What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[harry]

At the beginning,the death of Nichols,the police would not have been looking for a multiple killer,so why should there have been predudice against any particular class of society.No matter who had found the body,they would have been judged by the evidence.

[GUT]

He can’t be a suspect only a POI, keep up people. I’m sure we will be told all about it soon enough.

[Fisherman]

To be totally honest Fish it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that you will go to to defend your suspect. Druitt did not become under suspicion because he was insane - this is a cop out. Druitt came under suspicion because Sir Melville Macnaghten was in receipt of evidence which led him to consider him a very likely suspect. He was also given information that Druitt’s own family suspected him. That what why Macnaghten mentioned him. You are seeking to minimise Macnaghten. To imply that he was either dishonest or gullible. Now of course Macnaghten could have been mistaken in his judgment or he could even have been given inaccurate information but you haven’t a smidgeon of evidence but your own opinion to show that Mac only named him just because he was insane.

" A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

This is a quotation from the MacNaghten memoranda, Herlock. It is the smidgeon of evidence that leaps to mind when trying to establish whether MacNaghten regarded Druitt as insane or not.


Also when we talk about the prejudices of the era, prejudices that without doubt existed of course, what about the undoubted prejudice that - no English gentleman could have committed these murders. This was the most class conscious society imaginable and so to suggest that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt (not only a gentleman but one that was related by marriage to one of his best friends) out of thin air, on the basis of his mental health, just to provide an alternative to Cutbush is stretching credibility to breaking point. Mac had the resources to have scoured the asylums and the records of dead criminals which would have provided him with a rich crop of potential false suspects to sacrifice. But no, he chooses a Barrister/Schoolteacher, from a very well-to-do family, with no history of violence or criminality. The most unlikely of suspects.

Let's be a tad more discerning here, Herlock. I did not say that MacNaghten plucked Druitt out of thin air, did I? It is you who suggest that on my behalf - as you regularly do when you fail to understand my argument. I have no reason to doubt that Mac could have had word about suspicions about Druitt, and that this was what originally sparked his interest in him. However, what I am saying is that in order for Mac to present an Englishman who was "not only a gentleman but one that was related by marriage to one of his best friends" as a viable Ripper, he needed to declare Druitt insane in retrospect. Which was exactly what he did in his memoranda. That was how he overcame the problem with "the most unlikely of suspects". That kind of man would NEVER, you see...
I hope you are able to see how it works now: "A man like Druitt would not be the Ripper". "But the poor chap was insane!"
Its dead simple, really.

Saying that Lechmere wasn’t suspected because he wasn’t the right type is the equivalent of someone playing the race card when they’ve met with failure.

Have you read up on criminal anthropology and its impact on the Victorian society in the late 1880:s, Herlock? Because if you haven't, you are arguing from a point of ignorance. And that won't do. You are quick to admit that the Victorians were "without doubt" prejudiced, but less inclined to explain why those prejudices would not have had an impact in Lechmere´s case.
So tell me, how much have you read about the topic?

[Fisherman]

At the beginning,the death of Nichols,the police would not have been looking for a multiple killer,so why should there have been predudice against any particular class of society.No matter who had found the body,they would have been judged by the evidence.

Are you suggesting that the prejudiced ideas about who were likely to commit crime and who were not intermittently went away because the police did not know they had a serial killer on their hands...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you read up on criminal anthropology and its impact on the Victorian society in the late 1880:s, Herlock? Because if you haven't, you are arguing from a point of ignorance. And that won't do. You are quick to admit that the Victorians were "without doubt" prejudiced, but less inclined to explain why those prejudices would not have had an impact in Lechmere´s case.
So tell me, how much have you read about the topic?

As ever Fish you seek to obfuscate, or to use a common phrase - to blind with science. Your - I’ve read more on this subject than you have argument.

What you you need to do Fish is to fully read a post before responding to it. I didn’t say that Mac didn’t say that Druitt was insane. I said that this wasn’t the reason or justification for naming him. Mac had other evidence. Evidence that he considered good enough to make Druitt a likely suspect.

