worth mentioning. Well, as soon as the man came into the shop he took out a pencil and commenced to write some words which no one could read. The he straightened himself up, remarked 'You must not be surprised to hear I'm Jack the Ripper - I'm a most mysterious man' and darted out of the shop. He made use of the expression, 'I'm used to cutting people up, and can put them together again. The police are all disguised, and wherever I go I meet them.' He looked to me like a doctor or doctor's assistant, but was rather shabby." The razor and dagger found in the bag have been examined by Dr. Bond.
The Mr. Batchelor in question has not been identified so far.

Just a quick note that it is not believed by myself, Debs, or anyone else that I'm aware of that this 'Mr. Batchelor' is one and the same as Le Grand's partner, who most probably was the ex-policeman, James Batchelor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Just a quick note that it is not believed by myself, Debs, or anyone else that I'm aware of that this 'Mr. Batchelor' is one and the same as Le Grand's partner, who most probably was the ex-policeman, James Batchelor.

Absolutely and most obviously, since the Batchelor in The Echo report was a shop manager and not a policeman. I'm under the impression that Debs has researched him for the possibility of family acquaintance to James Batchelor, but no results?

[Archaic]

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, please try to ignore the rudeness and immaturity of those few posters...everyone else knows how generously you have contributed to our knowledge of history. Please stay. Don't let the idiots win.

Every so often there seems to be a concerted effort to run off the most well-respected members of Casebook. It's like a mini-plague that breaks out periodically, and most of us are sick to death of it. It's a huge downer and a waste of time. All I can think is that it is an effort fueled by the (subconcious?) jealousy of a few, who would gladly deprive all the rest of us of our most well-respected members because they imagine it would be some kind of "victory" and would leave them in possession of the field. But the rest of know it would be nothing but a huge loss to us all.

It's time for people to behave like adults. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to harass and insult others.

If some people happen to disagree with the content of books that have been written by others, they are free to write their own books. Perhaps it would help to remember that history is an ongoing study, and content that is published in a book one year will always be subject to the possibility of new developments in research, historical documentation, modification of opinions, etc. And of course the longer a person has been active in this field as a researcher and writer, the more we ought to expect their personal opinions to develop and perhaps change over time. That's so patently obvious it shouldn't even have to be said.

If some disagree with the opinions voiced in certain posts on the message boards, they are welcome to voice their own opinion, as long as their response is civil and addresses the content of the post in question rather than the character of the poster who wrote it.

A little maturity and civility goes a long way. Aren't we all here because we love history and seek a better understanding of it? Haven't we found that the cooperation and input of many different people with differing perspectives is valuable to all? When people choose to freely contribute valuable historical material that has been gathered in their own time and at their own expense, the proper response from all of us is "Thank You", regardless of whether that material tends to support or challenge one's personal theories and viewpoints.

If the people who have been attacked lately- for the sake of recent example I'll say Stewart and Chris- if they had never been a part of Casebook, what do you think Casebook would look like today? Think about it.
A great deal of all the valuable archival content some seem to take for granted wouldn't even be here. And if that content wasn't here, how many of us would be here posting today? That valuable historical content is here today, freely available to all, because generous individuals have chosen to cooperate, contribute, and share it with the rest of us.

I for one am grateful to all those who have contributed, and I hope they will continue to contribute to Casebook and to Ripper studies in general.

Best regards,
Archaic

[tji]

Hi Chris

I think it goes without saying - but I will say it anyway - that anybody who knows you knows that it is ludicrous to believe you would fabricate evidence.
You have a lot of people on both boards that like and respect you and I would hate to think you would leave the boards because of this incident.

I for one (and I am guessing many more) hope you change your mind and stay with us.

Tracy xx

[lynn cates]

Batchelor

Hello Maria. I looked for the OTHER Batchelor a couple of months back. A couple of possibilities, but nothing certain.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Maria. I looked for the OTHER Batchelor a couple of months back. A couple of possibilities, but nothing certain.

Wow, nice, Lynn. I'll email you as soon as my deadline's done. I've got some things for you too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, Phil. Hopefully, someone with more detailed knowledge of such things will provide an explanation.

