The witness that refused.

[The Doctor]

I was reading about the Kosminski suspect, and when i read about the witness that refused to testify that the person he saw was JTR. I was thinking, would the Police not look at that as an obstruction offence?

[Monty]

Indeed Doctor,

He wouldn't have been allowed to refuse. Prejury if he did so an open to a prosecution.

However its not truly ascertained if the testimony was legal or merely informal.

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Something I've always wondered - (and forgive me if it's covered in Rob House's book, which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading): if the police had genuinely been fairly sure that they had the Ripper, though not the evidence to convict him, would they not at least have made some public statement to that effect?

They didn't have to name names, or risk prejudicing any future trial. A statement saying, essentially, something like we believe that a man currently caged in an asylum is very likely to have been the Ripper, a witness has identified him as looking very similar to a suspect seen with one of the victims, we continue to investigate the suspect in the hope that conclusive evidence can be found, we can't say more than that at this time.

The public and the Stead media gave the police a thorough kicking over their failures regarding the Ripper, and it seems to me almost beyond comprehension that the police could have been privately satisfied that they had the man, that he was safely caged - and yet they didn't see fit to attempt even the slightest salvaging of their own reputation by making any kind of public statement to that effect at the time, waiting instead until about twenty years had passed before mentioning any of this in private interviews, or little-read memoirs, or personal memoranda.

Anyone else troubled by this aspect?

[Lord-z]

I don't think police are allowed to do that, neither then or now, publically accusing a man against whom they had no real evidence, regardless of how sure they were of his guilt, even if they don't publically announce his name.

[Errata]

I don't think police are allowed to do that, neither then or now, publically accusing a man against whom they had no real evidence, regardless of how sure they were of his guilt, even if they don't publically announce his name.

I know Feds can, they give interviews about serial killers trying to piss them off so that they will contact law enforcement by saying that they believe the man in question was bullied as a child, ate his own feces and desperately wants to have sex with his mother. I don't know if it works, but it's been done.

[PaulB]

Something I've always wondered - (and forgive me if it's covered in Rob House's book, which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading): if the police had genuinely been fairly sure that they had the Ripper, though not the evidence to convict him, would they not at least have made some public statement to that effect?

They didn't have to name names, or risk prejudicing any future trial. A statement saying, essentially, something like we believe that a man currently caged in an asylum is very likely to have been the Ripper, a witness has identified him as looking very similar to a suspect seen with one of the victims, we continue to investigate the suspect in the hope that conclusive evidence can be found, we can't say more than that at this time.

The public and the Stead media gave the police a thorough kicking over their failures regarding the Ripper, and it seems to me almost beyond comprehension that the police could have been privately satisfied that they had the man, that he was safely caged - and yet they didn't see fit to attempt even the slightest salvaging of their own reputation by making any kind of public statement to that effect at the time, waiting instead until about twenty years had passed before mentioning any of this in private interviews, or little-read memoirs, or personal memoranda.

Anyone else troubled by this aspect?

The police in the Yorkshire Ripper case were hauled over the coals for announcing they had caught the murder before he had been tried and convicted of the crime, even though they had a confession, because it is a fundamental tenet of the law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, it is not uncommon for policemen to claim in their memoirs that the perpetrator of a crime was known or suspected.

As for the witness refusing to give evidence, it goes without saying that he could be subpoenaed to testify, and it may be that the police intended to do just that, although it is entirely possible that they first intended to try persuading him by employing more gentle coercion to avoid having to rely on the testimony of a "hostile witness", but - for whatever reason, possibly habeus corpus - they returned him to his brother's house and maintained 24-hour surveillance, but the suspect was committed to an asylum before charges were brought. Once certified insane the suspect would almost certainly have been deemed unfit to plead and there would and possibly could have been no trial.

[DVV]

they returned him to his brother's house and maintained 24-hour surveillance

Hi Paul, that's what I can't believe. I can't imagine Jack the Ripper "returned to his brother's house", even under 24-hour surveillance.
There may have been a Jewish suspect put under surveillance, this is of course possible - but not somebody that could have been proven to be the Ripper - be it only with French police methods.

[Monty]

It seems to me that, if this I'd had taken place, they had little else for a case.

Suitable to defend themselves or not.

Straw grasping in my opinion. However, it just goes to show the investigation was still ongoing.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

An Embarrassment of Riches?

I want to thank Paul B, and co., for all they did to facilitate the publication of the full 'Aberconway', having thanked him privately -- and also thanked him, and co., in an upcoming article about the revelatory document in the third issue of 'The New Independent Review'.

To Henry Flower

Arguably, going public with their conclusions about the Ripper, is exactly what senior policemen did, remembering that the investigation -- from the police point of view -- lasted many, frustrating years and was not, initially, restricted to 1888, and a brief 'autumn of terror'.

That's a later notion.

In the aftermath of the investigation of William Grant (aka Grainger) as the Ripper in early 1895, which apparently came to nothing (despite a witness allegedly affirming to Grant) and, subsequently, 'The Pall Mall Gazette' of May 7th reported the following:

'The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead.'

Perhaps Swanson was speaking theoretically?

Yet Sir Robert Anderson, his friend and superior, confirmed that there was a specific prime suspect, also in May of 1895, as Major Arthur Griffiths (under his pseudonym Alfred Aylmer) wrote the following in 'The Windsor Magazine' :

'Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that 'Jack the Ripper' was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum'.

In 1947 came belated confirmation that Swanson and Anderson were seemingly talking about the same suspect, with the latter's son's biography of his father:

'Scotland Yard, however, had no doubt that the criminal was eventually found. The only person who ever had a good view of the murderer identified the suspect without hesitation the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence. Sir Robert states as a fact that the man was an alien from Eastern Europe, and believed that he died in an asylum.'

