Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Tom_Wescott]

Dammit to hell, I loaded up the same poster as before. Check this space later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Malcolm]

It's somewhat ironic that Aaron Kosminski actually outlived Anderson by several months (if, in fact he was "Anderson's suspect").

[Hunter]

Anderson and Swanson were senior officials, they were dealing the the policy, administrative and "political" aspects of crime in the cpital. From late 1888 Swanson ceased to be the co-ordinator.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=190172&postcount=783

[harry]

Brideswell,
You may state or claim that I am a liar,or a robber, or a murderer,or that I am suspect of such things,but that statement or claim carries no weight,unless you support those claims and statements with evidence.Your name and position mean nothing.But alli we keep hearing is we must believe Anderson and Swanson because they were in a position to know.Know what?W hat had Kosminski done?
Reminds me of the fellow that made the claim to his friend that he had once driven a herd of cattle(this was before the channel tunnel)all the way from London to Paris.When the friend queired how he crossed the English channel,the fellow said,"I didn't go that way".

[Tom_Wescott]

Brideswell,
You may state or claim that I am a liar,or a robber, or a murderer,or that I am suspect of such things,but that statement or claim carries no weight,unless you support those claims and statements with evidence.

Just for the record, I have ample documentary evidence that Harry is all of these things. I will be publishing it all in my upcoming book, Harry is a Bad, Bad Man, co-authored by John Bennett.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

That is what we are trying to find out, harry.

The evidence from the period suggests that senior officials (not only Sir RA and DSS, but also MM) mention or imply someone called "Kosminski" as a leading suspect. (Whether that is Aaron is another matter but there is no other Kosminski that fits the period data as well and he does not do so perfectly).

The police appear to have had enough evidence to hold some sort of ID at the Seaside Home, but were unable to take the prosecution forward because the witness would not testify. So, we can infer they had something on Kosminski and it appears to have convinced Sir RA and DSS at least.

Other than that we have no direct evidence today in the absence of the relevant suspect file or other papers, BUT he was in residence in the area, has recently potentially associated with the aberrant murder scene (Berners St); did suffer from mental health issues. (That's more than we can say for other named suspects of the time such as Druitt, apart possibly from the last.) There is also corroboration of other parts of DSS' account.

In terms of this thread, in my view, it makes Aaron Kosminski a VIABLE suspect, but we certainly have no evidence to say with certainty that he was JtR and we cannot dismiss him.

The old historical rule applies surely, absence of evidence (because of loss, or retention) is not evidence of absence.

For me - and this is just a personal view - Kosminski is closer to the "type" of man I currently see as being "Jack" (and I also reserve judgement on the number of crimes to be asscoiated with that killer) than all the "toff" and doctors also mentioned.

Phil H

Phil H

[harry]

Tom,
I refuse to confess.Prove your case.Cheers.

[harry]

Phil H,
I have said all I can say in defence of Kosminski.I wish you and others well in your search for information that support's a case agaist that person.As I see it,at present there is little case at all.

[PaulB]

Brideswell,
You may state or claim that I am a liar,or a robber, or a murderer,or that I am suspect of such things,but that statement or claim carries no weight,unless you support those claims and statements with evidence.Your name and position mean nothing.But alli we keep hearing is we must believe Anderson and Swanson because they were in a position to know.Know what?W hat had Kosminski done?
Reminds me of the fellow that made the claim to his friend that he had once driven a herd of cattle(this was before the channel tunnel)all the way from London to Paris.When the friend queired how he crossed the English channel,the fellow said,"I didn't go that way".

Harry,
When we look at a source we ask questions of it, one of which is whether or not the author was in a position to know the facts of what he described, or whether he was repeating hearsay, rumour, or gossip. If Joe Bloggs claimed that you are a liar, robber, or murderer, then it almost certainly wouldn't be given much credence, but if the author was your lawyer or was a policeman or was somebody who knew you well, it might be given weight. Of course, other questions would then be asked, such as how the source knew you, whether he had been involved in any investigation of you, whether he had a grudge against you, whether he was generally reliable or not, and so on. That's what is meant when Swanson is described as being "in a position to know" - he was a senior officer, he had had overall responsibility for the investigation, he had a good knowledge of it, he was close to Anderson, and so on and so on. If there is anyone who knew that of which he wrote then it was Swanson. That's not to say he has to be believed, it's simply saying that prima facie he is a good and reliable source.