Garry
They have done but sadly some wont listen and take note

[Jonathan H]

Plausible? Not according to Macnaghten

From one point of view, a modern one, Aaron Kosminski (and his semi-fictional variant, 'Kosminski') is of course a plausible suspect. He was local, mad, poor and obscure. His family might have suspected him.

From another point of view, one examining the meagre sources, 'Kosmsinki' seems to have been the prime suspect of the administrative head of Scotland Yard, and the operational head of the case. Leaving aside all the contradictions and loose ends left by these two sources,he is still a plausible suspect as they considered him one, and that makes him a strong suspect -- if not the strongest. These men were there. It was their job.

Anderson, in particular, seems to have expressed an abiding bitterness towards this suspect being shielded by his own.

Yet from another point of view, that of combining two primary sources about Aaron Kosminski, that of his survivinbg medical records and sources by, or on behalf of Sir Melville Macnaghten (whom the suspect begins with in the extant record) then, no, this is not a plausible suspect but some kind of red herring.

For Macnaghten and the medical records are in sync: deranged yet harmless, too late in his incarceration, and still alive in the madhouse and not conveniently deceased (the biog. of Anderson, by his son, mentions the idea of the Ripper being dead and therefore this erroneous idea seems to have been a belief of the father, though he never mentions it in any extant source)

In his 1914 memoir chapter, Macnaghten subtely writes to refute Anderson of three years before. True, they are referring to entirely different suspects, but the effect is the same -- Macanghten, rightly or wrongly, goes out of his way to debunk Anderson's Polish Jew claims, and to exonerate all Jews (he also takes credit for identifying the reporter who made up the 'Dear Boss' letter, as such credit was, of course, denied to him in Anderson's tome)

[All the emphases are mine]

'When public excitement then was at white heat, two murders-unquestionably by the same hand-took place on the night of 3oth September. A woman, Elizabeth Stride, was found in Berners Street, with her throat cut, but no attempt at mutilation. In this case there can be little doubt but that the murderer was disturbed at his demoniacal work by some Jews who at that hour drove up to an anarchist club in the street. But the lust for blood was unsatisfied. The madman started off in search of another victim, whom he found in Catherine Eddowes. This woman's body, very badly mutilated, was found in a dark corner of Mitre Square. On this occasion it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming. During this night an apron, on which bloody hands had been wiped, was found in Goulburn Street (situated, if my memory is correct, about half-way between Berners Street and Mitre Square). Hard by was a writing in chalk on the wall, to the effect that " the Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." The apron gave no clue, and the chalk writing was obliterated by the order of a high police official, who was seemingly afraid that a riot against the Jews might be the outcome of this strange " writing on the wall:' This was the only clue ever left behind by the murderer.'

So, some hard-working Jews nearly saved the life of a Gentile prostitute, whilst the obviously Gentile murderer petuantly blamed that same trio, in chalk.

Thus Macnaghten deployed an incriminating detail completely missing from both versions of his so-called 'Home Office Report'; nothing less than the only clue left behind by the murderer, at least so he claims here.

A Gentile killer, writing in English not Yiddish, to blame the Jews who interrupted him and 'forced' him to satiate his grotesque urges -- therefore hardly a Jew himself.

Macnaghten also dismisses the idea that there was ever a Jewish witness who 'unhesitatingly' identified the suspect, but who refused to testify on sectarian grounds.

The witness was actually a Bobbie, by implication a Gentile, and even his evidence was not 'satisfactory'. So, no witnesses.

Of course it was Mac, in 'Aberconway', who had projected to the public -- via Griffiths in 1898 and Sims in 1907 -- that a Bobbie may have seen a Jew, who resembled the Polish suspect, with the fourth victim. But now, in his gentlemanly 'cold war' with Anderson over this case, he tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Finally, Macnaghten shows a sympathy for the 1888 Home Sec., which puts him, once again, at odds with Anderson. In 1910, the latter slams this politician -- by name! -- as a nervous nellie. Macnaghten also makes it clear that the real chief suspect had never been institutionalised. In the second paragraph of this chapter Mac had established that the police were clueless for years. Whereas Anderson implies that the case was resolved by early 1889, at the latest.

