What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Fisherman]

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

As I said, the reason for investigating the soldiers was simple enough: it was a known fact that Tabram went down George Yard with a soldier to have sex.

That means that this soldier MUST be researched as a viable suspect.

For Lechmere, that does not apply - he was not seen in company with Nichols, buying sex from her. He went down as the finder of the body, and he reported in to the cops twice, so he answered to the description of the good, solid British non-criminal.

And therein lies the rub - there WAS prejudice along these lines, and that is what I am saying. It should be appreciated as a fact of its own, not something that is less likely because soldiers were logically targetted by the police in the Tabram case.

I said before that sooner or later, I will be accused of hijacking the thread, and it may well be on its way now. Let's just remember that I was not the one to bring Lechmere up this time over. And I think that he can be discussed as a counterplea to Kosminski and Druitt in terms of how society and the police looked on stereotypes, so I see no problem with him being part of the discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And I’ll make this my final point on the subject because I’m conscious that this isn’t a Druitt or Lechmere thread.

My point is that nice, wealthy people, gentleman....

wouldn’t get named in the first place by the Assistant Commissioner Of The Metropolitan Police unless he’d felt that he’d had very good reason for doing so. I don’t think that the idea that Druitt was named simply because of the timing of his suicide holds water. I don’t think that the idea that Druitt was named simply because he was felt to have been insane holds water. I don't think that the suggestion that the MM is worthy of dismissal due to a couple of inconsequential errors holds water. I don’t think that the notion that Mac was a moustache twiddling Victorian buffoon holds water.

Yet all of these have been proposed at one time or another and it appears that only a relatively few posters will even say - what if Macnaghten was truthful (is that such a wacky suggestion?) and he did see evidence that Druitt was a very likely ripper and that Druitt’s own family felt him to have been guilty? On what grounds does anyone achieve such a level of confidence that they can dismiss Macnaghten and Druitt out of hand?

I think that Montague John Druitt would have been one of the very last people that Macnaghten would have sacrificed to fill his - better suspect that Cutbush - list.

[Abby Normal]

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.

actually a multiple killer was on the radar by Nichols. Smith, Tabram and then Nichols. the press at least was all over it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

As I said, the reason for investigating the soldiers was simple enough: it was a known fact that Tabram went down George Yard with a soldier to have sex.

That means that this soldier MUST be researched as a viable suspect.

For Lechmere, that does not apply - he was not seen in company with Nichols, buying sex from her. He went down as the finder of the body, and he reported in to the cops twice, so he answered to the description of the good, solid British non-criminal.

And therein lies the rub - there WAS prejudice along these lines, and that is what I am saying. It should be appreciated as a fact of its own, not something that is less likely because soldiers were logically targetted by the police in the Tabram case.

I said before that sooner or later, I will be accused of hijacking the thread, and it may well be on its way now. Let's just remember that I was not the one to bring Lechmere up this time over. And I think that he can be discussed as a counterplea to Kosminski and Druitt in terms of how society and the police looked on stereotypes, so I see no problem with him being part of the discussion.

So the fact that Cross was not looked into, just because he seemed to be an upright law abiding Englishman, then or at a later date beggars belief in my book.

[Fisherman]

And I’ll make this my final point on the subject because I’m conscious that this isn’t a Druitt or Lechmere thread.

My point is that nice, wealthy people, gentleman....

wouldn’t get named in the first place by the Assistant Commissioner Of The Metropolitan Police unless he’d felt that he’d had very good reason for doing so. I don’t think that the idea that Druitt was named simply because of the timing of his suicide holds water. I don’t think that the idea that Druitt was named simply because he was felt to have been insane holds water. I don't think that the suggestion that the MM is worthy of dismissal due to a couple of inconsequential errors holds water. I don’t think that the notion that Mac was a moustache twiddling Victorian buffoon holds water.

