Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Bridewell]

Indeed

So should we not be asking: "Did the police have a witness that is not identified by name in the files?"

To me I glimpse a huge circumstantial gap in our information today, and in what we know of how the police acted then, that might accomodate such a witness.

Phil H

Hi Phil,

I think there are two possibilities if we accept the claim that the witness knew his evidence would be enough to hang the suspect:

Either, as you suggest, there was a witness who is not identified by name in the files or there is additional evidence from a witness whom we do know about. As others have pointed out though, neither Schwartz nor Lawende saw enough to hang the man he saw, even if he was subsequently able to identify the person seen.

What perplexes me is that DSS (who supposedly swore he would never do so) is happy to name his suspect in his (private) marginalia but refrains from naming the witness. This identification would be a momentous occurrence, resulting in closure of the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer. Would he really forget who the witness was?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

Remember that swanson was writing notes for his own "amusement". It appears that he was in the habit of annotating books he owned, so this was nothing unusual..

Since the name KOSMINSKI is written in upper case, I assume that was what he wanted to set down (i.e.e the identity of JtR) as at least he believed it. The witness was not material to his purpose, except in that it was the confirmation that they "had got their man". So no need to write it down.

Frustrating I know, but I don't see it as out of place.

I think also that Swanson was, even though writing for his personal attention and not publication, circumspect/discreet. Though his succinctness might also be explained by the lack of space he had to write in.

Phil H

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Phil,

Just a small point, but it's important in terms of accuracy - 'Kosminski' wasn't written in upper case, as you'll see from my photograph of the endpaper below.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil H]

Thank you Adam. Like MM I was relying on memory - a dangerous thing to do! Grateful for the clarification.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Phil
And like Swanson and Anderson, and Dew and all the others for that matter.

[Phil Carter]

Phil
And like Swanson and Anderson, and Dew and all the others for that matter.

Hello Lechmere,

A poinant remark that is too often ignored, forgotten or overlooked, imho. Thank you for the reminder.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

But without their "memories" (however flawed) and without the additional information that they provide (plus Littlechild) we would have even less material to work with.

The memoirs, marginalia, memoranda etc are personal recollections that articulate the official record in a way that minutes and file notes never can. People are flawed and have lapses, opinions and subjective views, but they are HUMAN, they are the people who touched the case in a way we never can. They might be wrong, misled, misinformed or misguided, but they were there.

Further more, people who write (mistakes or not) usually have something to say. Ass did I when I said that DSS was making a point about the identity of the suspect (not the witness). I was WRONG that he used capitals, but he was clear as to the name. THAT is my point.

Our job now is to look for the meaning within what we have.

Just my opinion,

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Phil
I have no doubt that Kosminsky came to the police's attention during the investigation.
The reminiscences of the various officers are indeed very valuable - certain as they provide a taste or flavour of the investigation. However when there are clear self serving motivations that can be attributed to certain comments and when those comments are contradicted by others or do not add up then scepticism is called for.

[Phil H]

Be as sceptical as you like Lechmere. No harm in that.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

Fair enough.

I meant that the marginalia implies that the city police have some kind of critical role -- eg. not you Donald -- and that the Seaside Home is a location outside of London -- eg. hence your not being there Donald but I was.

On the other hand, this is a private notation by the operational head of the case who has nothing to prove to anybody else. We know have a source claiming that he told his immediate family that he knew the identity of the Ripper, but would not tell them.

Swanson is backed by the administrative head of the case. That his confidential assistant did not agree might be due to ignorance as he was not there until after the Jack murders, or some kind of personal enmity between Anderson and Macnaghten, and so on.

The reason I stand by what I wrote -- theoretically and provisionally -- is that Macnaghten was there for Aaron Kosminski's incarceration, and furthermore that he knew that this madman was not deceased and was not sectioned soon after the Kelly murder. Furthermore from 1898 both himself and his proxies fought against Anderson's solution -- that according to this police chief it was erroneous.

Anderson never mentions Druitt, whereas Mac is arguably a stronger, broader primary source because he specifically addresses -- and semi-'exonerates' -- competing suspects. In his memoirs he judges the Polish Jew, the Russian doctor and the American medico to be not worth mentioning.

In those same memoirs Mac puts the kibosh on the notion of the Ripper as a Jew or that there was a definitive witness or -- and this is critical -- that the police knew soon after the Kelly murder that he was 'safely caged' (he recalls 1891, while Anderson and Swanson appear not to).

For myself, judging the meagre, contradictory extant record, these primary sources trumps the values of the earlier sources mentioned in this post, along with the fact that a positive identification believed by Anderson and Swanson would be the worst kept secret at Scotland Yard.

Yet nobody had ever heard of it?

Aaron Kosminski was never 'confronted' by a Ripper witness, and nobody claimed he had been until about twenty years later when the disappointing events involving Lawende-Sadler-Grant had become muddled with the Polish Jew -- just as Anderson mixed up pipes at crime scenes and even the different politicians, parties, and respective governments who were putting him under such acute pressure (ironically Macnaghten was in London for the whole of the murders unlike Anderson).

If only Swanson had written something like: '... this happened in Feb 1891, just before another Whitechapel murder which I initially thought might by the same miscreant ...'

