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

[booth]

Hi all,

Nor yet I. You're a wise man.

Thank you Lynn, kind words.

The ID must have taken place long after the Ripper crimes.

Jon, I think it may have been the case that it happened some time after the Kelly murder, how long we may never know.

I am not convinced that recollections (memoirs) given 20+ years later are necessarily accurate as to the specifics. In general yes, an ID took place (apparently), but when, where & concerning whom?
Those questions I think are still debatable.

Yes, I agree to a point. If I was to write a memoir about my life 20 years ago I would struggle to get all the facts right, and would probably base a lot of it on generalised memories rather than spot on facts. We cannot accept everything written by Anderson or Swanson as absolute gospel. What I can accept however is that given the nature of the case, they are more likely to get certain facts right, because they were important then and they are still important to them. So, Swanson knows that a Kosminski was positively identified, and has known for a long time, and writes it down in his copy of Anderson's book. Because? who knows, perhaps he just "needed to". I don't know, we will never know.

My memoirs of 20 years ago would be sketchy about certain facts, and like I said, based probably on generalised memories. I was in college at the time, away from home for the first time and enjoying myself immensely! I went to lots of pubs, clubs and parties and cannot remember every single one. However, I do remember with quite surprising detail the long weekend we went to Prague for a college trip. Certain important events stick in the mind I guess, and perhaps this is what Swanson experienced when he read Anderson's book, memories of events that he had carried around for a long time.

Like so much about this case, that is speculation, and the constant guessing and theorising is what makes this all enjoyable for me. I've just spent the evening reading a thread about whether there was one, two or three killers. Lots of different opinions, all interesting and informative. I'm tempted to stick my toe in those waters with my own opinions, even though it may get bitten off. There are some sharks swimming around these forums with very snappy teeth.

best wishes, Rich

[Cogidubnus]

Rich

For me, you've pretty near said it all...

Bless you mate!

Dave

[booth]

Rich

For me, you've pretty near said it all...

Bless you mate!

Thank you mate

Rich

[lynn cates]

discuss

Hello Rich. Feel free to discuss. I'm a harmless old fogey.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Good post Rich.

So, Swanson knows that a Kosminski was positively identified, and has known for a long time, and writes it down in his copy of Anderson's book. Because? who knows, perhaps he just "needed to". I don't know, we will never know.

Just to re-iterate my concern about Kosminski.
Swanson names a Kosminski, there were three Kosminski brothers, and all three went under the surname of Abrahams.

We have stories (Det. Cox) which suggests one of the Kosminski's was under surveillance, but we don't know which one, and we don't know when the surveillance took place, or for how long.
We have assumed it was Aaron because he was the one who was subsequently placed in an asylum by an older brother, but not by the police.


In 1888, Aaron was only 23 years old, none of the suspects seen by witnesses are described as being so young.
Isaac was 37 years old.
Woolf was about 28 years old.

Should we assume that Swanson had the right Kosminski in mind?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Jon.

"Should we assume that Swanson had the right Kosminski in mind?"

Well, I never have. Mac records cognomen only, and I need not reiterate my personal "problem" with the "marginalia."

Cheers.
LC

[booth]

Thank you Lynn and Jon, much appreciated.

In 1888, Aaron was only 23 years old, none of the suspects seen by witnesses are described as being so young.
Isaac was 37 years old.
Woolf was about 28 years old.

Should we assume that Swanson had the right Kosminski in mind?

Jon, therein lies the mystery, and what a tantalising and frustrating mystery it is! The simple truth is, we don't know. The facts, as they are, suggest not. I don't count myself as an expert at all, and a lot of far more capable researchers have investigated this matter and presented information that does not support Aaron as the suspect. Was it one of the other brothers mentioned? Was there another Kosminski, whose identity has so far eluded us as far as the hospital records are concerned? Unlikely, but not impossible.

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I am not entirely comfortable with the Kosminski ID situation as it stands, as Aaron has been put forward by many as the Kosminski that Swanson was talking about. However, referring back to the original question that started this post, I still think that an ID took place, and that as far as Swanson was concerned a Kosminski was identified at that ID.

If you don't mind, can we take another look at what Swanson wrote please?

"...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Now when I read this first, and subsequent times since, I always read it as Swanson "clearing his mind" of what he knew. Whether he wrote it for anyone else to read after is open to opinion. I always regard it as this (please allow me to indulge in a lot of speculation for this!):

Swanson has a copy of Anderson's book and has read the passages about the Whitechapel Murders, and has needed to set a few things straight for his own personal satisfaction. The way he writes it, it doesn't make sense straight away. There are no references to documents that would prove any of it, there are no dates, names or even a great amount of detail that pads it out. It still strikes me as someone writing down what he knows to expand on Anderson's statements, not for any personal gain as far as I can tell, apart from perhaps setting things straight in his own mind. The fact that he names a Kosminski at the end strikes me as a personal admission - This is what I know, this is the man we caught, this is how we caught him,this is his name and to be honest, if I was Swanson, I probably would not be happy with the outcome of the investigation, and the fact they didn't get a concrete conviction in a court of law, so that is why he specifies at the start the whole "witness refusing to testify" part of the story. What he writes here is very specific and detailed compared with the rest of the marginalia. I always read that part as pretty much "look we had him, but our witness wouldn't let us hang him, so we had to take care of it another way".

I hope this has made sense, I've had it all rattling around in my brain for a long time! A lot of speculation, a lot of personal opinion, I know. The thing is, until something else comes along, it maybe that the Swanson marginalia is perhaps the closest we'll ever get to what people have been looking for all these years.

