Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The main inconsistency for me is that long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated in an asylum, the Ripper investigation was still going on, including D.S.Swanson, and (in part) R. Anderson.

Which, BTW, speaks well of these guys as cops, no? Even if they thought they had their guy, but with no hard proof. So they continued to investigate new killings that looked like they might be Jack's work.

[Monty]

Hunter,

An absolutely outstanding post, one of the most astute I've ever read Cris.


Monty

[Hunter]

In regard to Donald Swanson's role and perception...

He was the most senior official involved in this case who was actually trained in investigative procedure and had acquired years of on-the-job experience. A study of other cases he was involved in gives demonstrable clues to his methods and the application of investigative practices in place by the CID at the time. Understanding this is critical in analyzing what took place during and after the Whitechapel Murders and where the CID's - and Swanson's in particular - strengths and weaknesses lie.

The main sources of information in a criminal investigation were informants - or 'noses' as they were called. In the days before scientific forensics had effectively evolved to disseminate evidence, informants were vital in directing attention to a certain suspect and then hopefully gaining a confession by direct confrontation with the suspect or by 'shadowing' that person until he is actually caught in the act. Swanson's career is full of cases like these and this method - for the most part - worked.

What they ran into with the Whitechapel Murders was a type of killer who confided in no one; someone who struck with no discernible motive, left few physical clues for even the basic forensics, and no witnesses to the actual crimes. They had never faced this before and their usual methods of detection garnered nothing concrete and - at best - vaguely circumstantial. They were left with persons who's behavior was suspicious and maybe one or two witnesses who may have seen a victim with a man shortly before she was murdered, and many people who deluded Swanson's desk with theories. He had to process and eliminate each and every one.

In an attempt to narrow their focus on probable suspects, they developed a profile, probably based on Thomas Bond's thesis, as to what type of individual that focus should be on. Most of these officials agreed that they were dealing with someone who was 'sexually insane', or on a lesser scale, someone who was violent against women out of retribution. It is the one consistent theme throughout. Nothing that has been learned since disputes the idea that they may have been correct in those assumptions. Even if this profile is correct, then who could it have been?

The City CID checks asylum records while the Met interviews people in the area to determine the comings and goings of certain individuals. Some of these people are shadowed, as procedure dictates. It is a process that continues long after the death of Mary Kelly and involves probably hundreds of 'suspects'. Somewhere in this process 'Kosminski' shows up. There is nothing substantial to indict him, but he ticks enough boxes that an ID is attempted under special arrangement, probably due to the delicate fact that he is a Jew and in a deteriorating mental condition. Only one person would have been qualified to conduct such a procedure and that would have been Swanson. Looking at his position in the investigation and the policies of the CID in other cases involving witnesses, I have little doubt that he was directly involved. The structure of his comments in Anderson's book only serves to reinforce that conclusion. Anderson may have been involved in giving his authorization, but maybe nothing more.

However this ID turned out, the result might have been compelling to Swanson, but not conclusive at the time. As a professional, he had to continue to follow any leads to other possible suspects who came to his attention afterward, because it was his job. He understood that. He pays special attention to the Coles murder; conducting his own personal interrogations and follow ups months later. If you look at the timing of this murder and the possible timing of the events surrounding Kozminski, it easy to see why he did so. When Sadler was cleared of the preceding murders - if not for the murder of Coles - Kozminski's candidacy becomes stronger. And subsequent suspects reveal nothing substantial to change that.

By 1896, it all becomes a revelation of hindsight, later strengthened by Anderson's conclusions, based on the information provided by his lieutenant, that this Polish Jew was their man. With Anderson's public writings, culminating in his 1910 publication, Swanson is impressed that his old master determined that the suspect he (Swanson) was involved with was actually the killer. That would explain the flurry of annotations in this section and the extra details he provides. Whatever reservations Swanson may have previously had about the culpability of the suspect, Kosminski, Anderson's reinforcing comments gives him reason to now dispel them.

Swanson's annotations are a reenactment of these events as he remembers them, fueled by his 'old master's' assertions that they had actually put Jack the Ripper away after all. He's recreating these events to corroborate himself. Whether he was right or wrong, or that he may have reached faulty conclusions about the actions of the witness and the response of the suspect will probably always be a matter of debate. But for him, it obviously offered a measure of closure for a difficult and challenging aspect of his career. That he probably added to his notations on more that one occasion emphasizes this to me.

