Plausibility of Kosminski

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

I guess this is something best taken up with Paul directly.

I do know that Paul and Martin have very different views on Kosminski.

And Paul very deliberately states at the end of the pod cast 'I do not believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper'

This stance alters radically from my own and even Rob House's. And I'm sure Rob would be horrified if you suggested my veiws and his were the same.

So to some extent the word Kosminskite is a little miss leading, because it suggests a single train of thought, when in fact we have people who agree on some elements of the kosminski theory and not on other elements.

What I like about Robs theories are his ideas about Batty street laundry, sweater shops and Kosminski's sister (Crawford letter) and again I know Paul is cautious about this, ie he and I disagree.

My opinions on Aarons mental condition come from my brother who is head of Social services Southend and is called out regularly to 'section' and work with the police on such matters. I don't agree with Paul's views on this matter and I'm not certain what Robs would be..

With regards to the Marginalia, yes we have been over it, and Paul gives his position at length during the podcast.

From my personal piont of veiw it only matters that I am satisfied that it is genuine. And I believe you were correct to raise the questions that you did.

Yours Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

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).

Are you trying to have us except that even if McNaughten had three better suspects he may have left then out because they only needed to be better suspects than Cutbush? its rather a jump in logic

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.

We know that McNaughten makes misstakes. We wouldnt necessarily expect violent tendancies. Schizophrenics are on the whole and useully completely harmless (only dangerous under certain circumstances

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.

As discussed in the podcast we just do not know.

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

Yes I personally think thats fair comment, if they'd had any hard evidence I think they would have considered a prosection. However given the sensitivity of the case and the heated public situation, perhaps they just thought why re-stir the hornets nest, perhaps its best swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

Pirate

[joelhall]

Are you trying to have us except that even if McNaughten had three better suspects he may have left then out because they only needed to be better suspects than Cutbush? its rather a jump in logic

im doubtful about this. the purpose of the memo is not to detail the police findings, nor is it written by the original investigating detective. it was written as a response to the story of cutbush being the ripper, to refute his candidacy, rather than to indicate the list of suspects the police had, and that is how it should be read.

in the whole text of the memo, the three suspects named, had only 7 sentances devoted to them, 2 each to druitt & ostrog, 3 to kosminski.

if the purpose was to tell about how strong these suspects were, one would expect more information

[Natalie Severn]

I hope you are not suggesting Jeff, that because certain police may have suspected Kosminski of being the ripper,there must have therefore been some evidence to support that? Its quite clear that there was not or there would be a record of some kind to say so whereas there is only this spurious ID we are talking about.
Moreover,to say that because the police may have had him as their "City suspect" there must have been more to it,is also nonsense.The police can and have made mistakes like everyone else as Stewart says.Nobody is infallible.

[The Good Michael]

Natalie.

There absolutely must have been more information. Does that make it hard evidence? No. Macnaghten wouldn't have just looked in an address book and plucked Kosminski's name from it. There had to have been, as I said, at the very least, some anecdotal evidence floating around, if not a file. Else Puck a liar be.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Stewart
I presume the original memo has never come to light if that be the case it confirms what i have said which you agree with is that it is nothing more than weak hearsay evidence and should not be relied upon.

For those who dont know the defintion of hearsay evidence

evidence given by a witness based not on the witness's personal knowledge.May consist of a written report or a verbal statment of something which someone else has said, rather than a statement of something which the witness has actually seen or experienced or been a party to.

[Jeff Leahy]

im doubtful about this. the purpose of the memo is not to detail the police findings, nor is it written by the original investigating detective. it was written as a response to the story of cutbush being the ripper, to refute his candidacy, rather than to indicate the list of suspects the police had, and that is how it should be read.

in the whole text of the memo, the three suspects named, had only 7 sentances devoted to them, 2 each to druitt & ostrog, 3 to kosminski.

if the purpose was to tell about how strong these suspects were, one would expect more information

To be honest I'm not certain how much information one might or might not expect in such a memo. I guess you'd have to compare with a memo, created for another case.

However it just doesnt seem logical that if McNaughten thought it was Tumbelty, Pizer, Maybrick ( ) he would have writen: Druitt, Ostrog Kosminski.

