Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Tom_Wescott]

At this time and place, the IWES was aspiring to be a union hall. An organizing place. Socialism. Worker's rights. Not anarchism per se. These men were not anarchists. They were called anarchists, and the club was called an anarchists club sometimes in the press, and by the police. But it was like a nascent union hall, appealing to mostly the immigrant population.

You're half right.

An anarchist for instance was the man who blew himself up with his own bomb at the Royal Observatory Park, Greenwich in 1894. And the police raided the Autonomie Club. An event which, for one thing, totally overshadowed the Sun articles that week implying Tom Cutbush was the Ripper. That's an anarchist.

The Autonomie Club was the sister organization of the Berner Street Club.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paddy]

Berner Street Club

Things must have started hotting up in 1889 aroiund there ?

The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Apr 09, 1889

[harry]

In answer to post 310." Kosminski was the suspect' is a statement and/or a claim.Doesn't matter whether it was Anderson or Joe Blow around the corner who made it,fairness requires that the reason he was suspect be given.Now someone tell me what the reason was,because neither Anderson or Sw anson does.In addition the evidence should be reasonable.As it stands,some people accept without question.I don't,and I do not wish posters to say that I should.Anderson and S wanson were as liable to be stating untruths as the next man,and I am not swayed by any arguement to the contrary.

[Paddy]

Some Abraham Michals or similar in 1891 census....

Abraham Michaels 62 Berner street born 1857 St George in the East
Abraham Michels 2 Brunswick buildings Goulston St born 1867 Poland
Abraham Michael Convict Portsea Born 1855 London

Interesting !

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pat. Yes, one of Diemshitz's co-defendants, Israel Sunshine, lived in the very building in Goulston Street that the graffiti had been written on. And that's very interesting about Abraham Michaels...He either lived in Berner Street, Goulston Street, or he was in prison!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paddy]

I have always thought there must be a connection with Whitechapel or Spittalfields
I have been looking for family or home town connections there........
But Possibly it could be club associates (The Juwes ?) Its intresting !
Hope this didnt get too off topic
I'm afraid I reel off theories not because they are mine, but just to see if they fit, my biggest problem keeping on topic !
Off to bed now, Thanks for interesting talk....

I still think witness might have been a police informant though !

Pat

[Monty]

OK Another theory folks........

In Henrys memoir in the Thomsons weekly advertiser he mentions seeing an informer..(I believe this was later on another case though)
The Informer actually was at 81 Greenfield street. I think it was possibly a Jewish reception or lodging place before it became a Synagogue.
Sorry I am not quoting the source but I shall look. This particular informer would not be the witness in question however.

But what if the witness was one of the CIDs informants from that area. Even if they did identify AK or whoever, how would that stand in a trial?
If they were known informants and known to take a bung now and then, would they be a reliable witness?

Pat

Hi Pat,

Firstly I'd like to thank you and Chris for the article. An essential step along the path as it were.

It depends on if it was an informant or undercover. I know the word 'informant' is used but sometimes that's a Police term used to disguise the undercover work.

You are right, there would an attempt to discredit the witness so the prosecution would rarely use such witnesses. There is a difference between witness and informant and the police woud be loathed to 'out' them.

Whoever the witness was I'm pretty confident they were not an informant and that they were almost certainly connected with the City or the Eddowes connection.

If you are looking at a Kosminski/City connection then you need to view Aarons City connections or those associated with him.

In my humble opinion of course.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"How do you get a violent crazy guy in a carriage for a 45 minute trip out of town, in secret? Why bother going away to do it, instead of at some local station? "

I am sure that this has been suggested before, but since I canīt recall if it has been, or, indeed, what it yielded (if anything), I will try it again:
If the suspect we deal with was taken into custody and brought all the way from London to that Seaside Home, then surely that would not be for any lack of other places, closer to the East End, where a witness confrontation could be performed?
Isnīt the obvious inference here that there was someone at this Seaside Home who could or would not make the journey to the East End, somebody who was vital to the ID process? The witness, as it were?

What has been said on this suggestion before, anybody who remembers? There was some relative of Aarons who owned a seaside house too, I believe, and I guess this has been brought up too?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

If the suspect we deal with was taken into custody and brought all the way from London to that Seaside Home, then surely that would not be for any lack of other places, closer to the East End, where a witness confrontation could be performed?

There was a discussion for a whikle, wasn't there errata, about whether DSS confused the Seaside Home (Brighton) with the SEAMAN'S Home (london) - but that seemed to get dismissed.

Isnīt the obvious inference here that there was someone at this Seaside Home who could or would not make the journey to the East End, somebody who was vital to the ID process? The witness, as it were?