Who was Jack the Ripper? We don't know. Was it Aaron Kosminski? Probably not. Was a Kosminski ID'd by the police? Yes, I think so. Swanson certainly thought so. We just have to find out who exactly he was.......I don't think we know yet.

best wishes, Rich

[Fleetwood Mac]

Anderson's comment: "if we had the powers of the French police we would have caught/convicted him" (or something to that effect), has always intrigued me.

What did he mean?

That they could have entered his home and found incriminating evidence? Presumably not. I'm guessing a warrant could have been obtained in those days.

That they could have forced the man to give evidence? Possibly.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Swanson seems to make a distinction between the suspect being Jewish and not wanting it left on his mind, i.e. one doesn't seem to follow the other judging by the word 'also' as opposed to 'which meant'.

It seems that the witness did not want it on his mind regardless of whether or not the suspect was Jewish. Does this mean the witness and suspect were acquinated, closely even?

If so, does it follow that the witness was closely acquainted with the person/s who took the suspect to the asylum? In the interests of cause and effect, it would be highly coincidental if the ID did not cause the family to take him the asylum, given "in a short space of time". Why would they suddenly decide he needs to be incarcerated. Presumably his condition did not change enough in a "short space of time" to make a difference.

Was there a trade off? We're not prepared for him to hang, but we will give him up to incarceration. It seems the witness was a very reluctant witness, and if he knew the suspect it would explain the "with great difficulty" comment.

[lynn cates]

Not a bad go.

Hello Rich. Actually, yours is one of the least bad goes that I have seen.

As it stands, the marginalia is confusing. I sometimes wonder whether we would not be better off without it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

interpretation

Hello Mac.

"Anderson's comment: "if we had the powers of the French police we would have caught/convicted him" (or something to that effect), has always intrigued me.

What did he mean?"

My interpretation is not flattering. I think Sir Robert is trying to jack up (no pun intended) a case fraught with lack of evidence and to make it look like he was on top of things.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I always thought it was odd that personal notes were composed in a way that had a dramatic reveal at the end. He writes "the suspect" several times, and at the end announces "The suspect was Kosminski". That's just peculiar. It should read

"...because Kosminski was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict Kosminski, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which Kosminski knew of, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after Kosminski had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On Kosminski's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time Kosminski with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards- DSS"

At least that would be the most natural ordering of thoughts.

[lynn cates]

marginal afterthought

Hello Errata. Precisely! As written, it sounds like an afterthought.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Actually it sounds a lot like the preface to a book. Which would make sense if it was in his own book, or was written in the margins of a manuscript someone had asked him to write a preface...

It's just odd composition. Like the first part and that last "The suspect was Kosminski" was added later.

[Abby Normal]

Thank you Lynn and Jon, much appreciated.



Jon, therein lies the mystery, and what a tantalising and frustrating mystery it is! The simple truth is, we don't know. The facts, as they are, suggest not. I don't count myself as an expert at all, and a lot of far more capable researchers have investigated this matter and presented information that does not support Aaron as the suspect. Was it one of the other brothers mentioned? Was there another Kosminski, whose identity has so far eluded us as far as the hospital records are concerned? Unlikely, but not impossible.

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I am not entirely comfortable with the Kosminski ID situation as it stands, as Aaron has been put forward by many as the Kosminski that Swanson was talking about. However, referring back to the original question that started this post, I still think that an ID took place, and that as far as Swanson was concerned a Kosminski was identified at that ID.

If you don't mind, can we take another look at what Swanson wrote please?




Now when I read this first, and subsequent times since, I always read it as Swanson "clearing his mind" of what he knew. Whether he wrote it for anyone else to read after is open to opinion. I always regard it as this (please allow me to indulge in a lot of speculation for this!):

Swanson has a copy of Anderson's book and has read the passages about the Whitechapel Murders, and has needed to set a few things straight for his own personal satisfaction. The way he writes it, it doesn't make sense straight away. There are no references to documents that would prove any of it, there are no dates, names or even a great amount of detail that pads it out. It still strikes me as someone writing down what he knows to expand on Anderson's statements, not for any personal gain as far as I can tell, apart from perhaps setting things straight in his own mind. The fact that he names a Kosminski at the end strikes me as a personal admission - This is what I know, this is the man we caught, this is how we caught him,this is his name and to be honest, if I was Swanson, I probably would not be happy with the outcome of the investigation, and the fact they didn't get a concrete conviction in a court of law, so that is why he specifies at the start the whole "witness refusing to testify" part of the story. What he writes here is very specific and detailed compared with the rest of the marginalia. I always read that part as pretty much "look we had him, but our witness wouldn't let us hang him, so we had to take care of it another way".

I hope this has made sense, I've had it all rattling around in my brain for a long time! A lot of speculation, a lot of personal opinion, I know. The thing is, until something else comes along, it maybe that the Swanson marginalia is perhaps the closest we'll ever get to what people have been looking for all these years.

Who was Jack the Ripper? We don't know. Was it Aaron Kosminski? Probably not. Was a Kosminski ID'd by the police? Yes, I think so. Swanson certainly thought so. We just have to find out who exactly he was.......I don't think we know yet.

best wishes, Rich

Hi Booth
Good posts.

"Kosminski was the suspect"

Boom. To me this statement seals it. he was a suspect only, probably a strong one in Swanson's mind, but at the end of the day just a suspect.