Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Cogidubnus]

Your Post #947 is nothing if not ingenious.

I'm more inclined towards Monty's assessment of it...

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed, but I did describe it as a "reasonable conclusion", not a matter of fact. So I take it you do agree it was a reasonable conclusion.

As a general principle, I would not agree. Clearly it depends upon the strength of the evidence. In this case, I would agree because without the witness they did not have enough.

What could the witness have said that "would be the means of murderer being hanged"?
Swanson should have said "could be the means" unless the evidence was pretty conclusive.
Therefore, if the evidence was so conclusive then Kosminski would have to be the murderer.
Therefore, the authorities would know he was the killer, and so would Macnaghten.
Anderson would know, Macnaghten would know, and Swanson would know, instead we only have talk of Kosminski being a suspect. And, we would also know that the witness truly did see something worthy of a conviction. As it is, Macnaghten and Anderson cannot agree on whether anyone actually did see the killer at any point.

MacNaghten tells us that Kosminski was a strong suspect with many factors rendering him such. Pretty strong stuff.

But let's remember the purpose of the MM:

It was to discredit Cutbush as a suspect, as opposed to naming Jack The Ripper.

Anderson and Swanson were loathe to name the killer in any document; it could be argued that MacNaghten followed suit.

My assumption about Swanson was that he was an example of the consummate professional. He does not write about the case using specifics, and at no point does he offer his own personal opinions. What he does do is elaborate on the convictions of his boss, offering background on why Anderson developed those opinions. Not that Anderson was right or wrong, just that this is, why.

Swanson say's nothing which indicates he was present, only that he was in the best position to clarify his boss's thoughts on the matter.

Regards, Jon S.

Again, Jon, I'm not convinced with your logic.

I would expect this consumate professional to record two things in his notes: who it was, how he knew. He tells us who, he tells us how: "sent by us", as opposed to "as told by Anderson".

Perhaps we have different views on what a consumate professional does, particularly one with operational responsibilities. In my view, such a person is rigorous; he does not simply repeat stories verbatim.

[Errata]

Serial killers often claim to be hearing voices and commands as part of a defence of diminished responsibility - this was tge case with the Yorkshire Ripper and Mullin - effectively trying to fake schizophrenia.

In all fairness, Mullin spent about four years in an institution before he started killing. Not having seen his records, I cant swear he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but whatever was wrong with him clearly involved paranoid delusions. It happens that schizophrenics become serial killers. Chase was one, Mullin was one, Toole may have been one, but no one has any idea to what extent that actually influenced his killing. Son of Sam, John Wayne Gacy, I think even Kemper all got the diagnosis before trial, but not of them were delusional. None of them actually were schizophrenic. And it's sad because this is why people fear schizophrenics. And they are more harmless than the the sane ever have been.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Your Post #947 is nothing if not ingenious.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

His endnotes are full of specifics, including the statement that the suspect was "sent by us."

Cris.
Specifics would be, "the suspect was escorted in a handsome cab by Insp.'s Abberline and Moore". "Sent by us" means what, by the police, by the Met. by CID? - its a general statement, not specific.

As far as writing his own personal opinions, there is no indication that he did otherwise. He wrote annotations in other documents. An analysis of these can determine a pattern to the reasons why he annotated certain parts.

For example, as related in Adam and Kieth's recent article:
In Swanson's copy of the book Adam Worth, a book containing the story of the theft of Gainsborough’s painting Georgina, Duchess Of Devonshire and a case Swanson was involved in, he corrects a passage on page 9 relating the man who stole the painting (Adam Worth) and the book's claims that Worth stood on the shoulders of Jack Phillips in order to break in through a window during the theft from Agnew’s gallery. In a marginal note, Swanson writes, "No. It was Old Powell on whose shoulders he climbed."

