Plausibility of Kosminski

[Jeff Leahy]

Clearly errors were made in their recollections. But the evidence for Kosminski needs to be considered as a whole. ANd as was pointed out by Paul, they simply must have had more then, than we have today.

Pirate

PS for what its worth I genuinely enjoy your input on the podcats

[Ally]

Thanks for the compliment, glad you enjoy the podcasts, but I am still confused. Are you just assuming that Swanson knew Kosminski's first name because as a police officer he must have had more information or is there actual evidence I don't know about? I do miss/forget things sometimes so I want to make sure I am not arguing from an erroneous position.

[Jeff Leahy]

No , clearly I have made a mistake

Swanson only wrote the name Kosminski in the marginalia

The christian name only comes from the asylum records discovered by Martin Fido.

You were right and I was wrong..

Blimey

[The Good Michael]

Dan,

No doubt there are bald-faced liars in government. We've had 7 years of it in a row, in the States, though some would say 230 years of it. Macnaghten could have just pulled 3 names out of a hat, I suppose, but then the audience of his missive would have had to have been somewhat dense on the subject. There must have been 100s of leads, so why the three? I am not saying one of them was the murderer, just that there had to have been some material evidence, some filed information, for Macnaghten to have used the three he did to remove questions about Cutbush. If not, then he was a bald-faced liar.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

Clearly errors were made in their recollections. But the evidence for Kosminski needs to be considered as a whole. ANd as was pointed out by Paul, they simply must have had more then, than we have today.
Pirate
PS for what its worth I genuinely enjoy your input on the podcats

That there 'must have been other evidence' against Kosminski has been a mantra of the Kosminskiites for many years. But what does this mean exactly? I would agree that there must have been more information about Kosminski, than we have today, when Macnaghten penned his report of 23 February 1894, but information is not hard evidence.

It is crucial to remember that Macnaghten's comments about the three suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog is qualified by his preceding remark - "but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." This remark alone would appear to indicate that at best all they had was hearsay and the fact that he was released supports this contention as any sort of evidence to support the suspicion that he was the killer should have been sufficient to keep him in custody for further enquiries - after all we are talking about an alleged (and possibly insane) serial killer here. There is nothing in Macnaghten's report nor, indeed, in Anderson's claims to indicate that there was anything solid at all against Kosminski other that the questionable identification that was allegedly carried out.

A lot is also made of the fact that Macnaghten stated that he "had strong homicidal tendencies", yet the report prepared on Kosminsk on his committal to Colney Hatch in February 1891 clearly states that Aaron Kosminski (assuming that he is Macnaghten's 'Kosminski') was not suicidal nor was he dangerous to other people. Even accepting mental deterioration someone who was believed to have been the biggest serial killer yet seen in London would hardly have received this accolade, nor would he have been placed in the relatively insecure Colney Hatch when a secure institute for the criminally insane such as Broadmoor (where Cutbush was detained) would have been more appropriate.

A phrase that is glibly bandied about is that the three men named by Macnagten were 'major suspects.' however all the evidence we have indicates that there were no 'major' suspects in this case, as Macnaghten states, they were merely 'more likely' than Cutbush, and even that is open to dispute. So, at best, it would appear that Macnaghten's information on the three, such as it was, was hearsay or circumstantial in the sense of Druitt's suicide at the 'right' time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Who Was Macnaghten's Report For?

One of the questions often raised is who was Macnaghten's report for? The answer is, really, quite obvious. It is an official internal Metropolitan Police memorandum (on embossed paper) and is the original (not a copy). When he wrote it Macnaghten was Chief Constable (CID) and was Anderson's confidential assistant and second in command.

Macnaghten reported to Anderson and the Chief Commissioner who, in 1894, was Sir Edward Bradford. So, given the strict functioning of the system of hierarchy in the Police force, the memorandum (if required) would have been submitted to Anderson and then to the Chief Commissioner. The content of the document clearly shows that it was instigated by the recent press reports about Cutbush and his identification as the Ripper. It is important to remember all these factors and the nature of the functioning of the Metropolitan Police - the Government's enforcers of the law and maintainers of the peace. The Home Secretary was the 'political master' to whom the Police Commissioners answered. Therefore the logical scenario for the existence of this memorandum would be as follows.