[Fisherman]

As ever Fish you seek to obfuscate, or to use a common phrase - to blind with science. Your - I’ve read more on this subject than you have argument.

What you you need to do Fish is to fully read a post before responding to it. I didn’t say that Mac didn’t say that Druitt was insane. I said that this wasn’t the reason or justification for naming him. Mac had other evidence. Evidence that he considered good enough to make Druitt a likely suspect.

This is getting tedious. Its all about how I "obfuscate", how I am going to extreme lengths to defend my suspect and so on. It has become a necessity to paint me out as a dishonest and unreliable poster, apparently for the reason that logical arguments has no impact at all on the Lechmere theory. That is a very sad thing, and justifies a good few lashes on the bum from whence it originates.

And now I am "blinding with science", no less! Since when is science and knowledge unwanted guests at a research party, Herlock? And I am afraid that knowing something that another poster - in this case you - is blissfully uniformed about, DOES give you the upper hand in terms of insight. It was always like that, and like that it will always be.

The Victorian ideas about criminality as an inherited commodity are absolutely crucial to our understanding of the case and how it was handled. To claim that I say so to obfuscate is simply sad.

It took us a good hundred years to arrive at Robert Resslers insight into serial killers and what made up the archetypical such creature: a man in his thirties, married with a family and with a steady job, seemingly well adjusted in society. Without wanting to hurt your feelings, Herlock, can you please try and imagine an 1888 policeman, involved in the Ripper case, suggesting that they should look for that kind of a perpetrator?
The very idea would have been thrown out of the window together with its originator.
Do you disagree with that?
if you don't, can you perhaps begin to see what I am talking about: that Charles Lechmere would not have answered to the description that was concocted when the police set out to catch their Ripper on grounds of typological thinking.

But when I point out this very basic and simple matter, you say that it "holds no water"! Bearing that in mind, why would I NOT point out that you seem to have gaping holes in your insights about how these matters affected "criminal profiling" in the Victorian times? If I cannot argue my case from insights about this, then how am I supposed to argue it at all? If knowledge and a will to use it becomes "obfuscation" and "blinding with science" in your eyes, how on earth should we be able to conduct a useful discussion at all? By me abstaining from arguing my case based on factual insights and joining you in the land of baseless speculation?

You now also claim that we do not know that it was Druitts insanity that made Mac accuse him. Well, we DO know that insanity was named for all three memoranda customers, just as we DO know that the police conducted a search throughout Londons lunatic asylums. I doubt that it is a coincidence, much as I freely admit that Mac never says that it was that insanity per se that sparked his interest in Druitt. And actually, I tend to think it was not - my belief is that somebody whispered Druitts name in his ear, together with a suspicion about murder most foul, and that Mac only thereafter added the insanity bit, as a retrospective explanation for how a brit with that kind of heritage could have been the Ripper. He takes care to point out that Druitt was of "good family", and that alone should tell us that this was something that should not have been expected! At any rate, the insanity as such is a necessary element in the accusation and THAT is at the very roots of what I am saying.

The problem is - as has been pointed out over the years - that much as Mac asserts us that "careful deliberation" lies behind his naming Druitt as the probable culprit, that careful deliberation seems never to have had its counterpart in careful, practical police work. If it had, Mac would have gotten the occupation and age right, but instead it is as if he has very shallow knowledge only about the criminal who was by far and away the largest name and most worthy of research of all the criminals that he came across. And that reduces his words into something that sounds very much like having been taken in by gossip and hearsay.

Now, if you want to discuss this any further, please don't disallow me to argue from a factual and informed point of view just because you do not have the kind of knowledge it takes to debate a particular matter. I'm sure that you have deep insights in many fields and I am equally certain that you do not abstain from using those insights whenever somebody blissfully unaware of them make arguments that are unreconcilable with the factual content involved in your knowledge. If you could extend me the same possibility, it would be nice. And nobody stops you from acquiring the knowledge as such, so please go ahead and do so - nobody would be more pleased about that than me.