Then, in Swanson's copy of Sweeny's At Scotland Yard, the book mentions a journalist and politician James Joseph O’Kelly, writing:
"He, by the way, had made something of a name of himself as war correspondent to The Irish People, having been a member of the staff of that paper ever since its inception by Mr William O’Brien."
Swanson corrects this by writing in the left margin:
"Long before this Mr O’Kelly?"

These appear to be more examples of Swanson elaborating on statements made by others. There isn't really anything that compares to the debate we are having here.
The examples given above appear to consist of Swanson offering corrections from information already known in official circles, just having been made in error. Not him giving personal opinions unknown to anyone else - that appears to be a point of division here and those quotes do not change that.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Aarron Kosminski,was ,we are led to believe,a suspect,who because of an identification,has been accused of being the Whitechapel murderer,and the person known as Jack the Ripper.The Prime suspect,as some say.That the evidence at the time was enough to sustain this accusation.Yet in spite of this,he was allowed to go free and given the opportunity to go out on to the streets and kill again if he so wished.Strange way to treat such a person,even in 1888.If it were true?All it needed to arrest him was a reasonable suspicion,which we are told was there,in fact the suspicion was more than reasonable.Some may jump in here and say,but if he was arrested he would have had to stand trial.Wrong.At any time he was under arrest and before trial began,he could be released from arrest.The police had that power,witness the large number who were arrested and not brought to trial.So why was he not arrested.Some may have different ideas,but mine is that it was because there was never any reason to arrest,never any evidence of suspicion,never an identification.You do'nt release a murderer who has killed a number of victims,not if the evidence is strong enough to convict,not even in 1888,or thereabouts.

[Hunter]

My assumption about Swanson was that he was an example of the consummate professional. He does not write about the case using specifics, and at no point does he offer his own personal opinions. What he does do is elaborate on the convictions of his boss, offering background on why Anderson developed those opinions. Not that Anderson was right or wrong, just that this is, why.

His endnotes are full of specifics, including the statement that the suspect was "sent by us."

As far as writing his own personal opinions, there is no indication that he did otherwise. He wrote annotations in other documents. An analysis of these can determine a pattern to the reasons why he annotated certain parts.

For example, as related in Adam and Kieth's recent article:
In Swanson's copy of the book Adam Worth, a book containing the story of the theft of Gainsborough’s painting Georgina, Duchess Of Devonshire and a case Swanson was involved in, he corrects a passage on page 9 relating the man who stole the painting (Adam Worth) and the book's claims that Worth stood on the shoulders of Jack Phillips in order to break in through a window during the theft from Agnew’s gallery. In a marginal note, Swanson writes, "No. It was Old Powell on whose shoulders he climbed."

Then, in Swanson's copy of Sweeny's At Scotland Yard, the book mentions a journalist and politician James Joseph O’Kelly, writing:
"He, by the way, had made something of a name of himself as war correspondent to The Irish People, having been a member of the staff of that paper ever since its inception by Mr William O’Brien."
Swanson corrects this by writing in the left margin:
"Long before this Mr O’Kelly?"

In all of Swanson's annotations made available, there is nothing to suggest that he was not writing from his perspective.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Has anyone here thought about the possibility of Jacob Levy being involved?

Regards
Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

dialogue

Hello Cris. Thanks. Yes, his notes read like my annotations in books. He seems to be carrying on a dialogue with himself.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Jon,

It's not a matter of fact that giving evidence will result in a conviction.

Agreed, but I did describe it as a "reasonable conclusion", not a matter of fact. So I take it you do agree it was a reasonable conclusion.

I think this demonstrates the strength of Swanson's conviction.

What could the witness have said that "would be the means of murderer being hanged"?
Swanson should have said "could be the means" unless the evidence was pretty conclusive.
Therefore, if the evidence was so conclusive then Kosminski would have to be the murderer.
Therefore, the authorities would know he was the killer, and so would Macnaghten.
Anderson would know, Macnaghten would know, and Swanson would know, instead we only have talk of Kosminski being a suspect. And, we would also know that the witness truly did see something worthy of a conviction. As it is, Macnaghten and Anderson cannot agree on whether anyone actually did see the killer at any point.

