ID event of Kosminski-Did it take place or not?

[booth]

yeah I know....

Hi Lynn,

"Perhaps Ripperologists should have been trying to find his Polish Jew all these years instead of pinning the murders on any passing Royal, Freemason, doctor, artist or whoever the current suspect is.".......oops

Yeah, maybe I could have phrased that a bit better....

The first Ripper book I ever read was Martin Fido's, and for a while I really thought David Cohen was a good suspect. In fact, if it wasn't for Swanson naming a Kosminski as a suspect, then David Cohen would still be my favourite. I went through a phase where I tried to read as many books as possible to get an answer. I'm sure none of us would be here on the forums if there wasn't an obsessional element to our interest in the case, and I did become obsessed. My local library probably thought I was slightly weird with the amount of Ripper books I asked them to order for me. So I never believed the "celebrity Ripper" theories that have popped up over the years. I've always believed that the answer was in Whitechapel - a local man, possibly with a minor criminal record, but certainly below the radar of suspicion, and not at all obviously maniacal or murderous. I wish Swanson had sharpened his pencil a bit more and left us a few more clues....

So yeah, I was perhaps a bit sweeping and dismissive in my earlier statement about all the effort put in over the years. Please forgive me, I'm new in the neighbourhood...

I just get frustrated, like recently, when I hear of a new book and the author claims to have outstanding new evidence and then it turns out that lo and behold VAN GOGH was the Ripper. I mean, come on?! Really?? And this is then put forward as the new suspect by the press ( I think the Van Gogh thing appeared on the BBC website) and it all turns out to be very silly.

cheers,
Rich

[lynn cates]

The proof of the pudding . . .

Hello Booth. Thanks.

"Perhaps Ripperologists should have been trying to find his Polish Jew all these years instead of pinning the murders on any passing Royal, Freemason, doctor, artist or whoever the current suspect is."

Many have. Shall we discuss their results up to the present? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[booth]

Hi all of you,

My point was that Swanson obviously knew something had gone on, something had happened involving an identification that was not public knowledge but it was known to perhaps only a few select police officials. Swanson and Anderson may only have had desk jobs, but their positions would have certainly put them in a position where they would be privvy to info that would otherwise be kept from general circulation.

When I first read of Swanson's notes in Paul Begg's book (a long time ago it seems now!) I tried to understand what would have prompted a retired police inspector to write what he knew, in pencil in the margins and end notes of a book he had, about possibly the biggest police investigation this country had seen up to that point. Swanson was involved in that investigation. He was the Yard's chief inspector involved with the case and if information had come to light about any suspect he would have had to know about it, as the Yard would then be involved in trying to get the suspect prosecuted. He would have been in a "need to know" position. At some point after Mary Kelly's murder information comes to him about a suspect, information that upon investigation appears to be a chance of a positive ID of a suspect. What happens after that is lost to us now. If it was documented then it's been filed away very well, as no-one has seen it since. Maybe it was destroyed, stolen, who knows?

What we do know is that at some point long after the murders Swanson reads Anderson's book. He reads what Anderson has to say about a suspect being identified but no conviction is brought against him. Swanson writes down his own knowledge of the situation. It seemed to me that he was writing it down because he needed to (pure speculation on my part), that perhaps he "needed to get it off his chest" (again, my own speculation). He knows that an ID did take place, he knows that a suspect was found, he KNOWS that Jack the Ripper was caught BUT they never got him in court, they never got him to the gallows because their witness refused to testify. He was the chief inspector on the biggest murder case in British criminal history and as far the public is concerned, Scotland Yard didn't solve it. But Swanson knows that they did, sort of, and Anderson knows that they did, sort of, and it must really have frustrated them to know what they knew and not be able to make the suspect's name public. So Swanson, at the end of his notes names the suspect. He has carried that name around with him for a long time and he needs to put it down on paper.

That's all speculation. I wasn't there, no-one else was there. All we have is a book, written by somebody else, with notes written by it's owner. No-one can know for sure why he wrote what he wrote.

But let's speculate just one more time. What if it's all true?

Jon, I certainly don't think Swanson or Anderson were there at the ID, but they certainly would have known about it if it had happened.

Lynn, I think maybe people should have given Anderson more credit. Perhaps Ripperologists should have been trying to find his Polish Jew all these years instead of pinning the murders on any passing Royal, Freemason, doctor, artist or whoever the current suspect is.

I've read these forums for a long time and it's only recently that I've decided to stick my nose in and start talking about the case. So please be gentle with me! I've had a fascination with the case for a looong time, and I have my own theories. It's great to be able to have this chance to talk about them.

my best, Rich

[Scott Nelson]

Sagar also said that the suspect he watched was committed by his "friends" to an asylum. And the murders stopped. What Swanson said as well.

Sagar: Identification being impossible, he was committed to an asylum.

Was Swanson and Sagar referring to the same person?

