Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[mklhawley]

If this guy hated prostitutes so much, I just don't seem him enjoying the act of soliciting. After being interrupted with Eddowes and was frustrated that he did not satisfy his evening's agenda, he happened upon a punter and unfortunate (Stride) just finishing up and once the guy left, he finally got to finish his agenda. Hey, it certainly answers the question of why he did two so quickly.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Mike

I agree.

I also think that we are making big calls when we second guess demonstrably reliable primary sources. Macnaghten, arguably, cemented the so-called canonical five, and he had access to the information which incriminated the best suspect-- one who could not have killed after Kelly.

Mac removed McKenzie and Coles definitely from the Ripper list, although since this was done through the press it was disbelieved and disavowed by other significant police primary sources.

On the other hand, I also think that doubt is healthy and necessary and needs to be entertained for a lot longer than a 'second'.

Here is an example of potentially ignoring a critical primary source at your peril:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/05/robert_caro_s_new_history_of_lbj_offers_a_mistaken_account_of_the_cuban_missile_crisis.html

[PaulB]

Hi Scott,

Garry, Paul Begg, Don Rumbelow, Trevor, et al, ad infinitum, labor under many irrelevancies and false conclusions where the Stride murder is concerned, leading them to believe the Stride was not a Ripper victim. In the case of Begg and Rumbelow, it might just be a case of them wishing to appear 'hip' or whatever, by taking on newer and currently popular (though fleetingly so) points of view. In the case of most others, this nonsense is attributable to the fact that virtually every book to date is grossly underinformed, or misinformed, regarding the Stride murder. But that, I suppose, is my issue alone, and not of great concern to most others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Alas, it would take a lot more than believing that Stride was not a Ripper victim to make me 'hip'.

And I don't have an opinion about whether Stride was or wasn't a Ripper victim.

[PaulB]

Hi Tom,

Paul Begg and Trevor Marriott are in agreement on something?
One or other of them will have to have a re-think, surely!

Regards, Bridewell.

Only one of us thinks, Colin.

[mklhawley]

To Mike

I agree.

I also think that we are making big calls when we second guess demonstrably reliable primary sources. Macnaghten, arguably, cemented the so-called canonical five, and he had access to the information which incriminated the best suspect-- one who could not have killed after Kelly.

Mac removed McKenzie and Coles definitely from the Ripper list, although since this was done through the press it was disbelieved and disavowed by other significant police primary sources.

On the other hand, I also think that doubt is healthy and necessary and needs to be entertained for a lot longer than a 'second'.

Here is an example of potentially ignoring a critical primary source at your peril:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...le_crisis.html

Hi Jonathan,

Confirmation bias is always doing sneak attacks...but of course never to me!

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks Mr Wroe!

It's Garry, Dave. But thank you for your kind words anyway.

Perhaps we should all reconvene on a more appropriate thread to discuss the actual evidence of the Stride murder, by which I mean the assault involving Broad Shoulders, the position of the body, the lack of strangulation, the throat incision and the estimated time of death.

[S.Brett]

Hi robhouse!

I for one have always considered Stride was a Ripper victim. Never doubted it for a second.

Rob H

Jack the Ripper killed Nichols and Chapman at 03.30 and 05.35 AM. Eddowes, without doubt (?) a Ripper-victim, was killed at 01.40 AM. That night, Jack the Ripper got earlier the chance to kill a prostitute (Stride at 12.50 AM) than the times before. I canīt believe, that another killer was "at work", when the Ripper "changed" his "timetable". I think, the Ripper had to flee (from Berner Street) and he found Eddowes by chance. She (Eddowes) running into the Ripper. He was lucky, he had all the luck...

Lawende- Eddowes:

"The woman had her hand on the man's chest, but not as if to push him away. They did not appear to be quarrelling, but conversing quietly"

Sounds like someone who was out of breath...

The fact is: No victim was afraid of the man, we call "Jack the Ripper". It is strange, Stride did not let go her packet of cachous. She must not have been afraid of him.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"To my way of thinking, it is perfectly clear that both Anderson and Swanson knew of the Seaside Home incident and believed that Kosminski had been identified as Jack the Ripper. Whilst such an event may appear unlikely or abstruse to some latter-day researchers, it would be poor scholarship to simply dismiss it out of hand as though it never happened. The sensible approach, I would suggest, would be to try and make sense of it given the available evidence. It may well be the case that the solution has been staring us in the face all along.

Anderson, for example, stated that the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, and that he ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion, Swanson declared that the identification 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.’

According to Swanson, therefore, the identification would in itself have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s sighting could never have resulted in such an outcome, the witness must have been Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been construed as the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.

So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.

All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond a labyrinth of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact, everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If so, the solution to the Kosminski conundrum has indeed been staring us in the face all along.

The sequence of events appears to have been that Kosminski came to the attention of investigators and was viewed by Schwartz, who identified him as the man he had seen assaulting Stride. Since this assault was considered integral to the murder itself, we have an explanation as to why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been identified.

So whereas Anderson certainly exaggerated the situation when he claimed that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’, he wasn’t lying in the strictest sense of the word. If anything, he was guilty of wishful thinking, if possibly wilful wishful thinking. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated purely on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been assumed to have been Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – which to my mind is extremely doubtful."

I agree with the posters who have expressed admiration for this post of yours, Garry - but only to a degree. It is certainly well construed, and it gives a flow to the story that is seldom seen.
But there must be reservations.

To begin with, there is the fact that we know that Swanson opened up for another killer than BS man - he recognized that the time gap allowed for such a suggestion.