[Mr Lucky]

just as Anderson mixed up pipes at crime scenes

Hi Jonathan,

Are you referring to Anderson's claim that there was a pipe that was somekind of clue, but it was destroyed? What has been mixed up?

Thanks

[Phil H]

If only Swanson had written something like: '... this happened in Feb 1891, just before another Whitechapel murder which I initially thought might by the same miscreant ...'

I LOVE the idea that we no longer textually criticise sources, but wish that they had been written differently, with views the original writer may NEVER have had!!!

There is NO evidence that Sir RA or DSS EVER had second thoughts about their man. So why wish for it - because it is inconvenient?

On a small point Jonathan: I regard the marginalia as a proper PRIME SOURCE as it is written by a central figure giving us direct information about events.

The Macnaghten memorandum is, of course, a prime source in itself, but based on secondary sources to which we do not have access and cannot assess. MM is essentially citing hearsay.

Sir RA and DSS discuss events while the case was still running, and suspects they knew and may have seen, talked to and certainly evaluated.

MM came late to the case, and even if you cite friends, family, local MPs and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, the information comes after the event, when Druitt was not there to defend himself and is thus essentially hearsay. If the was EVIDENCE given to MM, he does not share it or refer to it (as far as I am aware) and it appears to be all post hoc assumption - in other words hearsay.

I realise that the marginalia etc interferes with your finely wrought theory, but there we are - no need to wish it changed, just a need to work to understand it better.

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

God, I wish you knew what you were talking about, and I wish you would actually read my posts as then you would learn that I have answered-corrected your hopelessly off-track misconceptions, which clutter and clog these boards time and time and time again.

According to you I am worthless anyhow, yet here we are, you wasting your precious time debating with a know-nothing like me ...


For the benefit of others, as Phil H will have stopped reading by now.

For the hundredth time, Druitt is not my theory -- it's Mac's.

A senior, hands-on, highly regarded police chief, obsessed with the Ripper, and who is a primary source about the posthumous investigation into this suspect 'some years after' he took his own life.

The old, unlikely notion of Mac-the-ignorant has arguably been rendered redundant by the identification of MP Henry Farquharson in 2008; the breakthrough 'missing link' source who knew both the Druitts and inevitably knew -- or could be chummily contacted by -- his fellow Old Etonian, fellow Indian plantation owner, fellow Anglican, fellow Gentile Gentleman, fellow officer of the state, and fellow Tory, Melville Macnaghten.

This private investigation convinced Mac for the rest of his life.

He may have been right or he -- and the killer's family -- may have been wrong.

Historical methodology can get us a little closer, provisionally speaking, in that a source which goes against its expected bias -- in terms of class, or creed or temperament, or profession, or all of them at once with Mac -- is potentially more reliable.

Sir Melville shows an understanding that the Ripper investigation went on for years, fruitlessly, chasing a dead man, until at least 1891.

Since this matches police and newspaper sources -- all primary sources -- from 1888 to 1891 (or even 1895) then Mac, as a primary police source on the case, albeit beginning from June 1889, is more reliable on this aspect.

Because he's right.

Swanson initially thought that Coles was a Jack victim. By the time he wrote his private notation this was ll forgotten. Whereas if he had showed cognition which matched other primary sources he could be judged reliable, or more reliable.

Yet Anderson and Swanson do not acknowledge that 'Kosminski' was a too-late suspect already sectioned when he came to major police attention (though Anderson comes perilously close in the magazine version) instead giving the quite misleading impression in public -- even in private -- that the case was wrapped up in about early 1889.

This is exactly where a confidential police report places the sectioning of this suspect.

Guess who wrote that -- Macnaghten. The same source who originated writing about this suspect with only his surname and who knew that the same suspect was alive in an asylum while Anderson and Swanson did not.

Mac as a source, and via proxies, brushed aside the Polish Jew suspect. In his memoirs there was no super-witness, Jack was not a Jew, had not been sectioned, and had even blamed three Jews for interfering with his savagery.

That was his strong opinion, not mine.

He may have been right or he may have been wrong.

But he seems to know more accurate information about this suspect, 'Kosminski', than the other police who championed him.

He had written that this man lived in the very heart of the kill-zone and now secondary sources catch up with him again.

Hence my revisionist theory that he is the most reliable of the competing police sources.

[harry]

Strange that Kosminski should be taken any further than Commercial street police station to be identified,if he was a difficult person.Much cheaper I would say,and more convenient than bringing a person from outside London.I would agree with Fisherman,God forbid,in writing of the difficulty of observing how Kosminski would show he knew he had been recognised.Might it not be that the surprise of another Jew as his observer,made him show some exceptional emotion.Kosminski must have known why he was at the seaside Home,and that he was under suspicion,and to be faced by another Jew whom he might suspect of collaberating with the police,could be enough to set him off in any direction.Remember,he showed his feelings as soon as they faced each other,and therefor before the other Jew stated he would not give evidence against him.

[Bridewell]

MacNaghten's Theory

For the hundredth time, Druitt is not my theory -- it's Mac's.

MacNaghten's theory is that Druitt is "more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders", a claim he also makes about two other men, one of whom has a cast-iron alibi. The other is Kosminski.

Regards, Bridewell.