I apologize for going long here. Probably should have saved it for an article instead of a post on a message board, because it will soon get buried in a host of other posts.

[Phil Carter]

Thats how I see it Phil, too much emphasis is being placed on Swanson/Kosminski rather than, what I think is the true situation, Swanson/Anderson, with Kosminski being incidental.

Swanson has picked up Anderson's memoirs and added extra detail by way of explaining or clarifying why Anderson came to the conclusion he did.

There's no reason to suppose Swanson would include his own private suspicions in someone else's memoirs, especially as Swanson was adverse to putting his own thoughts on paper anywhere else.

Had Swanson created his own memoirs then it might be a different matter but so far as we know Swanson was not the type of person to give his opinion in writing. Swanson was only saying, this is why Anderson came to that conclusion, and why.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Thanks, again, I agree.

To me, I find the expalanation of the simple mistakes in Swanson's writing of the occurrances due to the fact that he has mis-remembered Anderson's story. That just seems logical to me.

Had I tried to recall a told story from a while ago, the details would be less accurate. I believe most people would have that problem.

Also, if the story was Swanson's, then it would give extra reason for the details to be correct.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

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

When he talks about the witness's reasons for refusing to give evidence, another possibility is that Swanson is recording (or more likely amplifying and interpreting) something the witness said.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I agree with this. Expansion on Anderson's story.

best wishes

Phil

Thats how I see it Phil, too much emphasis is being placed on Swanson/Kosminski rather than, what I think is the true situation, Swanson/Anderson, with Kosminski being incidental.

Swanson has picked up Anderson's memoirs and added extra detail by way of explaining or clarifying why Anderson came to the conclusion he did.

There's no reason to suppose Swanson would include his own private suspicions in someone else's memoirs, especially as Swanson was adverse to putting his own thoughts on paper anywhere else.

Had Swanson created his own memoirs then it might be a different matter but so far as we know Swanson was not the type of person to give his opinion in writing. Swanson was only saying, this is why Anderson came to that conclusion, and why.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Jon,

I agree with this. Expansion on Anderson's story.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Phil,

Swanson would not be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that the likely Jack the Ripper was already locked up.

I think I've just proposed an alternative; a reason as to why he may have done.

Now if the killer or killers were found, either dead, abroad or incarcerated, that message would have been pressed home for all it is worth. It wasn't done by a long chalk in 1896, nor 1895..nor 1891. Governments do not like having egg on their faces.

That's a matter of opinion.

There is good reason to think that in this case it may have been deemed to have been expedient to let sleeping dogs lie.

The evidence against Kosminski is circumstantial at best. The evidence against Aaron Kosminski doesn't even exist. And that point has to now be accepted.

I think it's been said that we have no visibility as to the evidence against Kosminski. What we're really discussing is Swanson's objectivity and reason, i.e. when he said: "murderer would have hanged", was it a reasonable statement?

[Phil Carter]

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

Edited to add:

1) Swanson continuing on the case - no problem for me as I would have done the same - in the interests of objectivity.
2) The Seaside Home - no problem for me as I would have done the same - secure, secret location, the fewer people involved the better.
3) Believed he was dead - demonstrably a problem.
4) Only giving the surname Kosminski - could be argued either way in terms of whether this detracts from the ID - not significant for me.

So, I'm left with why Swanson thought he was dead.

Hello FM,

Thanks for the thoughts and opinions..appreciated.

I would willingly agree if it wasn't for the fact that Swanson wasn't running the investiagtion.. he took orders from above. Also that Swanson himself was in the thick of trying to name Jack the Ripper with Sadler. Swanson would not be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that the likely Jack the Ripper was already locked up.

I believe that something important may be overlooked here... politics.

In order to have the trust of the poplace, and indeed, the nation in general, both the police and the Home Office, Government even, would have calmed the situation as best they could. The fear that was around in the East End lasted many years after 1888. The investigation ended in 1896. Suddenly. Without a reason, the case was left unanswered.

Now if the killer or killers were found, either dead, abroad or incarcerated, that message would have been pressed home for all it is worth. It wasn't done by a long chalk in 1896, nor 1895..nor 1891. Governments do not like having egg on their faces.

In addition, many thousands of pounds were used in trying to hunt this killer down. That isn't something one does if the killer is known to have been locked away up to 4 years previously.

The evidence against Kosminski is circumstantial at best. The evidence against Aaron Kosminski doesn't even exist. And that point has to now be accepted.

