Plausibility of Kosminski

[Phil H]

Yet the historical EVIDENCE - written by two separate senior police officials involved throughout the case - exists and is explicit.

A reputable historian CANNOT simply ignore such evidence, nor is it correct to "rationalise" it out of the reckoning.

The writers were both in possession of more evidence than is now available and may have been involved with the event they recorded.

Thus, while it may be technically correct to state "that an identification has never been proven to have taken place" such a statement would be misleading in the extreme.

We may not be able to reconcile all the details of the identification, and errors may exist in the record, but that is often the case with historical research. It does not give us latitude to ignore of dismiss the event. We have to assume that some such event took place (unless someone can prove that Anderson and Abberline lied or falsified the record).

I am not aware of anyone who claims, without some caveat, that Kosminski is the killer. He is, however, clearly a contemporary suspect - named as such by Sawnson and also listed by Macnaghten.

Those who wish to expunge the identification from the record or to ignore Kosminski (whomever he may have been) are in my view being simplistic and do a disservice to this subject. If we do not employ the established historical method than we are indeed no more than participants in "Playschool".

I think this site, those of us who seek to take the subject seriously and the reputable authors who use such methods without exception in their books (I am thinking in particular here of Messrs Evans, Rumbelow, Fido and Begg) deserve such an approach in discussion.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Of course the sources are so patchy and contradictory that those same brilliant authors, Fido, Begg and Evans -- and we can add Rumbelow -- have come up with quite different interpretations.

Often these interpretations are equally convincing.

So, I would put it this way.

If you argue that Kosminski is the best police suspect, then you need to explain why, arguably, the most significant police figure of the day regarding this case, Macnaghten, seems not to agree. In fact, seems to completely disagree -- when all of the Mac sources are examined in totality.

That works in reverse too.

If you go with Macnaghten -- who was not even at Scotland Yard for the 1888 murders -- then a working hypothesis needs to explain why his opinion is superior to that of Anderson and/or Swanson, Littlechild, and Abberline.

Which of these various theories -- if any -- is the most compelling is entirely up to the individual.

[PaulB]

Despite the manner in which Trevor sets forth his views,he is correct in stating that an identification has never been proven to have taken place,and in consequence,Kosminski has never been identified as being a killer.I also believe that.

Nobody else has said it either, Harry.

But exactly what is proof in an historical sense? We only have the sources, they are the only voices speaking to us and in this case we have the head of the C.I.D. and the senior investigating officer stating, one overtly and the other tacitly, that there was an identification at which a suspect was positively identified. If anyone should know, those men should, so whose word do you want? What does it take to accept what the sources tell you? I am asking this rhetorically, of course, not specifically asking you what it would take for you.

Phil H explains the situation very succinctly and far more clearly than I would have done.

Jonathan is right too, although I'd say that there is no real necessity to explain why a particular police opinion (or non-police opinion for that matter) has to be superior to another. They could all be wrong. And probably were. The only edge I'd say Anderson/Swanson have over Macnaghten is that they (or Anderson anyway) believed his suspect was Jack the Ripper, whilst Macnaghten's conclusion was admittedly conjectural. Thus, if Anderson was right, everybody else was wrong. But if Anderson was wrong, everyone else (or their favoured suspect) is back in the frame. Hence Anderson takes priority for research - one of the first things one does after assessment is prioritisation. Certainty inevitably takes priority over conjecture. Which doesn't mean that one doesn't afford both equal attention.

[PaulB]

I didn't know the names of the old, balcony-dwelling, heckler muppets.

Mike

Mike, Waldorf and Statler.

[The Good Michael]

Mike, Waldorf and Statler.

Really? How did you know that? I should have googled I suppose. Thanks. Since Waldorf is a salad I don't like, I'll take Statler.


Mike (Statler)

[Phil H]

In terms of historical writing, I could point to any number of periods and topics on which there is no universal agreement - that each historian interprets the evidence differently and reaches differing conclusions - no concerns or problems with that surely?

On a case not too dissimilar to JtR in some ways: I have recently been delving into The Battle of the Little Big Horn/Greasy Grass aka Custer's lLast Stand. For parts of the battle - Reno/Benteen - there were survivors and records. For Custer and the men with him, no "white" witness lived to record their end or what led up to it. So what do we make of native American testimony? How misleading is it - questions of translation, and why the testimony was given are relevant? The Reno Court Martial includes what appears to be perjured testimony... But historians continue to do their best, debate (in a civilised way) and differ.

Why not the same in JtR's case?

On differences between individuals involved. Go into any office today (right now) and I guarantee you'll find differences of view, analysis, approach and aspiration between top executives whatever their business. You'll find disagreements on blame, different memories of who did what, authorised what, had a bright idea. There will be some people who seek to claim credit for others ideas, some who say one thing publicly and another in private. Why should Scotland yard in the 1880/90s have been any different?

Given that the case was unsolved, it should surely be expected that people would have had views that challenged those of others. Indeed, men like Macnaghten - who arrived AFTER the key period might well have felt that they could have done better/differently than their colleagues.

Nothing new there, I see it around me every day in big and small ways.