A fair number of points to agree on there! I think it is a good point to say that since Druitt was a "gentleman", it would take something substantial to make Mac opt for him being the Ripper. Then again, if somebody close to himself or to people he trusted felt that Druitt was the Ripper, then that would perhaps have sufficed. It could have been a story garnished with assertions of how Druitt "acted oddly", "was out on the murder nights" and such things, all very unsubstantial. We simply cannot tell.
It is also a question about when the accusations surfaced originally. Was it something the informant had sensed before Druitts suicide, or did it happen only after that point in time? In the latter case, there would have been the suicide note allowing for an interpretation of insanity, and such a thing could well have tipped somebody over. But I am with you, generally speaking, on how Mac is unlikely to have accused Druitt baselessly - there will have been something. But it was not enough for Mac to present Druitt as the real deal, he was only presented as one of three, two of whom could have been left out if Mac knew he was on the money. And it was not enough for Mac to take enough of an interest to get profession and age right. That diminishes the value of the memoranda drastically in many people's eyes, mine included.

I agree that the suicide alone would not have been the sole reason for the accusations - but it may have lowered the threshold for the informant in a significant degree. If somebody harbored some sort of suspicion, that could well serve as a perceived confirmation, correct or not.

I agree that Druitt cannot be dismissed on account of the errors in the memoranda - but it does not help his cause as a subject.

I cannot say if Mac was a Victorian mustache-twiddling buffoon or not - I am not well enough read up on him to say. I do think that many police bigwigs may have been better suited to perform other duties, and so there is learoom for him not having been the sharpest tool in the box on that score. But overall, as far as I can tell, he seems to have been a well regarded policeman and so he is unlikely to have been a buffoon. But I think it is wise to reserve judgment in matters where I am not we'll informed.

Yet all of these have been proposed at one time or another and it appears that only a relatively few posters will even say - what if Macnaghten was truthful (is that such a wacky suggestion?) and he did see evidence that Druitt was a very likely ripper and that Druitt’s own family felt him to have been guilty? On what grounds does anyone achieve such a level of confidence that they can dismiss Macnaghten and Druitt out of hand?

Nobody can do that, I´d say. But it is fair game to suspect that Mac was not on the money, I'm afraid. In my case, I genuinely feel that this was so, but just like you, I cannot anchor that belief by using any weighty facts. And of course, my certainty that Lechmere was the Ripper has a whole lot to do with me thinking that Mac was wrong, just as it has a lot to do with me thinking the same about Anderson. It is a good thing that they support different suspects, because that tells us unequivocally that at least one of them MUST have been wrong. And since both men appeared very certain that tells a lot about how we must regard that kind of certainty.

I think that Montague John Druitt would have been one of the very last people that Macnaghten would have sacrificed to fill his - better suspect that Cutbush - list.

I can see how that works, no problems. Personally, I think he would have been very relieved to hear he was wrong, and that kind of describes the same thing within the two of us, although from a different perspective.

[Fisherman]

So the fact that Cross was not looked into, just because he seemed to be an upright law abiding Englishman, then or at a later date beggars belief in my book.

What general reason do the police normally have for not looking into somebody? A belief that someone was an upright citizen, I´d say. Police work always was, and remains, about gut feeling to a large degree.
In Lechmere´s case, let's not forget that he not only gave an impression of a law-abiding man, he actually seemingly confirmed that by going to the police. And at that stage, said police had embarrassed themselves by falsely claiming that Neil was the finder of the body in Bucks Row.

Then in steps Charles "Cross" and straightens things out. Just how likely were they to take this bringer of the truth and call him a killer? If that went wrong too, then how much more silly would it make them look?

It is the perfect sowing ground for the kind of ruse Lechmere will have used in the killers role. Whether you believe it or not, actually. And certainly, the omission to get the name right seems to tell a story of no further checking.

[Harry D]

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.

What you're suggesting is that the Lechmere would not have registered on the police radar as he did not conform to the Victorian preconceptions of a serial killer? However, we know for a fact that several "everyman" characters were checked out by the police. Whether or not they would have been declared "insane" ex post facto, is irrelevant.

Perhaps Lechmere was never a police suspect because there was nothing to incriminate him?

[Abby Normal]

yes of course the police would be looking at suspects that were last seen with the suspects (like the soldiers in the martha Tabram case) and also looking at suspects with traditional motives of which they were familiar with (jealousy/ex lovers-Barnett) but they also were not that familiar with serial killer "motiveless" crimes and also had preconceived notions in the ripper case of lunatics, jews foreigners. and they certainly were inexperienced with witness type suspects, like we are today. So yes I think there is every possibility that they somewhat overlooked seemingly normal witnesses who could have been the killer. like hutch, lech, Richardson bowyer etc.

if I was the police at the time I would have taken a photo of everyone-a "witness"-who could have been the killer-like the ones mentioned above. and shown them to witnesses (like schwartz, lawende, long, cox etc)who might have seen the ripper with a victim.

