Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Monty]

Pre Advokate days, however the Victorian Police seem to have kept to something similar.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Sightings & Movements of Criminals

Hi Trevor,

Hope the trip to France was enjoyable and worthwhile. The content of the report itself is interesting as it documents Swanson's own understanding of 19th century 'best practise' with regard to the handling of informants.

I don't know that it was standard practise across the country, but in Notts in the 1930's (& probably earlier) there existed a "Sightings & Movements of Criminals" book. I know this because, when I worked Resident Rural for a couple of years, in the 1980's I found one in my office with entries going back that far! One individual seen (and obviously not liked by the officer) was described thus: "Walks with a slouching gait. Very boasting". A sighting of a known individual documented in such a book could prove invaluable in the context of the Whitechapel Murders, and I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few examples of such books gathering dust in remote corners of old police stations.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Swanson 1893

It has been suggested by a poster on JTR Forums that the control samples I used for comparison purposes were possibly forged.

To put the record straight they are genuine and from official police records.

I do not have a problem with posting them for all to see I have no hidden agenda as has also been suggested.

[C. F. Leon]

Hi, I’m a chaste newbie, so be nice!
Just a thought, but with regards to the fact that Swanson didn’t provide Koz’s first name in his Marginalia…Perhaps he felt it unnecessary? In other words, perhaps Koz was such a well know suspect, and so well know to the police, that he deemed “Kosminski” to be sufficient? If indeed he was the “prime suspect”, this would seem logical. After all, when we talk about Elvis Presley, to sometimes simply say “Presley”, same with “Kennedy”, or “Lennon”? The first name can seem superfluous?
Considering the swathes of paperwork including suspect dossiers that are missing/destroyed, it may not be implausible to consider that he was far more well known to the contemporary Peelers than he is to us?
Just a thought….

Actually, the question should be: why WOULD Swanson use Kosminski's given name at all? He was not writing a biography or a cover letter to a resume. Anyone who he ever expected to see the note would know who "Kosminski" was.

Short answer to the question: Swanson did not use K's first name for EXACTLY the SAME reason that you (and I) did not use his or Swanson's given names. We and our audience both know who we are talking about.

BTW: Your use of "Kennedy" is a poor example, since BOTH JFK and RFK are historically important for roughly the same period, and sometimes it IS vital to distinguish between them.

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks, Tom. Most kind. I've set up a thread in the Suspects section should you care to contribute.

[Tom_Wescott]

I would also like to congratulate Garry Wroe on post 308. It was very well-reasoned and well-presented. That's not to say I agree with it (yet), but it's worthy of consideration. I recall a post regarding the Mitre Square witnesses, authored by Garry, a year or so ago, that really resonated with me as well. More so, in fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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; I´m off to Madeira for a fortnight, come Saturday.

The best,
Fisherman

[S.Brett]

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

Yes, that´s right.

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

Not necessarily. So far, we used the Ripper´s 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...

[Bridewell]

But I think, Modus Operandi and signature of serialkillers are more revealing than witness´statements.

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.

[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.

[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 witness´statements. 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 Berner´s 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.

[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.

[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 Jack´s, I don´t 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. It´s 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 Ripper´s, 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 DON´T know, or some sort of misinformation on behalf of Anderson and Swanson. Or both.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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 can´t 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.