The police commissioners regularly reported to and updated the Home Secretary on relevant police matters and questions of public concern. This was a full five years after the 1888 series of murders (and three years after the Coles murder) and the press had just raised the spectre of 'Jack the Ripper' again in the high profile and lengthy series of articles in the Sun. This very public forum was calling into question the efficacy and efficiency of the Metropolitan Police. Even if Bradford was not questioned about this at one of his regular meetings with the Home Secretary, he would have no doubt himself asked the CID chiefs for a update on the situation regarding the final outcome of the Ripper investigation of a few years earlier to be available if he required it. Thus, had the sensational Sun reports raised questions in the House or at the Home Office, Bradford would have been equipped to respond as he saw fit with the information to hand.

In the event no sensation occurred and no questions were, apparently, raised but the report was ready should it have been asked for, and it stayed on file no doubt with the thought that should it be required at some future date it was there.

[The Good Michael]

Stewart,

Thanks for the lucid posts. I think most of us are very careful not to suggest there was hard evidence against Kosminski. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible to refute all the anti-Kosminski notions. It still stands to reason that the three men Macnaghten mentions, had something about them that made their names at least be in circulation over so many others. This also means that there had to have been, at the very minimum, anecdotal evidence that several were aware of. There is, of course, nothing definitive here, just something, anything, that makes these three rise a bit out of the morass of ripper nothingness.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

Stewart,
Thanks for the lucid posts. I think most of us are very careful not to suggest there was hard evidence against Kosminski. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible to refute all the anti-Kosminski notions. It still stands to reason that the three men Macnaghten mentions, had something about them that made their names at least be in circulation over so many others. This also means that there had to have been, at the very minimum, anecdotal evidence that several were aware of. There is, of course, nothing definitive here, just something, anything, that makes these three rise a bit out of the morass of ripper nothingness.
Cheers,
Mike

Nobody disputes the fact that there was something to warrant Macnaghten naming them, indeed I have always stated that Kosminski should be looked at as a suspect worthy of further research. However, we now know that Ostrog is a total non-starter and Macnaghten got it completely wrong when he described Ostrog as 'a homicidal maniac' which, obviously devalues the fact that he stated that Kosminski had 'homicidal tendencies', whatever he might mean by that.

[Chris]

One of the questions often raised is who was Macnaghten's report for? The answer is, really, quite obvious. It is an official internal Metropolitan Police memorandum (on embossed paper) and is the original (not a copy). When he wrote it Macnaghten was Chief Constable (CID) and was Anderson's confidential assistant and second in command.

Thanks for this. Maybe it's worth adding that a couple of years ago I checked the registers of correspondence to the Home Office around this time, and found no mention of the memoranda or any associated correspondence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not Required

Thanks for this. Maybe it's worth adding that a couple of years ago I checked the registers of correspondence to the Home Office around this time, and found no mention of the memoranda or any associated correspondence.

I think that the reason that there is no extant official correspondence on this is because there was none. I think that it was something that was discussed verbally by Bradford/Anderson/Macnaghten and decided that it would be a good idea to raise the document so that the information was ready if needed. It wasn't required so it was filed, and there it remains to this day. By the way Chris, congratulations on all the excellent research work that you do.

[Jeff Leahy]

That there 'must have been other evidence' against Kosminski has been a mantra of the Kosminskiites for many years. But what does this mean exactly? I would agree that there must have been more information about Kosminski, than we have today, when Macnaghten penned his report of 23 February 1894, but information is not hard evidence.

It is crucial to remember that Macnaghten's comments about the three suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog is qualified by his preceding remark - "but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." This remark alone would appear to indicate that at best all they had was hearsay and the fact that he was released supports this contention as any sort of evidence to support the suspicion that he was the killer should have been sufficient to keep him in custody for further enquiries - after all we are talking about an alleged (and possibly insane) serial killer here. There is nothing in Macnaghten's report nor, indeed, in Anderson's claims to indicate that there was anything solid at all against Kosminski other that the questionable identification that was allegedly carried out.

A lot is also made of the fact that Macnaghten stated that he "had strong homicidal tendencies", yet the report prepared on Kosminsk on his committal to Colney Hatch in February 1891 clearly states that Aaron Kosminski (assuming that he is Macnaghten's 'Kosminski') was not suicidal nor was he dangerous to other people. Even accepting mental deterioration someone who was believed to have been the biggest serial killer yet seen in London would hardly have received this accolade, nor would he have been placed in the relatively insecure Colney Hatch when a secure institute for the criminally insane such as Broadmoor (where Cutbush was detained) would have been more appropriate.

A phrase that is glibly bandied about is that the three men named by Macnagten were 'major suspects.' however all the evidence we have indicates that there were no 'major' suspects in this case, as Macnaghten states, they were merely 'more likely' than Cutbush, and even that is open to dispute. So, at best, it would appear that Macnaghten's information on the three, such as it was, was hearsay or circumstantial in the sense of Druitt's suicide at the 'right' time.