[Darryl Kenyon]

At the beginning,the death of Nichols,the police would not have been looking for a multiple killer,so why should there have been predudice against any particular class of society.No matter who had found the body,they would have been judged by the evidence.

Good Point Harry, after Martha's murder they looked at the evidence and at that time led them to suspect the soldiers, who I am sure if they had have existed would not have been a pair of raving lunatics.

[Fisherman]

Good Point Harry, after Martha's murder they looked at the evidence and at that time led them to suspect the soldiers, who I am sure if they had have existed would not have been a pair of raving lunatics.

Well, Darryl, since the police knew that Tabram and Pearly Poll had been spending the evening with soldiers and going off to have sex with them, it kind of makes sense that they researched that line of investigation.
However, the fact that they did has precious little to do with whether the police were influenced by prejudiced thinking and criminal anthropology on a general level.

You see, they are two different matters. And it is not as if I am saying that the police would never suspect soldiers on account of them being occupied in a societally useful branch.

And you know what? That is a much better point than Harrys.

[Harry D]

But Kosminski and Druitt weren't suspected simply because of their "criminal class".

Kosminski was suspected because of an identification. It just so happened that his abnormal behaviour solidified their suspicions. And Druitt was suspected because of private information from the Druitt family, again solidified by his abnormal behaviour.

[harry]

I do not believe there were any prejudicial circumstances dictating how the police viewed the Nicholl's killing.It was simply a lack of evidence pointing in any direction.By police,I am referring to the investigating officers. Mac did mention'Series of murders',but that was in 1894,so perhaps there was,by that time,a shift away from conventional thinking. Didn't solve the puzzle though,no more than criminal anthropology will.You cannot manufacture evidence.It was either there or it was not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n71365


.[/QUOTE]

.
This is getting tedious. Its all about how I "obfuscate", how I am going to extreme lengths to defend my suspect and so on. It has become a necessity to paint me out as a dishonest and unreliable poster, apparently for the reason that logical arguments has no impact at all on the Lechmere theory. That is a very sad thing, and justifies a good few lashes on the bum from whence it originates.

We all know about the prejudices of society as a whole and therefore the police more specifically and so of course their knowledge of criminals was shaped by the limited understanding of the day. But can we really be expected to believe that the police, having someone discover a body in a semi-deserted street who was found there by another man, wouldn’t even have considered this man as a possible suspect purely because he didn’t meet their rigid suspect criteria? And that as these crimes went on and the pressure to find the culprit increased and increased the police never once re-examined the evidence and thought - lets have another look at that bloke Cross. After all he was alone with the body so who’s to say that he hadn’t just killed her?

It took us a good hundred years to arrive at Robert Resslers insight into serial killers and what made up the archetypical such creature: a man in his thirties, married with a family and with a steady job, seemingly well adjusted in society. Without wanting to hurt your feelings, Herlock, can you please try and imagine an 1888 policeman, involved in the Ripper case, suggesting that they should look for that kind of a perpetrator?
The very idea would have been thrown out of the window together with its originator.
Do you disagree with that?
if you don't, can you perhaps begin to see what I am talking about: that Charles Lechmere would not have answered to the description that was concocted when the police set out to catch their Ripper on grounds of typological thinking.

We have to at least allow for common sense. Did the Victorian police simply go around arresting stereotypes or did they employ judgment?

Im not saying that you’re wrong to point out that he didn’t match their idea of the type of person that the ripper would have been but this still doesn’t change the fact that if the police felt that they had good reason for suspicion that they wouldn’t have dismissed him purely on those grounds.

.
But when I point out this very basic and simple matter, you say that it "holds no water"! Bearing that in mind, why would I NOT point out that you seem to have gaping holes in your insights about how these matters affected "criminal profiling" in the Victorian times? If I cannot argue my case from insights about this, then how am I supposed to argue it at all? If knowledge and a will to use it becomes "obfuscation" and "blinding with science" in your eyes, how on earth should we be able to conduct a useful discussion at all? By me abstaining from arguing my case based on factual insights and joining you in the land of baseless speculation?