To move on, even if we were to accept that Kosminsky was BS man, and that Schwartz could "unhesitatingly" point a finger at him, it is not the identification of a suspect only that convicts - there is also the need to ensure that the suspect was the one who did the deed, right?
And what we have on Kosminsky in this respect is a possible shove, sending Stride to the ground, nothing more. And that "shove" could have been a fall led on by Stride pulling herself loose of the grip the man had on her, thus being sent off balance and falling.
How on earth would Swanson secure a murder conviction on such grounds?

Moreover, it would appear from what records we have that Kosminsky was a smallish man of slight stature. That seemingly fits none to well with the sturdy Broadshoulders.

Finally, Garry, since you know that I have looked at the Stride deed from all sorts of angles, I would say that even as a fierce opponent to her necessarily having been one of Jackīs, I donīt think I have ever gone as far as to state that "there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer". After all, she WAS quite probably prostituting herself, she WAS killed quietly enough to avoid detection, she WAS dispatched by having her neck cut, she WAS killed in the small hours etcetera. Itīs not as if she was a fifteen year old society girl, killed in broad daylight by having her head bashed in, is it? Otherwise, you know that I agree that she is the likeliest one of the canonicals not to have been the Ripperīs, no doubt about that.

In conclusion, it would be hard to shape a scenario that takes better care of all we know than the one you present here. But it still does not fit, which is why I think there are things we DONīT know, or some sort of misinformation on behalf of Anderson and Swanson. Or both.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

The Fact Is

Lawende- Eddowes:

"The woman had her hand on the man's chest, but not as if to push him away. They did not appear to be quarrelling, but conversing quietly"

Sounds like someone who was out of breath...

Why so?

The fact is: No victim was afraid of the man, we call "Jack the Ripper". It is strange, Stride did not let go her packet of cachous. She must not have been afraid of him.

I think it quite likely that there was something about him which made his victims lower their guard. I'm not sure that I could support their lack of fear as a statement of fact though.

Regards, Bridewell.

[S.Brett]

Hello Bridewell,

Why so?

If the Stride- Killer was on the run, Eddowes could have found him near Mitre Square. Perhaps she tried to calm him down. Of course, just one of many possibilities to interpret this act/gesture... But she, too, was looking for a "victim"

I think it quite likely that there was something about him which made his victims lower their guard. I'm not sure that I could support their lack of fear as a statement of fact though.

Regards, Bridewell.

Okay! Is not a fact... rash thoughts...

But I think, Modus Operandi and signature of serialkillers are more revealing than witnessīstatements. I'm not convinced that Schwartz was the Jewish Witness.

To Israel Schwartz ("The appearance of being in the theatrical line"), the officers changed their mind from "Schwartz is to believed" to "have reason to doubt the truth of the story" within a short time. I guess, the Jewish witness (of the MET police) was not in Bernerīs Street at all. But I think it is possible, that Kosminski appeared for the first time (on 1/2 October) and Schwartz could not identify him.

Best Regards, S.Brett.

[Garry Wroe]

I agree with the posters who have expressed admiration for this post of yours, Garry - but only to a degree.

Many thanks, Fish. I'm up to my eyes in it at the moment but will initiate a new thread in the next couple of days that will allow for a discussion of the Stride murder as well as Schwartz and the Seaside Home episode. Please understand my reluctance to respond to your points until then, but I feel that I have inadvertently sidetracked what is a thread devoted to Kosminski and the Swanson annotations. Apologies to all concerned.

[Bridewell]

But I think, Modus Operandi and signature of serialkillers are more revealing than witnessīstatements.

The problem there is that these can only take you so far. M.O. and signature can be suggestive of a link between cases - same perpetrator - but don't get you very far in terms of identifying the killer. In an age before forensic science, eye witnesses were crucial.

I'm not convinced that Schwartz was the Jewish Witness.

Nor am I.

Regards, Bridewell.

[S.Brett]

In an age before forensic science, eye witnesses were crucial.

Yes, thatīs right.

...but don't get you very far in terms of identifying the killer

Not necessarily. So far, we used the Ripperīs MO and and his signature. We used the informations about the victims and crime scenes. We can use all the knowledge about serial killers. We were supposed to know who he was. He, the "suspect", the murderer, "Kosminski".

We need more of "facts" and "connections" from:

"...definitely ascertained fact" (Anderson)
"...many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect' " (Macnaghten)
"... have been connected with the crimes" (Cox)
"... without a doubt, was the murderer" (Sagar)

Or am I wrong? Regarding MO, signature and informations about victims and scenes?

Off-Topic...

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

" I'm up to my eyes in it at the moment but will initiate a new thread in the next couple of days that will allow for a discussion of the Stride murder as well as Schwartz and the Seaside Home episode."

Sounds like a very good idea.

"Please understand my reluctance to respond to your points until then, but I feel that I have inadvertently sidetracked what is a thread devoted to Kosminski and the Swanson annotations."

And that sounds like a really good point. I will follow the developments but may miss out on the initial points; Iīm off to Madeira for a fortnight, come Saturday.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

mas, por favor

Hello Brett.

"We need more of "facts" and "connections" from:

"...definitely ascertained fact" (Anderson)
"...many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect' " (Macnaghten)
"... have been connected with the crimes" (Cox)
"... without a doubt, was the murderer" (Sagar)"

Agreed--a LOT more. For example, only Mac uses "Kosminski." So these four chaps may be discussing four different people.

Cheers.
LC