Hello Stewart

I haven’t spoken to you for some time and trust you have been well, and welcome to the debate.

There ‘must have been other evidence’ is certainly something Paul Begg has raised before, but he invariably knocks my enthusiasm on the head by the caveat ‘and we just do not know’ what that evidence may have been.

I think it was Chris Scot who raised the point of known knowns, unknown knowns, etc.

The point is that we just don’t know how good or bad McNaughtens information was. We know from the Abberconway letter that more was known, than was written in the final report, so perhaps there was more known than was in the Abber Conway draft.

But as you correctly point out the information on Ostrog, we now know wasn’t very good. So perhaps McNaughten had very little to go on.

Either way, we just don’t know for sure.

So I guess us Kosminskites (and please note that Paul Begg clearly states at the end of the program that he is not one) would say it’s the evidence for Kosminski taken as a whole, that is interesting and surely currently singles him out as the leading suspect.

Although I would readily accept the term major suspect would be egging the pudding.

If Rob house is correct and Kosminski was one of the men the police ‘watched’ they didn’t seem to collect any hard evidence on him.

RE: Nor was he Dangerous to other people.

The known symptoms given in Aarons asylum notes would suggest that Aaron was suffering from Schizophrenia. However it’s unlikely that the condition alone would account for the murders and peaceful incarceration. More unknowns I’m afraid.

However it has been suggested that a combination of factors may in certain circumstances explain the situation. Schizophrenics pass through phases today referred to as ‘Psychotic’ episodes. This means the patients mental health can deteriate and recover over periods of time until they later hit a phase called schizophrenic burn out. Schizophrenic’s per se are not dangerous but other drugs and alcohol can sometimes make them very dangerous i.e. it effects them in a different way to none sufferers.

Cut of from those other influences you would expect the sufferer to return to a non-harmless state. Also interestingly Aarons age 22, is a classic Starting point for the start of such an illness (usually 19-22 years start). Before this one might expect Aaron to be very bright and intelligent.(schizophrenics often are)

So I don’t see a problem with Aaron being capable of committing the murders in autumn 1888. Assuming the on set of a ‘psychotic’ episode fuelled by drugs or alcohol. And then the illness progressing and making him not capable. Cut off from the ‘other’ factor he would quite possibly also become harmless…

Of course I’m stating this as a possibility. I do not know for sure, and has someone has pointed out with a modern ‘psychiatrist examining Aaron even the diagnosis of schizophrenia is guesswork to some extent, lots of unknowns.

But I guess trying to make sense of those unknowns is largely what is speculated about on casebook and why your input is so valued.

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

Hello Stewart
...raised the point of known knowns, unknown knowns, etc.
The point is that we just don’t know how good or bad McNaughtens information was. We know from the Abberconway letter that more was known, than was written in the final report, so perhaps there was more known than was in the Abber Conway draft...
So I guess us Kosminskites (and please note that Paul Begg clearly states at the end of the program that he is not one) would say it’s the evidence for Kosminski taken as a whole, that is interesting and surely currently singles him out as the leading suspect...
Yours Pirate

We know that there is more unknown than there is known in this case, and we have done for many, many years - in fact long before the Internet came into existence. You speak of this idea as if it is something new.

What is the Aberconway letter? I am aware of the Aberconway transcription of Macnaghten's notes. I addressed the question of this version of Macnaghten's report ages ago and said that they were merely draft notes (and, indeed, these only a copy of the original) and that he left out bits that he was probably not happy about when writing the final, official, version.

There is no real 'evidence' for Kosminski at all and to accept him as the best of a poor bunch of suspects is down to personal opinion only. As you are obviously well impressed by Paul then, of course, you have accepted his opinions and ideas. But, you state that yourself anyway.

Paul Begg is not a Kosminskiite! Well knock me down with a feather duster! How could I have been so wrong about it all these years. Obviously the bias for Anderson and Kosminski evident in all his books, including the A-Z, is a figment of my imagination.

[Jeff Leahy]

You speak of this idea as if it is something new.

No. I was referring it in reference to the Pod cast.

What is the Aberconway letter? I am aware of the Aberconway transcription of Macnaghten's notes. I addressed the question of this version of Macnaghten's report ages ago and said that they were merely draft notes (and, indeed, these only a copy of the original) and that he left out bits that he was probably not happy about when writing the final, official, version.

Yes indeed, draft would have been better than letter, I apologize. I was merely pointing out that sources differ in there content.