So, you may think Swanson had a strong conviction but if he truly knew anything he would have no need to dance around the subject of Kosminski's guilt.

Anyway, I think the point of your post was to say that Swanson's comments were based upon the thoughts of others.

My assumption about Swanson was that he was an example of the consummate professional. He does not write about the case using specifics, and at no point does he offer his own personal opinions. What he does do is elaborate on the convictions of his boss, offering background on why Anderson developed those opinions. Not that Anderson was right or wrong, just that this is, why.

I think there's a flaw in your logic.

Swanson gives us the details. This would suggest that Swanson is best placed to give us the details: he is the one closest to the event.

Swanson say's nothing which indicates he was present, only that he was in the best position to clarify his boss's thoughts on the matter.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

I agree, Lynn.
I believe the Oct. 19, HO report on the murder of Elizabeth Stride is the central document of record while the murders were still in progress.

[lynn cates]

Swanson at work.

Hello Cris. You make several good points about how Swanson approached these killings. Of special interest to me are his musings about Berner st. You can actually get a glimpse of his mind at work as he sorts through details and actually reasons aloud.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Serial killers often claim to be hearing voices and commands as part of a defence of diminished responsibility - this was tge case with the Yorkshire Ripper and Mullin - effectively trying to fake schizophrenia.

[Errata]

I'm not familiar with Dr Stout's work - but I thought we were discussing psychopathy and not sociopathy (or ASPD). The levels of sociopathy are much higher than psychopathy according to DSM-IV (TR) but I think 1 in 33 is the approximate estimate.

The only similar number to 1 in 25 I've seen is for corporate execs.

Yeah, here's another reason why it's a soft science. Nobody agrees what psychopathy or sociopathy even are. Or what the difference is. The only thing people seem to agree on is that both require a lack of empathy. I've done my fair share of Psych classes, my fiance has a BA in Psychology, I've been in therapy for almost 30 years, I've done peer counseling for the mentally ill, read books on the subject, done research, compiled data for researchers, and I've heard about 20 different definitions. Which can essentially be reduced to four basic but separate definitions of the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy.

1: is that there is no difference, you can use the terms interchangeably. Given that I was a sociology major before switching to psych, I have a lot of sympathy for this definition. In sociology, I was taught that "sociopath" indicates that the problem lies in the persons socialization, and "psychopath", indicates that the problem is in their psychological makeup. I think both could easily be true. But there, the definition differs only in the source of the problem, not in the behaviors. 2: The one I was taught for a specific work project I was working on it that a psychopath is a sociopath who has committed a crime. And I have heard other definitions that essentially pare down to this concept. When I personally use the the two phrases, I use them in that context. Not because I necessarily think it's correct, but because it's habit. 3: A sociopath has a much higher level of organization than a psychopath. This is what my fiance was taught in his psych work. 4: A psychopath has delusions, a sociopath does not. That's what I was taught in my psych classes, and in my peer counseling training.

ASPD is a whole other beast. People with ASPD can be sociopaths or psychopaths, but they don't have to be. Sometimes the behavior is due to sadism, sometimes it is a reactive behavior to abuse, sometimes (but rarely) it's a cultural thing (which should negate the diagnosis, but often doesn't), often it's revenge oriented. And not all psychopaths and sociopaths have Antisocial Personality Disorder. Sociopaths and psychopaths can be very well behaved. If they learn that it is in their best interests to comply with social norms, they will strive to do so. And they often succeed. I have a friend who is a sociopath. Well, "friend" stretches it a bit, but I've known him my whole life. We get along fine, as long as we both follow the rules. He is not well behaved, but he isn't a criminal. Really he's just not a very good person. He doesn't try THAT hard to fit in.