Like it or not, we are where we are. A dead end. Unless something of serious substance comes up.. that is where many see the Kosminski situation..many more than before, I'd wager. Just like there are many less Sickert, Maybrick and PAV theorists. Their heyday has passed. So has Kosminski's.

Swanson thinking the killer was dead? That is where the medical student idea comes in..one which Swanson himself made comment upon previously.

best wishes

Phil

[bigjon]

And I lied about the 1 in 20. It's actually 1 in 25, it comes from The Sociopath Next Door which cites three studies and a government survey. It's impossible to know how accurate those figures are, but this particular set of numbers has caught on recently.

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The main inconsistency for me is that long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated in an asylum, the Ripper investigation was still going on, including D.S.Swanson

Phil,

Swanson's continued work on the case does not necessarily imply that Swanson was 50/50 on Kosminski.

There is a risk associated with any decision, no matter how water-tight it appears to be. Perhaps Swanson's ongoing activity is an indication of his objectivity and rigour in that he was as certain as a man can be regarding Kosminski, while accepting, as any reasonable man does, that there is always room for an alternative no matter how unlikely that alternative appears to be. I suppose it is a philosophical stance that somewhere along the line we can all be led astray when making a decision, no matter how certain we feel.

In the event Swanson's ongoing work was an indication of his objectivity and rigour, then what does this say about the statement: "suspect was identified, witness refused to give evidence, murderer would have hanged"?

Edited to add:

1) Swanson continuing on the case - no problem for me as I would have done the same - in the interests of objectivity.
2) The Seaside Home - no problem for me as I would have done the same - secure, secret location, the fewer people involved the better.
3) Believed he was dead - demonstrably a problem.
4) Only giving the surname Kosminski - could be argued either way in terms of whether this detracts from the ID - not significant for me.

So, I'm left with why Swanson thought he was dead.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Cris,

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful reply.

I understand your use of the evolution of the study in the behavior of the Great White Shark and how some predetermined notions on that subject were later invalidated by further research. I'm not sure if it is that relevant when comparing scientific study of a biological nature to the dissemination of information pertaining to historical events. The methods and criteria are different, but I get your point...

Thank you. The evolution of historical study was indeed the thought I had..and agree that although the two subjects cannot themselves be compared, there is a certain similarity, in base, historically speaking.

The inconsistencies in the information we have, and the fact that there was no consensus among all of the officials involved, can only lead to the conclusion that we can't determine that, and that whatever evidence existed against him was not decisive... otherwise we would not even be here.

The main inconsistency for me is that long after Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated in an asylum, the Ripper investigation was still going on, including D.S.Swanson, and (in part) R. Anderson. We talk of weight of circumstances..and this fact is imho, heavy, weighing down against Aaron Kosminski actually being a murderer. There has been, to my mind, no viable reason suggested why a massive investigation should continue in the manner it did involving especially D.S.Swanson still hunting for Jack the Ripper.

To consider the man and his behaviour, we must look at what we know of the man up to and including his incarceration. And we have. And we have found nothing to even suggest the man could be described as a "murderer".
Those two points made me realise a long time ago that Aaron Kosminski could not be the answer. I have seen many reasons put forward to the contrary, but like others, I am not swayed by ever widening circumstantial possibility.
It is simply, in my mind, time to move on. He doesn't have to be discarded. But promotion of Aaron Kosminski is now, I feel, at a "dead end".

There have been suggestions that Anderson was barking up the wrong tree. There are those, myself included, that believe anybody pushing this theory today are doing exactly that. To defend one's position is fine.. I have no problem with that at all, but to dismiss fairly obvious facts that have considerable bearing on the study itself, is unforgivable, imho. It is misleading to the wider public in general...because historical evaluation changes..and that must be accepted with good grace. Peter Benchley did after having raked in an awful lot of money from his novel and his role in the construction of his film.

It has got to the point where Aaron Kosminski's name is now so entwined with the "Jack the Ripper" murders, that thanks to endless promotion, all without proof nor evidence of direct substance I may add, the public in general are aware of the Polish Jew theory, though not on the PAV level of general "knowledge", nor the "Queen's physician". And the horrible thing is that this poor Polish Jew is innocent of the crime of murder..and any type of association heavier than weak circumstantial points, all without Aaron Kosminski's name, is really wrong, imho.