[Wickerman]

I'm inclined to believe that an ID event of some sort did take place. Swanson seems to think it did, he was privy to a lot of information that we can only dream of knowing about, information that has been lost or perhaps was never officially "logged". It's entirely possible that the answer to this whole mystery has really been within our grasp for a while now and we haven't taken notice of it for whatever personal reasons. Put it this way, I'm more likely to believe a police inspector who was involved in the original investigation rather than someone writing about the investigation 124 years later...

I agree with the point you are making, except that I think we do not have what you need. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that either Anderson or Swanson were directly involved so you trust their words over any latter-day author?

Anderson almost certainly was not involved in any ID, and Swanson most likely was not. They both had desk jobs.
If the Met. police were involved the actual figures present might be Abberline & Reid, but no-one senior to Abberline.
If it was a City police initiative then perhaps McWilliams?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

ideas

Hello Booth.

"It's entirely possible that the answer to this whole mystery has really been within our grasp for a while now and we haven't taken notice of it for whatever personal reasons. "

I tend to agree. Any particular ideas?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Jon. Sure, I remember the Sagar story.

If Harvey had witnessed Kate's demise (I don't believe he did) a natural reaction would be to retreat.

That was my ONLY suggestion. And of course, had it happened, he would be hesitant to relate it.

Cheers.
LC

[booth]

I'm inclined to believe that an ID event of some sort did take place. Swanson seems to think it did, he was privy to a lot of information that we can only dream of knowing about, information that has been lost or perhaps was never officially "logged". It's entirely possible that the answer to this whole mystery has really been within our grasp for a while now and we haven't taken notice of it for whatever personal reasons. Put it this way, I'm more likely to believe a police inspector who was involved in the original investigation rather than someone writing about the investigation 124 years later...

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

How about not wishing to make a weak moment of cowardice known?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.

Do you remember Sagar's story? Macnaghten doesn't say anything worthwhile on this issue but Sagar tells the story of a City PC who passed a man coming out of the square..

A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body.
Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.

A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body.
Seattle Daily Times, 4 Feb. 1905.

When a policeman discovers a body he is required to stay with it until help arrives, so he cannot just turn around and give chase to this stranger, who may have quite innocently just walked through the square not seeing the body over in the dark corner.
There would be no suggestion of cowardice in this scenario.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

weak moment

Hello Jon.

"But why perjure himself?
The same question goes for both Watkins & Harvey. There is no reason either should not tell the court if they saw a man that night.

Can you think of one?"

How about not wishing to make a weak moment of cowardice known?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

conjecture

Hello Jonathan. I think their conjecture an excellent one as well. It fits many loose pieces into the puzzle.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

It would be interesting to see how many people here think whether the ID of Aaron Kosminski took place or not.

I think an ID did take place, I'm just not convinced it involved a Kosminski.

If a Kosminski was suspected, Aaron has become the convenient scape-goat because he was committed. However, Aaron was too young, either one of his older brothers fit the "middle-aged" description better than the 23 year old Aaron.

Aaron did suffer from a type of mania which according to some specialists does appear in other family members, to greater or lesser degree.
Just because he was the one who was committed does not mean he is the only family member who suffered. He may have just had more visible symptoms.
I have no reason to suspect the Kosminski's but I think too much has been made of Aaron's condition, as a result he becomes the obvious choice, but not necessarily the correct one.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hello Dave. Quite. Then he could be dismissed when it was later found out that he HAD seen something at 1:42 but had perjured himself.

But why perjure himself?
The same question goes for both Watkins & Harvey. There is no reason either should not tell the court if they saw a man that night.

Can you think of one?

This issue raises the story given by Sagar. That a well-dressed man was seen leaving the square that night, but Sagar implies Watkins was the man who saw him.
If Sagar's story is true, or accurate, then it suggests the police knew what Watkins saw, not that Watkins withheld information. Which, in turn, suggests he was requested to say nothing.
Which raises the ultimate question, why?

The trouble with this PC in Mitre Sq. story (Sagar-Macnaghten), we don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

No, I do not believe on currently available sources that the alleged positive identification of 'Kosminski' by a treacherous, Jewish witness ever took place.

I subscribe to the brilliant theory of Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow in 'Jack the Ripper--Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006) that it is Anderson and/or Swanson (one repeating the other's opinion) that it is the failed identification of Ripper suspect Tom Sadler and his 'confrontation' by Jewish witness Joseph Lawende being sincerely mis-remembered.

That the disappointing events of early 1891 are being revised and redacted back into late 1888.

It no more literally happened than Aaron Kosminski was sectioned in early 1889, or that he was conveniently deceased -- which arguably the same sources also mistakenly assert.

[lynn cates]

neat solution

Hello Dave. Quite. Then he could be dismissed when it was later found out that he HAD seen something at 1:42 but had perjured himself.

Unfortunately, no evidence either way.

Cheers.
LC