Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Wickerman]

What does "of Jewish appearance" mean? If it means that he had a full beard, peyos, was wearing a wide-brimmed, fur-trimmed hat, and had tzitzis (fringes) on his shirt, then no, I would not expect anyone who was not Jewish to look that way. However, if it just meant that he was olive-skinned, and had dark hair and brown eyes, there are lots of people who "look Jewish," but are not, and there are lots of people who are Jewish, but don't especially look it. That may have been less true 124 years ago, when there were fewer converts and intermarriages, but I'm sure there were people who were born English who happened to have darker complexions than was typical, and in the East End at the time might be mistaken for Jewish. In another part of London, they might be mistaken for Spanish, or something.

Given that there were so many Jews in the East-end, and a number of those were wealthy by East-end standards, an English Eastender may well have used the euphemism, "of Jewish appearance" to describe a respectably dressed man. The euphemism was likely not intended to suggest ethnicity but only social status.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Most evidence, or in many cases, evidence is indeed circumstantial, but not one single instance, which this would be.
A series of circumstances are required to incriminate someone, not one circumstance alone.

Regards, Jon S.

A DA will go to trial with nothing but an eyewitness, if the eyewitness is very convincing, and there is "negative" evidence, as it were, such as the accused having an unsupported alibi (eg, "I was at home, wayching TV"). This is especially true if the witness is the victim, or the witness knew the suspect prior to the crime. In some states in the US, unsupported testimony of a co-conspirator is not allowed-- you've got to have something else, even if is just an impartial witness who saw the accused fleeing the scene at the time of the crime, or a low-res videotape where you never get a good look at the person's face.

The public is getting more and more skeptical of victim IDs, though, and that's probably good, because lots of studies have shown them to be unreliable.

That said, just because a DA will go to trial doesn't mean he will get a conviction. I was on a jury where the case was pretty much victim testimony, and testimony of a co-conspirator. The co-conspirator, who had plea-bargained, either misspoke numerous times, or was just lying. It was all on little details, like whether he already had a weapon with him, or whether the accused suggested returning to his house to get a weapon-- he said one thing, then the other. The victim had not been able to pick the accused out of a line-up, or a stack of photos. It wasn't until he saw him brought into a court for a motion hearing, in a prison jumpsuit, when he was the only black person in the room, that the victim suddenly recognized him as the attacker. He apparently got hysterical, and had a pabic attack, and they brought his "victim counselor," or something in to testify to that.

The jury vote actually went back and forth for a while, and was eventually declared hung, because one woman was philosophically opposed to doubting anything a victim said, and nothing was ever going to convince her to vote "not guilty." That really should have come out in voir dire, when they dismissed someone who said his religion prevented him from passing judgment, and he would vote "not guilty" no matter what. As soon as he said that, some other guy, who was a college student with an exam later that afternoon, who had completely forgotten about his summons until the sheriff showed up and escorted him to court, suddenly remembered that he also belonged to the same religion. He got dismissed, and thank DOYC, because he would have been hell in the jury room.

So, if this witness had been an actual eyewitness to the crime, then yes, it might have been enough.

But, here's another thought: didn't police ever try to bluff confessions back then? "Mr. Kominski, we have a witness who has identified you, and if a jury convicts you, you will hang. However, if you confess, and beg the judge's mercy, you may only go to prison for life." But there is no record of an interview.

[Wickerman]

The implication seems to be that no murderer could have been convicted unless there was an eyewitness to the act of murder.

On the contrary, it's always been the case that suspects could be convicted on circumstantial evidence, and an identification of a suspect at the scene of the crime, close to the time of the murder, could certainly make the different between acquittal and conviction.

Most evidence, or in many cases, evidence is indeed circumstantial, but not one single instance, which this would be.
A series of circumstances are required to incriminate someone, not one circumstance alone.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

In another press report Sagar also endorsed the sighting of Macnaghten's City PC, who "met a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court [Mitre Square]". And, the last time I checked, Druitt wasn't Jewish.

What does "of Jewish appearance" mean? If it means that he had a full beard, peyos, was wearing a wide-brimmed, fur-trimmed hat, and had tzitzis (fringes) on his shirt, then no, I would not expect anyone who was not Jewish to look that way. However, if it just meant that he was olive-skinned, and had dark hair and brown eyes, there are lots of people who "look Jewish," but are not, and there are lots of people who are Jewish, but don't especially look it. That may have been less true 124 years ago, when there were fewer converts and intermarriages, but I'm sure there were people who were born English who happened to have darker complexions than was typical, and in the East End at the time might be mistaken for Jewish. In another part of London, they might be mistaken for Spanish, or something.

[sleekviper]

I highly doubt that Wensley would have put yet another chapter into the crimes; his superior officers had laid out what they had thought, so as with not revealing his identity in 1905, he kept the Ripper case low when he wrote if it were him. That would seem to fit to me. Here was a newbie, seeing fear in the wretched eyes day after day. Eyes looking to him for help, and without being hardened to the plight of those around, it makes an impact that he never forgets. Confusing nearly twenty years with ten would seem to be someone in the hardship day after day. He comes up with some really ingenious plans to solve crimes, and it may have started with having to deal in this mess his first year.

[Chris]

I can't think of anything short of the witness catching the suspect in the act, and we know that never occurred, so the whole claim appears to be hyperbole.

The implication seems to be that no murderer could have been convicted unless there was an eyewitness to the act of murder.

On the contrary, it's always been the case that suspects could be convicted on circumstantial evidence, and an identification of a suspect at the scene of the crime, close to the time of the murder, could certainly make the different between acquittal and conviction.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That is disingenious.

In effect, you're saying that Swanson thought that a possibly innocent man was about to be convicted of murder.