When I said, it holds no water, I was talking about your suggestion that Mac simply alighted on Druitt because he was insane. Of course the fact of alleged insanity would have increased his level of certainty as a contributing factor but he would have received other evidence first. Whether that evidence was good, bad or indifferent we can’t know.

.
You now also claim that we do not know that it was Druitts insanity that made Mac accuse him. Well, we DO know that insanity was named for all three memoranda customers, just as we DO know that the police conducted a search throughout Londons lunatic asylums. I doubt that it is a coincidence, much as I freely admit that Mac never says that it was that insanity per se that sparked his interest in Druitt. And actually, I tend to think it was not - my belief is that somebody whispered Druitts name in his ear, together with a suspicion about murder most foul, and that Mac only thereafter added the insanity bit, as a retrospective explanation for how a brit with that kind of heritage could have been the Ripper. He takes care to point out that Druitt was of "good family", and that alone should tell us that this was something that should not have been expected! At any rate, the insanity as such is a necessary element in the accusation and THAT is at the very roots of what I am saying.

This is the kind of point I do tend to focus on. It’s your belief but it has no basis in fact. It implies that someone gave Macnaghen any old waffle over a whisky and soda at his club and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Or, that Macnaghten’s evidence was convincing and backed up by Druitt’s family.

My position relies less speculation. Macnaghten received information. He felt that it made Druitt a very likely suspect. He may have been correct in his evaluation. He may have been incorrect. If he was incorrect then Druitt wasn’t the ripper. If he was correct then Druitt was. Very simple.

.
The problem is - as has been pointed out over the years - that much as Mac asserts us that "careful deliberation" lies behind his naming Druitt as the probable culprit, that careful deliberation seems never to have had its counterpart in careful, practical police work. If it had, Mac would have gotten the occupation and age right, but instead it is as if he has very shallow knowledge only about the criminal who was by far and away the largest name and most worthy of research of all the criminals that he came across. And that reduces his words into something that sounds very much like having been taken in by gossip and hearsay.

No it doesn’t. If Macnaghten saw evidence that Druitt might have been guilty but that evidence wasn’t conclusive proof of guilt so as to merit a court of law of what relevance was Druitt’s age or occupation? These errors are insignificant put are pounced on repeatedly. I think that the next time I read a factually researched book and I find a couple of slight errors I’ll just proceed to chuck it in the bin as unreliable. Macnaghten wasn’t a solicitor preparing a case for a Barrister to defend in court.

.
Now, if you want to discuss this any further, please don't disallow me to argue from a factual and informed point of view just because you do not have the kind of knowledge it takes to debate a particular matter. I'm sure that you have deep insights in many fields and I am equally certain that you do not abstain from using those insights whenever somebody blissfully unaware of them make arguments that are unreconcilable with the factual content involved in your knowledge. If you could extend me the same possibility, it would be nice. And nobody stops you from acquiring the knowledge as such, so please go ahead and do so - nobody would be more pleased about that than me

Im fully aware of your methods of debate Fish. You are free to continue.

[Fisherman]

But Kosminski and Druitt weren't suspected simply because of their "criminal class".

Kosminski was suspected because of an identification. It just so happened that his abnormal behaviour solidified their suspicions. And Druitt was suspected because of private information from the Druitt family, again solidified by his abnormal behaviour.

I think it is vital that you understand that I am not saying that either man was suspected on behalf of belonging to the criminal class, Harry. What I am arguing is that there was an OVERALL idea about the existence of such a criminal class and an overall idea about how some categories of society were likely to be killers and criminals whereas some were not.
In Kosminskis and Druitts respective cases, other parameters may have set the wheels in motion. But it would have been recognized as two expected things that Kosminski was both a foreigner and a lunatic. And in Druitts case, it would have been necessary to describe him as insane too.

