Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Great post & very well argued. I think the viability of Kosminski should be argued by just such a process. What I think we should not now be arguing, as still seems to be the case, is whether or not 'Kosminski' was a suspect at all. We have a handwritten statement :'Kosminski was the suspect' written in what we now know, beyond reasonable doubt, was the handwriting of Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson & initialled by him. I think we should, as you suggest, be debating the viability of Kosminski as a suspect, not the fact of his being a suspect which is, to my mind, now beyond argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell
Thanks and I totally agree with your post. There should be no doubt that Aaron Kosminski was considered by some contemporary sources as a strong suspect.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

One of two possibilities..
Kosminski was the suspect, who Mr Anderson was talking about.
Kosminski was the suspect, whom Mr Anderson suspected.

Regards, Jon S.

Howsabout "Kosminski was our suspect." ?

[Phil Carter]

I'm sorry... what? Are you referring to Anderson's comments about "moral certainty"? If so, then this is a massive misunderstanding of both the term itself, and how Anderson used the term in reference to the Ripper murders.

RH

Hello Rob,

Sorry, I missed this posting.

No, I was referring to H.L.Adam's direct quote of the man himself, and the example he gave H.L.Adam..all about how he uses his moral guilt.
Please excuse the lack of any further quick reply.. sleep awaits.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

In a private annotation in his personal copy of a (then) relatively obscure book:

"Kosminski was the suspect"

What was he doing, if not 'giving up the name'? Trying to mislead? Who? Himself?

One of two possibilities..
Kosminski was the suspect, who Mr Anderson was talking about.
Kosminski was the suspect, whom Mr Anderson suspected.

Regards, Jon S.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

In a private annotation in his personal copy of a (then) relatively obscure book:

"Kosminski was the suspect"

What was he doing, if not 'giving up the name'? Trying to mislead? Who? Himself?

I genuinely can't see what purpose he could imagine would be served by writing the name of a false suspect. Kosminski was the suspect. Based on what, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly suspected, we don't know but there is one inescapable fact - and fact it is - someone by the name of Kosminski was a suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

I meant to say he never gave up the name except in penciled annotations written in privacy. (We can argue whether that is really giving up the name. It's debatable either way.)

But how do you get from that to any implication that Swanson was trying to mislead? Of course he wasn't.

[Bridewell]

Much has been made of the "historical methodology" when analizing the viability of Aaron Kosminski as a suspect in the ripper murder series and the view has been put forth many times that the people who made the statements that incriminate him at the time should be given much weight.

And they should. However, the historical methodology also involves taking in many other factors, such as: how accurate were the sources, is there evidence of possible alterior motives, how did other contemporary sources view those statements, what were the personalities of the men making those statements and what is the consensus of modern experts of the subject.

Historians take all these things into consideration when making judgements as to what actually happened and how events of the past should be percieved today.

Whether assessing the events like the shoot out at the OK Corral, the capture of the Vercingetorix by Caesar, or the role of Josephus accounting for events in the Jewish war- all the aforementioned have been analized by historians using the historical method and the same should be done so when assessing the viability of Aaron Kosminki as a suspect in the ripper murders. I have yet to see this balanced approach anywhere on this website nor in publication, except perhaps by Sugden.

Hi Abby,

Great post & very well argued. I think the viability of Kosminski should be argued by just such a process. What I think we should not now be arguing, as still seems to be the case, is whether or not 'Kosminski' was a suspect at all. We have a handwritten statement :'Kosminski was the suspect' written in what we now know, beyond reasonable doubt, was the handwriting of Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson & initialled by him. I think we should, as you suggest, be debating the viability of Kosminski as a suspect, not the fact of his being a suspect which is, to my mind, now beyond argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hi Monty,

Hand on heart.

Do you honestly believe the Whitechapel murders have remained a mystery simply because a handful of high-ranking policemen disagreed about the possible identity of the culprit?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Not addressed to me, I know, but surely that's a different issue to a claim of JtR being a "closely-guarded state secret", which is what Monty queried?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hi Sir Robert,

How else might you categorize the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

As a series of unsolved murders?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Motive?

Everything we know about Swanson indicates that he would never give up the name. Didn't even do it in penciled annotations written in privacy.

In a private annotation in his personal copy of a (then) relatively obscure book:

"Kosminski was the suspect"

What was he doing, if not 'giving up the name'? Trying to mislead? Who? Himself?

I genuinely can't see what purpose he could imagine would be served by writing the name of a false suspect. Kosminski was the suspect. Based on what, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly suspected, we don't know but there is one inescapable fact - and fact it is - someone by the name of Kosminski was a suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Much has been made of the "historical methodology" when analizing the viability of Aaron Kosminski as a suspect in the ripper murder series and the view has been put forth many times that the people who made the statements that incriminate him at the time should be given much weight.

And they should. However, the historical methodology also involves taking in many other factors, such as: how accurate were the sources, is there evidence of possible alterior motives, how did other contemporary sources view those statements, what were the personalities of the men making those statements and what is the consensus of modern experts of the subject.

Historians take all these things into consideration when making judgements as to what actually happened and how events of the past should be percieved today.

Whether assessing the events like the shoot out at the OK Corral, the capture of the Vercingetorix by Caesar, or the role of Josephus accounting for events in the Jewish war- all the aforementioned have been analized by historians using the historical method and the same should be done so when assessing the viability of Aaron Kosminki as a suspect in the ripper murders. I have yet to see this balanced approach anywhere on this website nor in publication, except perhaps by Sugden.

[Bridewell]

Attire

Attire.

Monty

Hi Monty,

"He wore a brown deerstalker hat, and she thought he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that".

I don't see how she could conclude 'appeared to be a foreigner' from that?

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"But no, I can't do it."

See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Errrr 1912

That's not making it public. That's Anderson making a bunch of vague statements in a book that statistically very few people read. What I meant is why didn't the MET release a statement? One that every resident of London heard or heard about, finally laying to rest the mystery of Jack the Ripper in everyone's mind? Well, it probably wouldn't because everybody loves a conspiracy theory. But the police and their officials took a brutal beating from the press for not being able to find this guy. And they found him. And maybe they took that PR beating to protect people. But as some point that reason for silence ends. Why wouldn't they make an official statement? Individually, I get it. Not Swanson's call. Not even Anderson's call. But let's say that some official wanted to write a statement for the public, laying out what they knew and why things happened the way they did. Why would the brass say no? Especially if you didn't name the suspect. Or if you waited until he died? What could possibly be gained by keeping that a secret?

For the record I don't think they were protecting some famous or wealthy Jack or whatever. But why on earth was it so important to no official statement be made on any of it?

[Stephen Thomas]

By why not 30 years later? I can see an argument for not making it public in 1889. But why not release the information in 1900? 1930? Why never?

Errrr 1912

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Hand on heart.

Do you honestly believe the Whitechapel murders have remained a mystery simply because a handful of high-ranking policemen disagreed about the possible identity of the culprit?

Regards,

Simon