Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Bridewell]

Knowledge and Proof

Bridewell,
In answer to your post966.No I do not know that Kosminski wasn't arrested.

Hi Harry,

I responded to your query as to why the police hadn't arrested Kosminski. As you say, we don't know that they didn't, so they can't be criticised on that score. That was the point I was making.

no more than anyone today knows there was evidence to arrest him,but after the claimed identification,he was allowed to go home,this after said identification proved to police that he was JTR.

It's about more than proving the issue to their own satisfaction. It had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a court of law. Plenty of cops used to tell me, in my previous incarnation, that they knew their suspect was guilty. Knowing and proving, though, are not the same thing.

As I said police only had to have reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest.So allowing him to go home,is indicative to me that he was released from arrest,or had not been arrested at any time.

'Reasonable cause to suspect' constitutes grounds to arrest, but not to charge. After arrest, ultimately, you either charge or release. There is no third option.

Does one release a person that evidence shows to have been guilty?

Yes if the evidence is insufficient to charge.

You either believe Anderson and Swanson or you do not,and they clearly showed they believed him to have been proven guilty.

I believe Anderson and Swanson, in terms of good intent, but not necessarily in terms of 100% accurate recall. I also concede that they believed a Kosminski to be the Ripper. I'm not sure that either man believed him to have been proven guilty to a level acceptable as such in a court of law. A confrontation ID of the sort described would certainly not have been sufficient to convict. Even if the identification was correct there is no known witness who saw enough to secure a conviction. I don't actually think we're at odds here though. I seek only to point out that we don't know whether or not a Kosminski (Aaron or another) was arrested during the course of the enquiry.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Ally]

Phil,

You appear to be confusing historical analysis with scientific analysis. They are two very different things and scientific opinion from hundreds of years ago is hardly to be put on an even platform with historical opinion.

That would be to claim that the notion that the sun goes around the earth should be taken seriously and all other claptrap that was considered the best wisdom of its time.

A historical perspective should be considered, yes. If a doctor was standing in a square when a riot broke out, his opinions and observations should be given weight a hundred years later when we are reading about it as to what occurred in a factual context, where it started, who hit who first, how it ended, whether the police used excessive force if he witnessed such things, etc. However if he claims the riot occurred as a result of demonic possession (once the best wisdom of its time), female hysteria (once the best wisdom of its time) or any other claptrap that is long since disproven, then no, those observations should not be taken seriously or given any sort of weight.

[robhouse]

This is about historical analysis. Contemporary historical analysis.[/U][/I][/B]

It is contemporary scientific analysis... nineteenth century scientific opinion. It is not historical analysis. I would give far more weight to modern experts opinions on matters of criminal psychology and serial killers.

RH

[Phil Carter]

As Chris has pointed out above, I did explain my reasons. Will you please admit that the above highlighted line is wrong.

RH

Hello Rob,

To quote you in full on the specific subject, (Dr. Tuke), posting No.732...

I did not include this in my book because a) I had never seen it before and b) I don't think it is particularly relevant.

Why is the opinion of one psychiatrist in the Victorian particularly relevant in giving his opinion re: the profile of a sexual serial killer. Knowledge of this type of killer in the victorian era was effectively non-existent. Why should this doctor be expected to have the level of understanding of serial killers that we have today? Are you claiming this guy was an expert in serial killers? Particularly lust murderers? Is he an expert in criminal pathology? An expert in schizophrenic serial killers? He may never have encountered one... and probably never did.

Moreover, are you claiming that his opinion trumps those of other reputable psychologists of the era who had a different opinion?

You seem to think you have discovered something big, and I am trembling over here. I think this opinion is borderline worthless.

This is your reply. My emphasis used.

a) In no way has it asessed the article of Dr Tuke.
b) All you have done is turn the opinions of the man into "he doesn't know about lust murderers, etc"..you have not adressed his views per say.
c) You first state that you do not think it particularly relevant, and then, in ending, state that Dr Tuke's opinion is "borderline worthless".

Sure Rob, if that is a reply to my question.. you did reply... and reasons given are.. well.. I will let others judge that.. however..

To address my point towards Phil H and ask you to address it, where Phil H states that it is of great import to have contemporary views in the field. Yet you, I state, ignore it. (not particularly relevant and borderline worthless)..which rather contradicts Phil H's historians approach he recommends to us all.
(I am still awaiting a reply from the gentleman himself on his statement.)

Like it or not Rob, Dr. Sir John Batty Tuke knew everything there was to know about the lunatic mind at the time of the murders, and his opinion is of great value, as it shows that in this foremost expert's opinion, the murders were not committed by a madman but by a very angry man.

"...For my own part, I can more easily see these crimes being the result of savage wickedness than insane mental action."
Dr. Tuke.


Herewith, for continued perusal, are his conclusions again. My emphasis.