I see a developing of historical perception taking place. The Kosminski idea has run it's course. It will now take far more tangible evidence to change many minds on the subject, to swing favour towards the theory. That historical perception just has to be accepted. Like it or not. Because nothing is actually going to stop it unless naturally, it changes it's course.
More Kosminski promotion on a large commercial scale, with the stalemate we have now, will only be looked at, in my eyes, as trying to get a meal ticket off the bandwagon... a bandwagon where the wheels, if not having fallen off already, are decidedly loose and wobbly. And that is just the way current perception is from many. Like it or not.

Thank you again for your reply. I may not be able to reply for a while, and apologise in advance. (that applies to all)

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

In every area of history, there will be debate on the subject in question, to a certain degree. It is no different within Ripperology. And if the re-introduced promotion of the Kosminski suspect theory is not recieving the positive attention hoped for by some, then it is simply because times have changed and the theory itself has been relegated in the minds of many. Whether corect or nay, it is the way things are..and something we must accept as part of the development of the genre. Some will dislike this intensely. Some will applaud it. But whatever happens and in whichever direction the genre tourns, it simply has to be accepted.

These are my thoughts on the subject. I believe, being one og those who questions (especially) the candicacy of Aaron Kosminski as the Whitechapel Murderer, that it is only correct that those promoting Aaron Kosminski have to see that reaction against their theory is a sign of the times. Historical analysis is develping all the time..and that is the way it should be..like it or not.

Hi Phil,
You've offered some interesting things to consider; not the least, the way historical analysis is perceived... which is the angle of this series of events that I am interested in.

I understand your use of the evolution of the study in the behavior of the Great White Shark and how some predetermined notions on that subject were later invalidated by further research. I'm not sure if it is that relevant when comparing scientific study of a biological nature to the dissemination of information pertaining to historical events. The methods and criteria are different, but I get your point... Instead, rather than delve into a comparison of biological science and the evaluation of historical events, lets get to the heart of the subject--the suspect Kosminski, who many have determined is likely a Polish Jew named Aaron Kozminski, and where we are now with this.

It is beyond reasonable doubt now that three senior officials, contemporaneous to the investigation into these murders, concluded with some varying degree that a certain individual was, indeed, a suspect for some of the Whitechapel Murders. Someone named Kosminski was that suspect because that name is stated by two of these officials and there is no indication that the third was not writing about the same man. Of course, there are other contemporaneous sources - Smith, Reid, Abberline, etc - who came to different conclusions as to who the killer was or if such knowledge even existed. There could be a number of reasons for this and I will not expand further in the limited scope of a post on a thread. So we'll get back to this particular suspect himself.

Because this 'Kosminski's' first name was not stated by anyone, modern researchers have searched for the best 'fit' to this surname. That appears to be Aaron Kosminski, but there are caveats with this, and one - Martin Fido - has even proposed that this surname may have been incorrect and has offered another Polish Jew based mainly upon the inconsistencies existing in the time of placement into an asylum and time of death of this individual. It is a tantalizing concept, but it is difficult to figure how both Macnaghten and Swanson would have the surname wrong and there is just enough information - despite these inconsistencies mentioned - to determine that Aaron Kozminski is likely to be the person in question.

So, was he Jack the Ripper? The inconsistencies in the information we have, and the fact that there was no consensus among all of the officials involved, can only lead to the conclusion that we can't determine that, and that whatever evidence existed against him was not decisive... otherwise we would not even be here.

At this remove, we can't even determine if the 'circs' against this man were based on hard evidence or something less tangible. I believe it was the latter, and that was why this failed ID was so important to Swanson and Anderson and why they stressed it so. Left with that, they just saw to it that the man was simply put away. When no more murders of this type took place - at least in their minds - over time that cemented these two officials' opinions that somewhere in the process they had gotten their man, even though Swanson continued the investigation after that had taken place. They may have been correct in their hindsight or they may have been sadly mistaken. Their views were obviously not shared by others - either because they were not privy to the information Swanson and, therefore, Anderson possessed, or they were and saw it lacking.

Is Aaron Kozminski even a viable suspect? If you look at the opinions of valid historians who have written about these murders, one thing that is consistent is the opinion that if a suspect ever emerges who may be reasonably considered, he has to come from the police investigation itself, because it is from that which most of the remaining information exist. I don't know if I agree with that totally, but by its nature it would carry considerable weight, because we will never possess the information they had available. There have been many suspects proposed in the subsequent years who did not even register contemporaneously - some with aspects that are interesting, and some who are utterly ridiculous. None have ever passed the test of hard scrutiny because the information in each irrefutably reaches a dead end at some point and the theories that promulgate them are in dispute.