Our job as students of the JtR case is surely to understand that, not be surprised by it, and then seek to interpret the evidence. Slinging mud at dead people is neither pretty, useful nor sensible.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

On a case not too dissimilar to JtR in some ways: I have recently been delving into The Battle of the Little Big Horn/Greasy Grass aka Custer's lLast Stand. For parts of the battle - Reno/Benteen - there were survivors and records. For Custer and the men with him, no "white" witness lived to record their end or what led up to it. So what do we make of native American testimony? How misleading is it - questions of translation, and why the testimony was given are relevant? The Reno Court Martial includes what appears to be perjured testimony... But historians continue to do their best, debate (in a civilised way) and differ.

I have several books on that topic as well. Another interesting subject is the Gunfight at the OK Corral. There is an excellent book based on the hearing involving whether or not the Earps and Holiday were evidentially guilty enough looking to proceed with a trial. The book is maybe, "The Trial of Wyatt Earp", but I left it in Kazakhstan with the law library as well as 'The Facts'. Anyway, this is another case that is all about perspective and had more to do with who the judge and lawyers were and how evidence is interpreted.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

But historians continue to do their best, debate (in a civilised way) and differ.

Why not the same in JtR's case?

Well, Phil, sometimes people misinterpret what one has written and put words in one's mouth (fingers?). I had it happen to me just recently where I tried many different ways to say the same thing and each time it was thrown back at me insisting I was saying something I wasn't. That kind of stuff can't just be left alone and some people feel the need to get the last word in regardless if it's a misinterpretation. I don;t know why the last word is important, but it might mean an ego boost or a symbol of victory to some. They need to be called on BS when it happens. That's my opinion. We see this in the Hutchnson threads when the guardians of whichever side, for or against, insist on the last word. It is also possibly an issue of social defiency as well, a problem so very apparent in this web communication society in which we live. However, I agree with you mostly on this.

Mike

[PaulB]

Really? How did you know that? I should have googled I suppose. Thanks. Since Waldorf is a salad I don't like, I'll take Statler.


Mike (Statler)

It's a question that comes up a lot in quizzes. Just lodged in my brain.

[Hunter]

Benteen. Come on. Big Village - be quick - bring packs.
W. W. Cooke
P.S. bring packs

[Phil H]

Custer's last message, eh?

Hunter, what do you think? Did Benteen deliberately delay - either to rescue a shocked and panicy Reno, or because he recognised GAC's danger?

I find the discrepancy between Benteen's photos (cherubic) and his character (acerbic) very disturbing. I think he was capable of extreme duplicity.

(But maybe we should move any further discussion to the appropriate forum.)

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Since the majority of posters appear to believe that Lawende was indeed Anderson’s witness, I’d like to touch upon something that has bothered me for some time.

Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

It is also a matter of record that Major Henry Smith not only took a keen interest in the case, but was desperate to lay hands on the killer.

Likewise, although it is easy to forget, Lawende was a City witness. He was also a man who greatly impressed Major Smith.

Bearing all of these factors in mind, is it likely that City detectives (presumably under the watchful eye of Major Smith) would have taken an interest in Kosminski, embarked on an intensive surveillance operation, discovered nothing of an incriminating nature, only to then abandon proceedings with a resigned shrug of the shoulders and no further action?

I personally consider this doubtful. Extremely so. After all, a lack of observable criminality cannot be accepted as proof of innocence. Hence the most logical course of action would have been that Lawende was called upon to view Kosminski, whether overtly or covertly. Only then would detectives have been able to determine whether to continue devoting time and manpower to the Kosminski investigation.

The relevance of this observation lies in the fact that Major Smith subsequently declared that he had no clue as to the killer’s identity. It therefore follows that if Lawende was summoned to view Kosminski, he could not have identified him as the Church Passage man. And if this was the case, there is no realistic possibility that he was the witness who ‘unhesitatingly’ identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home.

So either the Seaside Home witness was someone other than Lawende, or the identification wasn’t as unequivocal as we have been led to believe.

[Hunter]

Thank you, Garry, for bringing this thread back around and making a very astute point and a fair and challenging question. Would love to see some of the response from others on this.

Phil H.

Later, when I have more time, I'll start a thread on the Little Big Horn in Pub Talk. Would be my pleasure to discuss this classic event with you and whomever wants to join in. Might be a welcome reprieve.

Although I wasn't able to make it, many of my cavalry unit were in the movie Son of the Morning Star.

[Jonathan H]

What Mystery?

To Phil H

the idea that the Ripper case is 'unsolved' is, in itself, a theory of the case.

And is it that good a theory?

One started by Leonard Matters, in 1929, with 'the Mystery of Jack the Ripper', when he, a secondary source, upended the key primary sources which had claimed it was solved.

Since we are on the Komsinski thread let me stick with this police suspect.

A critical primary source, Sir Robert Anderson, claimed in a document for public consumption under his own name (actually in several sources, from 1895, and all under his own name) that the case was not a mystery at all.

Anderson was arguably backed by Donald Swanson, in a private notation to himself -- which had to please nobody but himself -- one which shows cognition (which Anderson never does) that 'Kosminski' was out and about for a considerable length of time after the Kelly murder, because the Seaside Home hospital was not built until March of 1890.

[Garry Wroe]

Would love to see some of the response from others on this.

Thanks, Hunter. Me too.