"it would not be hard to imagine the commission of an isolated act of this character by an insane person, but the whole circumstances of the commission of these crimes, save one. are outside insanity. If they have been committed by a lunatic, his is the case which, in this country, is without parallel or precident. I have said that the circumstances of these crime is outside insanity, save one; that circumstance is, of course, the horrible nature of the act; but are we to deduce insanity from the revolting nature of the crime alone when all the other circumstances point away from it? Why should we underestimate the power of strong human wickedness and overestimate that of weak human insanity? For my own part, I can more easily see these crimes being the result of savage wickedness than insane mental action. The is a conciousness in the first idea which there is not in the second. Moreover, there is an incentive to wickedness productive of crime analogous to those now under consideration, which only those very intimately aquainted with the dark records of medical jurisprudance know of. This is not the place to speak of it, and I only allude to it in order to indication that there are incentives to crime unappreciable by the great mass of the community."

And you believe this opinion to be borderline worthless? Not particularly relevant?
I actually think Phil H is correct.
It carries weight. It should be treated with the respect it deserves. Irrespective of modern experts..to quote Phil H, again.

Just because it throws Aaron Kosminski, lunatic, out of the psychological frame, does not mean it should be dismissed so lightly.

Sorry Rob, this isn't personal in any way, I stress that, but you asked and you have been answered. This is about historical analysis. Contemporary historical analysis.
And you wish to ignore it and call it borderline worthless?
I am told by those who know better that we must not do such things. These things carry weight.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

sadler

Hello Cris. Yes, Sadler indeed! I just finished reading his file again just a few days ago. He was kept under surveillance and closely monitored until, I think, Mrs. Sadler felt safe.

Look forward to your work.

Cheers.
LC

[AdamNeilWood]

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

Hi Cris,

Yes, please!

Best wishes
Adam

[Hunter]

Hi Harry,

I'm off to work with no notes, so Ill speak generally here. A good contemporary example of how the police approached dealing with a suspect and the legal requirements involved is to go back to the Coles murder and the process involved with Sadler... at least as a basis to go by.

Obviously, the situation with Kozminski was different as he was not charged with anything, but some degree of suspicion evidently was there but the evidence may not have been as direct. Sadler was known to be with a victim on the night of her murder and a weapon was located.

I think the suspicion of Kozminski was due to less substantial second hand information accrued much longer after any murder took place. And as I mentioned earlier, there was the profile of someone in a condition of satyriasis or 'erotic mania.' If Kozminski's mental condition had deteriorated by that time the legal aspects change there too. Just look at the difficulties Abberline had with Isenschmid and Dr. Menkel's refusal to let the police submit him to interrogation and an ID attempt. Kozminski's family apparently was having trouble with him by this time and the police probably thought some type of committal could be eminent.

The indication to me is that some kind of arrangement was agreed upon with Kosminski's family to keep this low keyed and out of the public eye for obvious reasons. Placing Kozminski into the workhouse met the legal requirements and gave the police a shot at a discreet ID attempt. They didn't want another Pizer situation to develop and Kozminski's family would surely be in fear of their own safety as well.

Perhaps someone here who has access to documents can give you the specific clauses in British law. I am not at liberty to do so at the moment.

[robhouse]

It has been said by a supporter of the Kosminski suspect, and one who is highly regarded by many, who additionally has gracefully admitted not knowing of this quote and then having read it, deems it worthy of being totally ignored, thusfar without any tangible explanation.

As Chris has pointed out above, I did explain my reasons. Will you please admit that the above highlighted line is wrong.

RH

[harry]

Hunter,
I wish you well in your endeavour.Just one question.Do you know what law the police at the time were acting under,and how it affected their behaviour.How it affected the rights of citizens.Before anything else,I believe it neccessary that you have at least a working knowledge of that law.Not criticisingi,just trying to be helpful.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil (Carter),

Thanks for your response to my earlier post.
For me to answer each challenge you've presented would require a very long post that I'm not sure others could follow without repeating my original post broken into the segments as you've done, followed by your statements and/or questions, and then my response to each in the order presented. Plus we have severe weather moving into my area tonight that I may need to monitor. So I will answer in this way and try to be brief.

Some of your questions or statements I don't quite understand and others I believe may be misinterpretations of my statements, which often happens when something that is written to tie together in a correlating sequence is dismantled piecemeal. It is my fault for making the post in the first place. This is not the medium to present a complex thesis on a subject like this, and trying to make it concise for the purpose of a single post only leaves out other factors that may have made some points more clear and understandable.