When it comes to the contemporaneous suspect, Kosminski, we only know that he was just that. But unlike the other names mentioned at the time, he crosses the minds of three senior officials. At the same time, unlike some of the others, there is not enough information - despite the years of extensive research - to definitively refute the reasons why he was suspected in the first place.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=bigjon;246024]

But the modern criteria for the psychopath developed in the 1940's by Cleckley. And the DSM published in 1952 had a disorder named sociopathic personality disturbance which shared many criteria with Cleckley's disorder. While these may not have been as reliable as today's test, they were around and could be diagnosed/referenced. I'm not sure where you get your figure of 5% being the predominance of psychopathy, as most studies seem to estimate around .5-1%.

Sociopathy was known, but since he wasn't looking to either include or exclude sociopaths, he didn't go through the effort of determining whether any of his subjects were sociopaths. I mean, I would think it was important, but evidently he didn't. And I lied about the 1 in 20. It's actually 1 in 25, it comes from The Sociopath Next Door which cites three studies and a government survey. It's impossible to know how accurate those figures are, but this particular set of numbers has caught on recently.

Perhaps for those who are unfamiliar we should describe just who the sample Macdonald used were - they were sufferers of mental illnesses who had threatened violent behaviour. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the data to see how this is indicative of fetishism and blood lust?

The samle is a little more specific than that. It consisted of patients in a hospital who were hospitalized for threatening violence, as opposed to actually committing a violent act. It was about 50/50 psychotic patients and non psychotic patients. He found that a majority of the sadistic patients (diagnosed sadistic, not just labeled that by a family member or something) had the triad of behaviors in their histories. Thus, the triad could be used to predict criminal behavior. But based on sadism, not on psychopathy.

When I say that it indicates, say, blood lust, I don't mean the triad. I mean the behaviors that make up the triad. Torturing animals indicates sadism, blood lust (literally, as in they experience sexual arousal at the shedding of blood), lack of general empathy. Pyromania always indicates fetishism. Pyromania is a fetish. It also reflects a lack of empathy, antisocial tendencies, antipathy, often it goes with addictive personalities, feelings of powerlessness. Bed wetting past the age of 5 barring physical cause is quite simply a form of anxiety disorder. Kids who do it live in fear or shame. They feel out of control, unsafe. It isn't always due to abuse, but it is always due to anxiety.

Any one of these means nothing. I used to throw my cat in the fish pond, which was quite cruel, but I always thought something different would happen. I couldn't figure out why cat's didn't like water, and I thought it I kept throwing him in, I would see why. I was five. I stopped doing it pretty quickly and I feel bad about it now. My sister wet the bed until she was 11 or 12, but she was a perpetually anxious child with some psychological problem nobody understood, but resolved itself after a couple of years. Like she used to have these wild fits of screaming and punching and destruction for like two years, and then it stopped. Even two of the three is probably fine, though I would hope to god one of those was bed wetting, because I can't see pyromania and animal abuse turning out well. All three indicate a personality who will be drawn to violence. I think it's that these three behaviors combined encompass every personality trait one would expect in a sadistic killer.

I think there are probably other behaviors that could essentially replace one of these three in the triad. I think bullying could substitute for animal abuse, substance abuse for bed wetting, pyromania is pretty distinct though. What I mean is that the kid who is a relentless bully, a violent one or one like those kids who specifically try to get other kids to kill themselves and then laugh about it when they succeed, thats the same personality who skins cats alive, but maybe they don't have access to cats. But bullying IS violence against humans, and the point was to find what precedes that point, so animal abuse is whats used. It's also a little different to cause physical pain and death to an animal, and to cause pain to another kid. It's not better or worse, but killing animals means a desire to end life, to shed blood, that a school bully may not share.

I think the triad has value. I don't think you can morally look at a kid who has the triad and say "It's hopeless, lock them up before they can kill someone". Clearly those behaviors, singly or in the triad need therapy. But the kids I've met who had it were all in that peculiar stage between truly being psychopaths and gaining enough sophistication to fake being normal, and they made my skin crawl. And I've met full grown psychopaths who have committed terrible crimes, and they didn't creep me out. If it was my kid, I would try everything within my power to save them. But I would be trying to turn them into a responsible sociopath. Not a normal kid.