So if we can't agree on a definition, especially because two other social sciences use those terms and they don't reference the DSM-IV, it makes it damned hard to count them. Counting epileptics is easy. Counting schizophrenics is a piece of cake. We know what those things are, they have specific symptoms that lead to specific behaviors, and when all else fails, they all have the same general brain abnormalities that show up on a scan. And there is such a thing as a "Sociopath Brain". Not all sociopaths have it.

It's like trying to count people who are "violent". Violent in deed? Violent in thought? Do you have to actually hurt someone or can you just obsess on it without being labelled violent? How violent? Do bar fights count? Beating up the guy who tried to go too far with your sister? If you were out of your mind at the time, does that count? Self defense? You have to really specify what you consider violent, and you are going to discard three or four definitions that someone else is going to consider essential to their definition. Same with sociopathy. How much does someone have to not care? Is there a scale? Why are we so sure it's untreatable?

It's a mess.

Bringing it back around, Jack the Ripper didn't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath. It helps, if you're going to carve up women, but it isn't necessary. I tend to think he wasn't delusional, but that's because the biology of delusions is so incredibly complicated that There is such a small window of time when a personal is so delusional to believe in, and act on those delusions but not being so delusional that it becomes their reality, at which point people tend to stop caring about getting caught. Richard Chase was really far gone. As was Mullin, referred to by Nemo. Neither was especially careful, but they had no rational victim selection process. Mullin shot people, beat people, both killers were seen, Mullin killed in front of witnesses at least twice... it took so long for them to get caught because there was nothing to track them by. The cops couldn't warn prostitutes, or keep an eye on suburban housewives. It was a total crapshoot as to who was going to be killed next. A prosecutor for Mullin once told me "Never underestimate the success of random choice". It's how both of them killed as many as they did..

And that's typical of a psychopathic schizophrenic killer. But that's not Jack. Jack had a sophisticated system of victim selection. He was smart, he was careful, he was present and aware. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew that if he was caught he would be punished. Otherwise he would have done it in front of witnesses. He was not frenzied, he was not out of control, He paced out his murders, which is very uncharacteristic of someone who is delusional. And he had a plan. A pretty complex plan. Lure victim, kill victim, cut victim open, remove uterus, take it away to be dealt with later. I think to be eaten. He doesn't eat it at the scene. He didn't have time. That show a level of sophistication that a hallucinating schizophrenic rarely possesses. I mean, we see Paranoid Schizophrenics on tv who have secret rooms lined with tinfoil with files on the Kennedy assassination or whatever. Almost never happens. Far more typical is hiding in a bathroom curled in fetal position absolutely crippled by fear. I don't think Jack was Schizophrenic. I think he well could have been a psychopath, but if he was cannibalizing his victims, that would require a bit more in the way of mental illness. Unless it was a fetish at which point, there is LITERALLY no accounting for taste. Pardon the pun.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In all fairness F.M., this paraphrase you put together was not Swanson giving his opinion of Kosminski, it was Swanson justifying the words of his old boss.

Where Anderson concluded with; ..."but he refused to give evidence against him", Swanson provides justification by adding...

"because the suspect was also a Jew and also, because his evidence would convict the suspect, and [therefore] witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind".

"murderer being hanged" is only a reasonable conclusion derived from the 'second' previous "because" statement. It is not Swanson's opinion, its a matter of fact, assuming the second previous statement was correct.

I think the context of Swanson's words are that he is offering justification by way of two statements each leading with a "because" . He himself is not giving his opinion on whether Kosminski was the murderer, which I suspect has been the main assumption.

Swanson is not saying "this is what I thought", he is saying, "this is what Anderson thought", and why.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,

It's not a matter of fact that giving evidence will result in a conviction. I think this demonstrates the strength of Swanson's conviction.

Anyway, I think the point of your post was to say that Swanson's comments were based upon the thoughts of others.

I think there's a flaw in your logic.

Swanson gives us the details. This would suggest that Swanson is best placed to give us the details: he is the one closest to the event.