My guess is that McNaughten believed it was Duitt, Anderson/Swanson believe Kosminski and someone else high up believed Ostrog (who they did not know at the time was in prison in France)

Hi Norma

I think it possible there were other factors in Kosminski's consideration. Which is why I'm interested in Robs 'Sweater' ideas and the possibity that Aaron came to the attension of the police at an earlier time. If Kosminski's sister did meet Anderson and say 'Hello Mr Anderson I think my brother is Jack the Ripper" then I believe such a meeting might have suck in the memory...yes..

Pirate

PS Please note that the Pirates views are his own, I am not a spoke person for any other 'Kosminskites" if such people exist.

[joelhall]

Natalie.

There absolutely must have been more information. Does that make it hard evidence? No. Macnaghten wouldn't have just looked in an address book and plucked Kosminski's name from it. There had to have been, as I said, at the very least, some anecdotal evidence floating around, if not a file. Else Puck a liar be.

Cheers,

Mike

obviously. they wouldnt have just picked him at random in a case like this. nonetheless, it would seem macnaghten only offers up likelihoods of these men being involved, rather than any evidence linking them to the crime. ostrog was mentioned due to his whereabouts not being known, for example (we now know this was due to his imprisonment)... hardly firm evidence. this suggests there could be similar circumstantial evidence for kosminski as the only link.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Macnaghten Memoranda

Stewart
I presume the original memo has never come to light if that be the case it confirms what i have said which you agree with is that it is nothing more than weak hearsay evidence and should not be relied upon.

Trevor, what we have are Macnaghten's draft version, the Aberconway version, and the official version. The official version has survived in its entire seven handwritten pages as MEPO 3/141 ff. 177-183, held at Kew.

The apparent draft version, held by the family and which I have never seen, consists of seven typed and numbered sheets with two handwritten inserts. The section relevant to the suspects is handwritten and varies in a few details to the official version.

[halomanuk]

Is there no way this can be obtained from the family as parts of it differ Stewart ?

[Jeff Leahy]

I think only a copy survives as the original disappeared in India

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Transcript

Is there no way this can be obtained from the family as parts of it differ Stewart ?

We have the full transcript and I don't think that seeing an original would tell us any more. It's the official version that carries most weight anyway as this is Macnaghten's ultimate version that he was happy to submit officially.

[robhouse]

I just want to clarify that what I meant to say in the podcast is that the police would have almost certainly known more about Kozminski than we know today. I did not mean to say that the police would have had more evidence against him. They may have had more evidence against him, but it is unknown.

I think the general picture I get is that the police may have had some tenuous circumstantial evidence, but not what would be called hard evidence.

Also, I just want to say again that I am just putting ideas on the table, for discussion. For example, this whole Batty Street laundry incident. I am well aware that people may disagree with my suggestion that it may be related to Kozminski. I am not saying it DOES relate to him, I am just pointing out some curious aspects of the newspaper reports that seem to match Kozminski. This is all open to debate.

Same with the Harry Cox account. As I said, it is largely a matter of trying to determine which (if any) of these sources (Sims, Sagar, Cox, Batty st articles, etc) are referring to Kozminski. I feel that a strong argument can be made for the Cox account, because of the particular cover story used by the undercover City CID, and because he refers to the building being watched as both a workshop and a house. And for other reasons.

So this is somewhat important... because if Cox's account IS actually speaking about Kozminski then we have a very lengthy account of him, that can be analyzed, including a description of the suspect, etc. So in my opinion, there should be some discussion about whether this account refers to Kozminski or not. Weighing the pros and cons of this etc.

Rob House

[Chris]

We have the full transcript and I don't think that seeing an original would tell us any more.

This is something else I've been curious about for a while - has the transcript ever been published in full? I think all I have ever seen is the section relating to the suspects and an odd phrase from the earlier part quoted by Sugden.

No doubt a line-by-line comparison between the draft and the final version would be enlightening.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes I was given a fairly rough ride over this..

If the kosminski family were running a ‘sweater’ shop is it likely that they would approach or give help to people investigating them and trying to get them closed down?

Personally if I believed my brother was JtR those consideration would go out of the window..

But it does seem odd that if Wolfe/ Isaac were involved in running sweater shops, that they might consider contacting a committee investigating them, as their first port of call?

Pirate