There is no real 'evidence' for Kosminski at all and to accept him as the best of a poor bunch of suspects is down to personal opinion only. As you are obviously well impressed by Paul then, of course, you have accepted his opinions and ideas. But, you state that yourself anyway.

I conclude Kosminski as the best suspect, largely because I see no other candidate that is better.
Yes, I am interested in Paul's opinions, they often seem to have a certain clarity, particularly on matters such as the Marginalia..

Paul Begg is not a Kosminskiite! Well knock me down with a feather duster! How could I have been so wrong about it all these years. Obviously the bias for Anderson and Kosminski evident in all his books, including the A-Z, is a figment of my imagination.

To be honest Stewart I'm not quite certain where your getting this from. Paul clearly states at the end of the pod cast that he is far from convinced that Aaron Kosminski was JtR and he is NOT a kosminskite. Indeed it is a point I have long debated him on in private. My enthusiasum and conversion 'Kosminski' wise, came from my meeting with Rob House, and the theories he is currently putting forward, some of which I know Paul is far more cautious about, than I ...I must admit I find them most exciting.

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Softened

Although Paul Begg has 'softened' his stance on the Anderson/Kosminski theory over the years, he is much more flexible than Martin Fido, the pro-Anderson and Kosminski bias in his published work cannot be gainsaid. Paul is a great thinker and one of the better Ripper historians but he does make mistakes, as do I.

I don't wish to launch into another great 'Swanson Marginalia' debate, think it has all been said anyway, but as one of the very few who saw Swanson's copy of Anderson's book in 1987/8 he did fail to spot the problems that I immediately noticed when I examined the book. Also I consider the claim in the A-Z that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner." is misleading and not supported by any published documentation.

[joelhall]

That there 'must have been other evidence' against Kosminski has been a mantra of the Kosminskiites for many years. But what does this mean exactly? I would agree that there must have been more information about Kosminski, than we have today, when Macnaghten penned his report of 23 February 1894, but information is not hard evidence.

It is crucial to remember that Macnaghten's comments about the three suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog is qualified by his preceding remark - "but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." This remark alone would appear to indicate that at best all they had was hearsay and the fact that he was released supports this contention as any sort of evidence to support the suspicion that he was the killer should have been sufficient to keep him in custody for further enquiries - after all we are talking about an alleged (and possibly insane) serial killer here. There is nothing in Macnaghten's report nor, indeed, in Anderson's claims to indicate that there was anything solid at all against Kosminski other that the questionable identification that was allegedly carried out.

A lot is also made of the fact that Macnaghten stated that he "had strong homicidal tendencies", yet the report prepared on Kosminsk on his committal to Colney Hatch in February 1891 clearly states that Aaron Kosminski (assuming that he is Macnaghten's 'Kosminski') was not suicidal nor was he dangerous to other people. Even accepting mental deterioration someone who was believed to have been the biggest serial killer yet seen in London would hardly have received this accolade, nor would he have been placed in the relatively insecure Colney Hatch when a secure institute for the criminally insane such as Broadmoor (where Cutbush was detained) would have been more appropriate.

A phrase that is glibly bandied about is that the three men named by Macnagten were 'major suspects.' however all the evidence we have indicates that there were no 'major' suspects in this case, as Macnaghten states, they were merely 'more likely' than Cutbush, and even that is open to dispute. So, at best, it would appear that Macnaghten's information on the three, such as it was, was hearsay or circumstantial in the sense of Druitt's suicide at the 'right' time.

to add to this, there is the following from the memo, right after he states there being to proof, to be taken into account:

'I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders...' [italics added]

the implication here is that he only suggested three, in comparison to cutbush, rather than the only three strong suspects. it does not say, 'here are the three best suspects', not imply they are the only suspects, merely they are more likely then cutbush (as are others).

secondly, regarding kosminski, he states:

'(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'. '

it would seem giving the time delay in writing (not to mention the delay of the cessation of the killings and kosminskis being placed in psychiatric care), macnaghten could have been confused (as many recollections are in the memoirs of police who worked on the investigation) as no proof of violent tenancies is forthcoming.

not only this but he refers to 'many circumstances connected with this man', which infers no evidence tied him to the killings, except for his own circumstances (mental illness, jewish appearance, locality, etc.). it could of course be that his suspects are related to being overheard from officers on the original investigation.

unfortunately, for all his accusations of kosminski, he does not offer evidence to back up his claims.

however, despite this he was named on more than one occaision, by more than one detective. the police either had some strong reason to suspect him, or as i believe were completely baffled and only had kosminski as the best of a bad lot (hence why theres no evidence beyond the id parade that they pushed the investigation in favour of kosminski).

joel