'Only last autumn I was very much interested in a book entitled The Lodger, which set forth in vivid colours what the Whitechapel murderer's life might have been while dwelling in London lodgings. The talented authoress portrayed him as a religious enthusiast, gone crazy over the belief that he was predestined to slaughter a certain number of unfortunate women, and that he had been confined in a criminal lunatic asylum and had escaped therefrom. I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

Macnaghten is careful to show that he is aware that there were many weak suspects (eg. the Polish Jew?) but only one prime suspect, the un-named 'Simon Pure', Christian hypocrite who was so 'Protean' that you could bump into him in the street and never entertain the idea that he was a
'sexual maniac'.

'Many residents in the East End (and some in the West!) came under suspicion of police, but though several persons were detained, no one was ever charged with these offences.'

Furthermore Sims, as a source, shows us a Macnaghten cognizant of an Aaron Kosminski, the [innocent?] man behind the semi-fictional construct 'Kosminski', who was out and about for years after the Kelly murder -- which he was.

'They were both (the un-named Kosminski and Ostrog) alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.' (Sims, 1907)

In that same piece for 'Lloyds Weekly', Sims claims that there are two theories, amongst the authorities, about the Ripper's identity. One, the strongest, is the middle-aged, English doctor who drowned himself in the Thames, whilst the other is a young American medico.

In other words, the alternate suspect to the un-named Druitt is not 'Kosminski' at least according to Macnaghten via his crony/mouthpiece (in fact, this is arguably a reference to Tumblety).

Ultimately, it has to be considered that Macnaghten chose not to include the Polish Jew suspect in his account at all, and that his internal 'Report' consistently downplayed him as a 'suspect'.

Macnaghten was cosnistent about Michael Ostrog and 'Kosminski' -- they are nothing.

It is enirely in the eye of the beholder which of these arguments is more compelling. That Macnaghten can be shown to be so manipulative with data, depending on his audience, arguably makes him too unrelibale -- eg. all bets are off.

[Garry Wroe]

Well, here's hoping, Trev. I don't recall coming across a reference to the Victorian Met's sequestration procedures, so it would be interesting if it turned out that witnesses really were housed at the Seaside Home and similar such establishments. Swanson's brief description of the identification is sufficiently matter of fact to infer that this wasn't a unique event. Yet it still appears to have been unnecessarily convoluted when the only requirement was that a witness was accorded an unrestricted view of the suspect. So why couldn't this have been done at the asylum?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Garry, Trevor,

Somebody will come up with some perfectly plausible reason.. just wait and see. What circumstances would mean suspect to witness not the other, normal way around.. witness goes to suspect to identify?

kindly

Phil

[Hunter]

Swanson also adds, "with difficulty", in describing this particular event. There may have been some extraordinary circumstances that we can only, now, speculate. But, if this did happen, he must have considered it important enough to venture the hazard for some reason.

The one man that should have written memiors... didn't.


... And, ditto what Archaic said in her previous post.
Despite the caveats of human nature and a few loose spikes in the rails, amazingly, enough dedicated people still see to it that the trains run and the passengers can enjoy the view.

And it would do us good to remember that, here, we don't have to but a ticket unless we want to.

[The Good Michael]

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").

No. This is your interpretation of what was meant by 'positive ID'. It is not mine in this particular scenario, and I suggest it was neither Swanson's nor Anderson's, else they liars be. My interpretation allows for more than black and white which surely is the normal state of all things.

Mike

[harry]

Fleetwood,
In your post 985,you may have jumped the gun a little.I was not refering to BS as the killer,but the person generally called Pipeman.

[Jonathan H]

I would put the argument this way.

Macnaghten, a hihgly regarded police administrator, was there too, and he implicitly denies that 'Kosminsk'i was much of a suspect -- let alone that there was a positive witness identification.

No, he was not there for the 1888 murders, but he was there for the opening of the Seaside Home, and he was there for Aaron Kosminski's sectioning, and he was there for Lawende's no when 'confronted' with Sadler.