[Bridewell]

Kosminski

Brideswell,
You may state or claim that I am a liar,or a robber, or a murderer,or that I am suspect of such things,but that statement or claim carries no weight,unless you support those claims and statements with evidence.Your name and position mean nothing.But alli we keep hearing is we must believe Anderson and Swanson because they were in a position to know.Know what?W hat had Kosminski done?
Reminds me of the fellow that made the claim to his friend that he had once driven a herd of cattle(this was before the channel tunnel)all the way from London to Paris.When the friend queired how he crossed the English channel,the fellow said,"I didn't go that way".

Harry,

I'm not accusing anything of anything. I merely point out that Kosminski was a suspect, on the basis that Swanson says that he was.
You don't think that Swanson's statement "Kosminski was the suspect" constitutes evidence that someone of that name was indeed a suspect. Fair enough. I believe that it does. We disagree. It happens. We're both entitled to our opinions.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Harry,
When we look at a source we ask questions of it, one of which is whether or not the author was in a position to know the facts of what he described, or whether he was repeating hearsay, rumour, or gossip. If Joe Bloggs claimed that you are a liar, robber, or murderer, then it almost certainly wouldn't be given much credence, but if the author was your lawyer or was a policeman or was somebody who knew you well, it might be given weight. Of course, other questions would then be asked, such as how the source knew you, whether he had been involved in any investigation of you, whether he had a grudge against you, whether he was generally reliable or not, and so on. That's what is meant when Swanson is described as being "in a position to know" - he was a senior officer, he had had overall responsibility for the investigation, he had a good knowledge of it, he was close to Anderson, and so on and so on. If there is anyone who knew that of which he wrote then it was Swanson. That's not to say he has to be believed, it's simply saying that prima facie he is a good and reliable source.

Hello Paul.

We do have occasional opinions from Swanson by way of police reports well into Oct. 1888, and one from Abberline consistent with Swanson up to November, nowhere is there a hint of any suspicions against Kosminski.
Both these officers do name those few for whom they do hold suspicion, Kosminski is not among them.

From what we read, both Anderson & Swanson developed suspicions about Kosminski long (months/years?) after the last murder (Kelly), so what was the basis for their suspicions, being that they developed so late?
I ask this because, clearly, it was not based on evidence.

That being the case, that they only suspected him long after the murders, then "Swanson being in a position to know" has no relevance in this debate, Swanson was not in that role at the time he claimed to have formed his suspicions. And, back in the fall of 1888 when he was in that role, he did not suspect Kosminski. Swanson did list those who the police were concerned about at the time and Kosminski was not one of them.

Best wishes, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

I often see it mentioned that Koz was suspected 'long after the murders'. What precisely does that mean to you? Does someone becoming a suspect years after a crime make them a weaker suspect than someone who was suspected earlier? I'm curious what the implication is when I read that he was suspected 'long after the murders'. I know you can't speak for others, but what's your opinion?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paddy]

Hi Tom
It could be that there were earlier suspicions ie: the lodger case. Where I did read that it was said that a Jewish family brought the laundry with blood on and provided an false explaination as to its existance. Maybe one of Aarons family?

He was insane from time to time

He fitted the discription

Then finally attacked his sister with a knife, but she did not prosecute him.
(I always wondered how the police knew about this if she didnt charge him)

Just my views.........................

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pat,

Actually, the Jewish tailor who allegedly brought the bloody shirt to Mrs. Kuer was a West End man, and presumably better off than the Kozminskis, since he was using a laundress, but not so well off that he'd pay for a West End laundress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Hi Pat,

Actually, the Jewish tailor who allegedly brought the bloody shirt to Mrs. Kuer was a West End man, and presumably better off than the Kozminskis, since he was using a laundress, but not so well off that he'd pay for a West End laundress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am not quite sure where you got that from.

From the reports I read, the man was a ladies tailor who worked for "a West-end house." I am not sure if this is the quote you are thinking of. But such a statement could be made of many East End tailors, who were sub-contractors who worked for larger tailoring outfits in the West End and around St. Paul's.

"He was a ladies tailor, working for a West-end house, and did not reside in the Leman-street district. " -- Evening News, October 18, 1888

RH