I see a number of options:

* the SH was discreet and away from London - it might have been possibly secure;
* a police witness was convalescing there - too ill to travel?;
* someone lived in Brighton or had links there (Sagar, Hiram Levy???)
* depending on Kosminski's state of mind, it might have been a bit more secure than an ordinary house;
* it was a neutral place - especially if CITY CID did the transportation or were helping with an non-regulation process.

There may be others.

There was some relative of Aarons who owned a seaside house too, I believe, and I guess this has been brought up too?

I'm not aware of that. But DSS used CAPITAL letters to start each word of the Seaside Home and in my view meant something by that. The dates seem roughly right for him to have used the SH and I see no reason to question that except in keeping an open mind.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this, Phil!

The Seamanīs Home in London - do you recall WHY it was dismissed? ANy London address would seem a lot more plausible to me than taking both witness and suspect to a Seaside Home along the coast!


"I see a number of options:
the SH was discreet and away from London - it might have been possibly secure"

Well, yes - but secure and discreet spots must have been to be found nearer at hand, quite simply. And arranging a transport with somebody very unwilling, his hands tied behind his back, is not very discreet per se, is it?

"a police witness was convalescing there - too ill to travel?"

That sounds a fair bit likelier to me - a police witness or someone else.

"someone lived in Brighton or had links there"

... as does this. But I like the previous proposition more - much more.

"depending on Kosminski's state of mind, it might have been a bit more secure than an ordinary house"

Hmm. Why would a "Seaside Home" have any facilities that made it a secure house in this respect? And why would not places nearer to the East End have it too?

"it was a neutral place - especially if CITY CID did the transportation or were helping with an non-regulation process."

Neutral places could have been secured in the East End too.

"I'm not aware of that."

I checked. It turns out that Isaac Abrahams, elder brother of Aaron, owned and ran a boarding house in Ramsgate, but apparently it is not established that he did so as early as 1891. Could have, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

The Seamanīs Home in London - do you recall WHY it was dismissed?

No. Try a search.

... but secure and discreet spots must have been to be found nearer at hand, quite simply. And arranging a transport with somebody very unwilling, his hands tied behind his back, is not very discreet per se, is it?

They clearly felt it was appropriate at the time. As for the "unwilling" and "hands tied" those are your assumptions - we know nothing except that AK was sent "with some difficulty". Those difficulties could have been adminsitration or about liaison.

"a police witness was convalescing there - too ill to travel?"

That sounds a fair bit likelier to me - a police witness or someone else.

I was simply looking at possible reasons, not evaluating them.

"depending on Kosminski's state of mind, it might have been a bit more secure than an ordinary house"

Hmm. Why would a "Seaside Home" have any facilities that made it a secure house in this respect? And why would not places nearer to the East End have it too?

I have no idea - hence the word "might" in my post and the comparison to an ordinary house.

"it was a neutral place - especially if CITY CID did the transportation or were helping with an non-regulation process."

Neutral places could have been secured in the East End too.

But according to the man likely to know (DSS) they went to the Seaside Home. We have to try to understand that.

I checked. It turns out that Isaac Abrahams, elder brother of Aaron, owned and ran a boarding house in Ramsgate, but apparently it is not established that he did so as early as 1891. Could have, though.

I think I have a book on that published a couple of years ago - author was someone from casebook as I recall. I'll check. My view would be though that the way it was referred to, Seaside Home meant the police establishment in Brighton. Our police experts seem to agree.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"As for the "unwilling" and "hands tied" those are your assumptions - we know nothing except that AK was sent "with some difficulty"."

No, they are not my "assumptions", Phil - they are my bad; I mixed the Seaside Home transport up with the later incarceration.

"My view would be though that the way it was referred to, Seaside Home meant the police establishment in Brighton. Our police experts seem to agree."

Resulting in a TRUE assumption.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

But in truth, he wasn't under the protection of the Russian Consulate. Firstly, Jews from the Pale had no status with any consulate, and secondly Russia had some problems.

As I said, it's difficult to imagine the Russian Consulate would have shown any interest in practice. But legally there's no doubt that Aaron was a subject of the Tsar. (The gubernia of Kalisz, which included Klodawa, was not part of the Pale of Settlement.)

[Phil H]

"My view would be though that the way it was referred to, Seaside Home meant the police establishment in Brighton. Our police experts seem to agree."

Resulting in a TRUE assumption.

Given the personal experience of, and research specifically undertaken by Messrs Evans and Rumbelow over many years; and the concensus that seems to exist among serious authors and those I respect on Casebook, I am satisfied to the extent that I would not question the assumption on present evidence.

Nothing can be guaranteed, of course.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Exactly: Assumption, thus.

The best,
Fisherman