Charles Lechmere would have been a man who was totally unlikely to be a killer in the eyes of the Victorians, and as I said before, IF they had nailed him, he would certainly have been described as insane to fit in with the societal norm.

That is the point I am making: In spite of how there were exceptions to the rule and in spite of how Kosminski and Druitt would have come to the attention of the police, it nevertheless applies that the Victorians had a view of criminals that was extremely prejudiced against some societal groups, whereas others even had the support of the queen - NOT an Englishman!!

Surely you can see that such a society was less likely to go after a British family father with a steady job than a madman, a foreigner or somebody from what was identified as the criminal class?

[Fisherman]

I do not believe there were any prejudicial circumstances dictating how the police viewed the Nicholl's killing.It was simply a lack of evidence pointing in any direction.By police,I am referring to the investigating officers. Mac did mention'Series of murders',but that was in 1894,so perhaps there was,by that time,a shift away from conventional thinking. Didn't solve the puzzle though,no more than criminal anthropology will.You cannot manufacture evidence.It was either there or it was not.

Harry it was BECAUSE there was a lack of evidence that prejudice came into play. And if you study criminal anthropology, you will find that it seems it actually peaked in the exact period when the Ripper was at large. I´d say that in 1894, there had already begun to be some sobering up, although the generalist ideas introduced by Lombroso et al did not die out for many, many decades. An interesting experiment to do today is to look at who gets to play the roles of the hero and the villain in movies: Its Tom Cruise as the hero and some rough-looking guy with a foreign accent was the villain. The effects have not tapered of fully yet.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well, Darryl, since the police knew that Tabram and Pearly Poll had been spending the evening with soldiers and going off to have sex with them, it kind of makes sense that they researched that line of investigation.
However, the fact that they did has precious little to do with whether the police were influenced by prejudiced thinking and criminal anthropology on a general level.

You see, they are two different matters. And it is not as if I am saying that the police would never suspect soldiers on account of them being occupied in a societally useful branch.

And you know what? That is a much better point than Harrys.

But the point is they were investigating the last known people to have been seen with Martha. The last known person to be with seen with Polly [before she was definitely confirmed deceased], was Cross. If they had any evidence against him surely it would have been followed on. Apologies if I am wrong but your argument seems to be that Cross wasn't followed up on properly because he was a respectable Englishman and not a raving lunatic.
Well maybe I am missing something but I doubt there are many soldiers in service who are frothing at the mouth. So why try and do a thorough investigation on them but not Cross?
But this is turning into a Cross thread, yet again when the title says Kosminski
Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

We all know about the prejudices of society as a whole and therefore the police more specifically and so of course their knowledge of criminals was shaped by the limited understanding of the day. But can we really be expected to believe that the police, having someone discover a body in a semi-deserted street who was found there by another man, wouldn’t even have considered this man as a possible suspect purely because he didn’t meet their rigid suspect criteria? And that as these crimes went on and the pressure to find the culprit increased and increased the police never once re-examined the evidence and thought - lets have another look at that bloke Cross. After all he was alone with the body so who’s to say that he hadn’t just killed her?

What we can say with no doubt at all is that the Victorian society was much more likely to make that mistake than ours. To me, that is not without merit and interest. Discussing exactly how far the rot would have gone is a hard thing to do. The tendency is there, though, and it m must be considered. Take a look at how a man like Verzeny was described after capture and how the "science" of the day was able to verify its suspicions: Large penis, thick neck - rapist! Lunatic relatives - what was it we said?
These matters are in no way conclusive to the isolated case of Lechmere, but they warn us not to believe the police would have worked along todays lines.

We have to at least allow for common sense. Did the Victorian police simply go around arresting stereotypes or did they employ judgment?

They were certain ly much more likely to commit errors governed by prejudice than we are today, miscarriages of justice as it were, Herlock. And that IS of tremendous interest to our case.