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

One last point for clarification...
Some of what I wrote in my post is subjective. That is the nature of a historical thesis. But if done using established criteria for historical analysis - i.e.- beginning the research with no predetermined conclusion; relying upon the known facts of the events themselves, the socio-political background, police structure and procedure, biographical information on the people involved as well as other aspects of their lives... etc... I have always believed that something credible is more likely to be achieved. And especially in this case, not to come to the table with a predetermined notion about any specific individual who may have killed any of these women (and that includes Kozminski) or an agenda on the topic. 95% of everything written on this subject has started with one of these caveats that virtually destroys objectivity and leaves this series of events in the virtual fog they have been in since they took place. There are notable exceptions... but even then, often, credible research has been challenged by the factions whose predilections are threatened. Its time to change that.

Everything will never be answered in something as unique and incomplete as this subject. But major ground has been broken by new information in the past few decades and the use of the internet has accelerated that exponentially. The chance has never been better to apply it to some kind of cognizant understanding that may engender some broad concensus, even if no definite conclusions can ever be achieved.

Hello Cris,

It would be great to see such an analysis, and I wish you luck in attempting this.
Thank you for your reply.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Very good news Cris,

I for one shall look forward to this.

Monty

[Hunter]

Hi Phil (Carter),

Thanks for your response to my earlier post.
For me to answer each challenge you've presented would require a very long post that I'm not sure others could follow without repeating my original post broken into the segments as you've done, followed by your statements and/or questions, and then my response to each in the order presented. Plus we have severe weather moving into my area tonight that I may need to monitor. So I will answer in this way and try to be brief.

Some of your questions or statements I don't quite understand and others I believe may be misinterpretations of my statements, which often happens when something that is written to tie together in a correlating sequence is dismantled piecemeal. It is my fault for making the post in the first place. This is not the medium to present a complex thesis on a subject like this, and trying to make it concise for the purpose of a single post only leaves out other factors that may have made some points more clear and understandable.

I have decided to write something more complete that can take a more in-depth look at Donald Swanson, the CID and its methods, and the sequence of events that culminated in his writing of the marginalia. I've been researching this aspect for some time now along with George Bagster Phillips and the medical evidence. The reasons for delving into both topics is because I believe they are the two most vital aspects of the subject of the Whitechapel Murders as far as understanding what might have taken place. Perhaps one of the publications may be interested.

One last point for clarification...
Some of what I wrote in my post is subjective. That is the nature of a historical thesis. But if done using established criteria for historical analysis - i.e.- beginning the research with no predetermined conclusion; relying upon the known facts of the events themselves, the socio-political background, police structure and procedure, biographical information on the people involved as well as other aspects of their lives... etc... I have always believed that something credible is more likely to be achieved. And especially in this case, not to come to the table with a predetermined notion about any specific individual who may have killed any of these women (and that includes Kozminski) or an agenda on the topic. 95% of everything written on this subject has started with one of these caveats that virtually destroys objectivity and leaves this series of events in the virtual fog they have been in since they took place. There are notable exceptions... but even then, often, credible research has been challenged by the factions whose predilections are threatened. Its time to change that.

Everything will never be answered in something as unique and incomplete as this subject. But major ground has been broken by new information in the past few decades and the use of the internet has accelerated that exponentially. The chance has never been better to apply it to some kind of cognizant understanding that may engender some broad concensus, even if no definite conclusions can ever be achieved.

[harry]

Bridewell,
In answer to your post966.No I do not know that Kosminski wasn't arrested,no more than anyone today knows there was evidence to arrest him,but after the claimed identification,he was allowed to go home,this after said identification proved to police that he was JTR.As I said police only had to have reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest.So allowing him to go home,is indicative to me that he was released from arrest,or had not been arrested at any time.Does one release a person that evidence shows to have been guilty?You either believe Anderson and Swanson or you do not,and they clearly showed they believed him to have been proven guilty.
As for fear of reprisals or demonstrations from the Jewish people,has anyone considered the response from the non Jewish people if they had become aware a Jewish person,proven to have been JTR,had been allowed to remain at liberty among them.So again we are expected to believe that the police took this chance.Unbelievable.

[Chris]

I believe the postings are still there, but I do not want to be seen or misconstrued as becoming personal and or "attacking" in a personal manner, in any way shape or form, which I can assure you I am not, so will allow you to peruse at your convenience.

Yes, it was when I was perusing them that I saw those unanswered questions:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=245316&postcount=732

[Phil Carter]

I can't tell from that who you're talking about. Maybe it would be better if you said so, to prevent possible misunderstandings.

But I did see one response to your Batty postings, in which a number of pertinent questions were asked. I didn't see a reply - though it's quite possible I missed it, in the recent flood of erudition.

Hello Chris,

I believe the postings are still there, but I do not want to be seen or misconstrued as becoming personal and or "attacking" in a personal manner, in any way shape or form, which I can assure you I am not, so will allow you to peruse at your convenience.

But that doesn't answer my point made to Phil H and his comment on historical weight. Which is my present concern.

And now, I must get some sleep,

best wishes

Phil