[Fisherman]

What you're suggesting is that the Lechmere would not have registered on the police radar as he did not conform to the Victorian preconceptions of a serial killer? However, we know for a fact that several "everyman" characters were checked out by the police. Whether or not they would have been declared "insane" ex post facto, is irrelevant.

Perhaps Lechmere was never a police suspect because there was nothing to incriminate him?

Harry, the prisons had doctors, lawyers, shop owners, lightermen, clerks and so on inside their walls, all of them very British and many of them family fathers.

I am not as daft as to propose that the police would not investigate and bring down people if they were British and family men. I am saying that they were less LIKELY to be investigated than foreigners, lunatics and members of the "criminal class".

In Lechmeres case, it applies that not only was he a type that the police normally did not associate with crime, he also approached the police, seemingly to help out, on two occasions, plus he ws an embarrassment to them by revealing that they had been wrong to name Neil the finder. There was every reason to thank him and get him out of the way as quickly as possible, and it therefore applies that the police may well have been very disinclined to look into him for at least three different grounds.

There was definitely something to incriminate him; enough, eve, for James Scobie to say that it would warrant a trial in which the jury would look upon the carman as a suspicious character.

Maybe you instead wanted to say that perhaps something that told the police that Lechmere could not be guilty? If so, it needs presenting before it can be taken as chapter and verse. Until that happens, he remains the best suspect there is on factual grounds only. Once we turn aunfactual, we can add Bury, Kosminski, Druitt and all the other chaps, and then we can return to old school Ripperology.

[Harry D]

In Lechmeres case, it applies that not only was he a type that the police normally did not associate with crime, he also approached the police, seemingly to help out, on two occasions, plus he ws an embarrassment to them by revealing that they had been wrong to name Neil the finder. There was every reason to thank him and get him out of the way as quickly as possible, and it therefore applies that the police may well have been very disinclined to look into him for at least three different grounds.

Police did not suspect civvy who acted innocent shock horror.

There was definitely something to incriminate him; enough, eve, for James Scobie to say that it would warrant a trial in which the jury would look upon the carman as a suspicious character..

And we know the information Mr Scobie was working from was not wholly accurate when reaching his conclusions.

[Patrick S]

Imagine my dismay upon seeing a new, potentially interesting thread.... only to see it reduced to the same old farcical Lechmere foolishness. And in short order.

[Abby Normal]

Imagine my dismay upon seeing a new, potentially interesting thread.... only to see it reduced to the same old farcical Lechmere foolishness. And in short order.

so people shouldn't bring him up, or other suspects like Druitt (which was done and other suspects too!)in a Koz thread, Patrick and fish wasn't the first or even second person to bring Lech up.
and of course here you are complaining about it and also mentioning him too. so it seems a lot of people have lech on the brain.

[Abby Normal]

"Kosminski" is the strongest of the police suspects. Two senior officials reference a man who was identified as the killer but got off due to a technicality. There is no reason to suspect that Anderson & Swanson were lying or having a brainfart about a case of this magnitude. Seems to me there was a jewish man whom they had good reason to suspect. A witness (Lawende/Schwartz/etc) either identified him or they read between the lines and realised the two men knew each other. Witness wouldn't surrender him to the goy.

hi Harry
pretty much agree(chapman being the other "strong" police suspect) but I would say witness-Lawende- wasn't sure enough about if it was the man he saw to swear to it (and swear to it in court).

[Fisherman]

Police did not suspect civvy who acted innocent shock horror.

No, not really. And that is as it should be - unless the civvy was conning the police. Happens, you know, and in 1888 it would arguably have been a lot easier to fool them.

And we know the information Mr Scobie was working from was not wholly accurate when reaching his conclusions.

No, "we" don't. "We" are suggesting all sorts of foul play, but "we" have had nothing to show for it so far. Unless you are referring to how Scobie was not handed all the titles ever produced about the Ripper case, all the articles and all the verbal info?
"We" may need to shape up, methinks.

[Busy Beaver]

I don't believe that Koz is the Ripper. I would say he was more of a scape goat. Yes, lets blame Koz- no-one knows him, he's Jewish and we don't have any one else to fit up. Druitt and even Lech are better suspects. If he is found to be the Ripper I'll be like