Im not saying that you’re wrong to point out that he didn’t match their idea of the type of person that the ripper would have been but this still doesn’t change the fact that if the police felt that they had good reason for suspicion that they wouldn’t have dismissed him purely on those grounds.

Neither do I. But I DO say that prejudice may have stood in the way of making the right call. And I was very much upset by your saying that the proposal that he was the wrong type "held no water". That is a type of rash, uninformed statements that we can do without. I am happy to see that you seem to have had a change of mind on the subject.
There would have been other things involved that would have helped Lechmere too, but for the prejudice part. The fact that he voluntarily sought out the police twice would have been a massive point in his favor, and could well have sealed the deal for the police: no suspect would do that is how they may well have reasoned.

When I said, it holds no water, I was talking about your suggestion that Mac simply alighted on Druitt because he was insane. Of course the fact of alleged insanity would have increased his level of certainty as a contributing factor but he would have received other evidence first. Whether that evidence was good, bad or indifferent we can’t know.

Actually, the phrase was a comment on Lechmere and not on Druitt - or so it was phrased. But I will not quibble over that if you say that it was about Druitts insanity, fine. I totally agree that the insanity seems secondary - but that is somewhat beside my point. My point is that nice, wealthy people, gentlemen, who killed would likely be deemed insane. That was the one option left for Druitt, since he was not a foreigner and not of the criminal class.

This is the kind of point I do tend to focus on. It’s your belief but it has no basis in fact. It implies that someone gave Macnaghen any old waffle over a whisky and soda at his club and he swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Yes, quite possibly. If he did NOT swallow it uncritically but instead researched it carefully, why is it that he does not know that Druitt was a barrister? I have no problems admitting that there is no factual basis for the idea, but it is nevertheless where I am pointed by the facts.

Or, that Macnaghten’s evidence was convincing and backed up by Druitt’s family.

Yep. But we are just as lacking in facts on that score. and I dislike the errors too much to find it likely that there was any in-depth research made by MacNaghten.

My position relies less speculation. Macnaghten received information. He felt that it made Druitt a very likely suspect. He may have been correct in his evaluation. He may have been incorrect. If he was incorrect then Druitt wasn’t the ripper. If he was correct then Druitt was. Very simple.

Try as you might, there can be no disagreement with that! But I don't agree with how your stance is less speculative, because the information you think may have been correct should also be matched against contradicting information from supposedly better sources: Anderson and Swanson. And so it becomes speculative to say that Mac is the better source.
Me, I am so very wildly speculative as to say that all three gents got it wrong.

No it doesn’t. If Macnaghten saw evidence that Druitt might have been guilty but that evidence wasn’t conclusive proof of guilt so as to merit a court of law of what relevance was Druitt’s age or occupation? These errors are insignificant put are pounced on repeatedly. I think that the next time I read a factually researched book and I find a couple of slight errors I’ll just proceed to chuck it in the bin as unreliable. Macnaghten wasn’t a solicitor preparing a case for a Barrister to defend in court.

The relevance lies in showcasing that you know what you are talking about. Otherwise, cynics like me may well say that we may well be looking at boastful nonsense. Just like you say, one error must not mean that the rest is wrong too. But it is not just the one error. We also have the nonsense about Ostrog and the very dubious wordings about Kosminski, just as we have an assertion that the Ripper had only five victims - how on earth would Mac know that? The answer is he didn't. Perhaps he knew Druitts August schedule, though, and worked from that.
As you know, in my world, anybody who was not around to kill in 1873 and/or who was dead in 1889 cannot have been the Ripper/Torso killer. So to me, both Druitt and Kosminski are out of the equation.
Some say that this is only because I support Lechmere. In fact, it is because the facts speak for it. And I could just as well say that the refusal to accept a common killer is simply on account of a desperate wish not to have to abandon Druitt and Kos. It works both ways - but for the facts.

Im fully aware of your methods of debate Fish. You are free to continue.

I don´t ask permission. You know that. When I am accused of "blinding with science" on account of stating known facts, I get stingy, I'm afraid.