In 1903, Frederic Abberline, from retirement, claimed that the wife poisoner, George Chapman, was almost certainly the fiend -- though the ex-detective was not claiming that this was anything but his opinion, and was, of course, not formed before 1903.

In 1913, the retiring Sir Melville Macnaghten claimed that the Ripper was a 'remarkable man' -- about whom he claimed to have 'a clear idea' as to his identity -- and who committed suicide twenty four hours, or so, after the Kelly murder. Macnaghten added, in 1914, that the information which led to this 'conclusion' was unknown to officialdom until 'some years after' the 'Protean' sexual maniac took his own life, when Sir Melville finally laid his 'ghost' to rest -- as Scotland Yard were still hunting 'Jack' for several fruitless years.

I am just arguing that we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to significant police figures claiming the case was solved, and that Anderson, as a primary source, was the most up-front about putting his name to such a public claim -- as soon as, I believe, it came to his attention in 1895.

[DVV]

It seems to me that, if this I'd had taken place, they had little else for a case.
Suitable to defend themselves or not.
Monty

Hi Neil, entirely agreed.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul, that's what I can't believe. I can't imagine Jack the Ripper "returned to his brother's house", even under 24-hour surveillance.
There may have been a Jewish suspect put under surveillance, this is of course possible - but not somebody that could have been proven to be the Ripper - be it only with French police methods.

It is unbelievable, or at least it stretches credulity to breaking point and perhaps beyond, but someone who presumably knew more than we do tells us that it was what happened. So, maybe they didn't think the suspect was Jack the Ripper. Maybe the belief that he was Jack was reached after he'd been returned to his brother's house. Maybe they simply couldn't hold on to him any longer. Maybe... So many maybes that what we choose to personally believe or disbelieve in such a state of ignorance is surely neither here nor there; we can be only evaluate the source as objectively as possible and treat the data with due respect and care.

[PaulB]

It seems to me that, if this I'd had taken place, they had little else for a case.

Suitable to defend themselves or not.

Straw grasping in my opinion. However, it just goes to show the investigation was still ongoing.

Monty

As is maybe, Neil, but sometimes a grasped straw brings the whole haystack with it, and in this case we simply don't know why the police or Anderson or whoever ever heard of "Kosminski" in the first place, let alone ever thought he might be or even possibly could have been Jack the Ripper.

[Monty]

I was talking in terms of evidence gathering Paul,

Yes. It seems Kosminski, or whomever it was dragged to the seaside home, was a tad special in the authorities eyes.

As far as I'm aware, all the other parades occurred in London. The only justification is if the witness or suspect were not city bound.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Something I've always wondered - (and forgive me if it's covered in Rob House's book, which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading): if the police had genuinely been fairly sure that they had the Ripper, though not the evidence to convict him, would they not at least have made some public statement to that effect?

They didn't have to name names, or risk prejudicing any future trial. A statement saying, essentially, something like we believe that a man currently caged in an asylum is very likely to have been the Ripper, a witness has identified him as looking very similar to a suspect seen with one of the victims, we continue to investigate the suspect in the hope that conclusive evidence can be found, we can't say more than that at this time.

The public and the Stead media gave the police a thorough kicking over their failures regarding the Ripper, and it seems to me almost beyond comprehension that the police could have been privately satisfied that they had the man, that he was safely caged - and yet they didn't see fit to attempt even the slightest salvaging of their own reputation by making any kind of public statement to that effect at the time, waiting instead until about twenty years had passed before mentioning any of this in private interviews, or little-read memoirs, or personal memoranda.

Anyone else troubled by this aspect?

Just to be clear about it, the police didn't wait twenty years. It was Sir Robert Anderson making the statement in his personal memoirs, tacitly backed up by some private notes his former subordinate Detective Superintendent Swanson made in his own copy of his boss's notes.

Anderson was pointing to what he thought to be a likely suspect and felt that the witness recognized the man but refused to testify. At least that is Anderson's recollection, again backed up by Swanson's marginal notes that there was a suspect named Kosminski who fitted the circumstances that Anderson was describing.

There probably would not have been enough to take the matter to court but Anderson seems, in his own mind, to have provided the answer to the case, and could with satisfaction indicate to his readers that the killer was identified and that the man was "caged in an asylum"

Chris

[Henry Flower]

Hi Chris, and thanks for the reply. I understand the chronology of what did happen (largely thanks to SPE's superb Seaside Home dissertation at this site), but your answer only serves to underline more strongly the problem I'm having with this story: as you say, the police didn't wait twenty years - they waited indefinitely, there was never any such statement at all; only some hints in personal memoirs, and some personal jottings.

Apart from that - nothing. No relative, no neighbour, no acquaintance, no constable - nobody went public until Anderson's hints in his memoirs? Not one person gave an anonymous tip-off to the press to the effect that Jack the Ripper had likely been identified and was caged? I find that baffling and unconvincing. This was a world-famous case that heaped ridicule on the force. Anderson's patrician BS about the 'traditions of his old department suffering if the suspect were named' - Scotland Yard had taken a good kicking over their failure to bag the Whitechapel murderer.

All of which makes me think that Kozminski was, if anything, merely one of a number of possible suspects, and not a particularly special one; and that his guilt solidified into a 'moral certainty' (to a few) only after sufficient time had passed without further Whitechapel murders, and after he was wrongly believed to be safely dead.

Which leaves rather a sour taste in my mouth. For all we know there was no refusal on Lawende's part - perhaps he genuinely had no great certainty. Maybe he thought Kozminski bore a strong resemblance but could not say anything more definite - which self-serving commissioners later turned into a refusal on ethnic grounds as their excuse for not having brought a suspect to trial in a world-famous murder case...