Not at all, Swanson does not know who is guilty or innocent.

Donald Swanson did not think an innocent man was nearly hanged, he is saying that if all had gone as was expected this suspect would have been officially identified, innocent or guilty, I do not know.
Swanson did not know who the killer was, he was not committing himself, Swanson is being purely impartial in these notes. That is what I am saying.

This, was Anderson's memoirs, and these were Anderson's opinions and conclusions. Therefore Swanson is filling in 'between the lines' so to speak, and in the end he provides the name to Anderson's suspect.
That is all he is doing.
Reading anything more into those footnotes is pure conjecture.

Nowhere, have we ever read of Swanson naming his own suspect, he does not appear to be that kind of person. So why argue that he did in this case?

Edited to add: out of sheer curioisty, what do you propose the evidence was? Evidence that would have been good enough for a court of law, in the absence of an argument that Swanson meant hanged by a lynch mob, but not good enough for Swanson?

I can't think of anything short of the witness catching the suspect in the act, and we know that never occurred, so the whole claim appears to be hyperbole.
I suggest the lack of logic which you draw attention to is precisely why we should not take these footnotes at face value. There never was any evidence that could have hung a suspect because that would need to be what I said above - suspect caught in the act.

As professional as I believe he was, these notes written so long after the fact are still not making sense. To what extent they contain hyperbole is debatable, but contain it they must.

No witness ever saw the murderer caught in the act, and that would be necessary for any suspect to be condemned to hang on the results of an I.D. parade alone.
Accept this claim at your peril!

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

If the 1905 married, well-respected businessman was Sagar's suspect, from where on earth did the 1910 insane unmarried low-class Polish Jew arrive?

Also, please clarify to what your encased in quotes "Scotland Yard" refer?

To the "well-known Scotland Yard detective" in the article. I suppose it might just be a retired detective rather than a serving one, but I don't think a City of London man should have been described in that way.

Based on the reports we now have of Sagar's retirement reminiscences, I think it's unlikely that his suspect was the same as Anderson's.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Please don't feel confused. "Literally" or "not literally" is all the same to Ripperology.

If the 1905 married, well-respected businessman was Sagar's suspect, from where on earth did the 1910 insane unmarried low-class Polish Jew arrive?

Also, please clarify to what your encased in quotes "Scotland Yard" refer?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Jon,

You're not making a great deal of sense here.

I doubt there's ever been a murder investigation where 3 police officers have independently discovered clues and arrived at a conclusion, ....

Independently?
F.M., by what rationale do you claim that Anderson or Macnaghten investigated anything?

The very fact that Macnaghten was senior to Swanson, and also Anderson's deputy means precisely that the information they received came by way of Swanson, and by no other route. As we already know, it was Warren's declaration that all information must come through Swanson.

Both Macnaghten and Anderson relied on the reports handed in by Swanson, neither man was in a position to investigate anything by themselves. Any suggestion that they might reflects directly on their trust in Swanson's ability. Therefore all three men are voicing conclusions which emanated from the same source.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Rob,

Me, too.

Our anonymous Scotland Yard detective continued—

"Perhaps the most terrible crime during the last decade which was not followed by a conviction was the killing and mutilating of a number of unfortunate women in Whitechapel. Day after day these murders occurred. Failure again? Yes. But listen to this.

"We found our man. He was engaged in a large way of business in the city of London, was married, had a family, and was generally respected. For some time he had been known as eccentric, and various escapades had caused his friends a good deal of anxiety.

"Frequently, as we learned later, he stayed out all night about the time when these outrages were committed. His description agreed with that of a man seen in Dorset-street, Whitechapel, on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was cut to pieces, and at that time he was very near to actual arrest by a policeman.

"His family knew of the circumstances, knew that he was not only a madman, but a man possessed of considerable surgical knowledge, and with their full consent and the knowledge of the police he was put away in an asylum.

"Since that man's removal there has not been another such crime in London . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Who is this Scotland Yard detective? Me?

Mr Holmes

[Chris]

Oh, ok. In that case I vote Wensley.

But if it was Wensley, wouldn't he have given some hint of it in the section of his memoirs dealing with the Whitechapel Murders?

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.wensley.html

[Chris]

Perhaps it was the recently-retired Robert Sagar, who was reported in the City Press, 1905, as saying that "the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end." In another press report Sagar also endorsed the sighting of Macnaghten's City PC, who "met a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court [Mitre Square]". And, the last time I checked, Druitt wasn't Jewish.

I had been assuming on the basis of "Scotland Yard" that it was a serving Met (rather than City) detective, if that's not taking things too literally.

But given the mention of the suspect being in business in the City, I think Sagar's suspect is the best fit we know of (assuming Sagar's suspect isn't Aaron Kozminski). It's also tempting to link it to these two reports of a rather similar-sounding suspect from September 1889:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=132545&postcount=18

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=151648&postcount=26

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sleekviper,

Without wishing to diminish Frederick Porter Wensley's long and successful police career, I would point out that in 1888 he was a fairly inexperienced 23-year old constable.

If it was Wensley in the quoted 1905 newspaper report, were his experiences of the Whitechapel murders first-hand or did he learn them second-hand?

Regards,

Simon

[sleekviper]

Hello Simon,
Oh, ok. In that case I vote Wensley. The statement "Day after day", in regards to the murders seems a fresh contrast to saying "during the last decade"; someone fresh was left with a deep mark from the murders, and he is looking upward in society and not down. Someone walking the streets new, day after day, seeing the horror and fear of what was going on. He was well known for sure, and not revealing his identity could mean he was not involved in the upper levels at the time. It could be seen as disrespectful, and speaking beyond his knowledge when the crimes were taking place. Just me though, but seems like Wensley would fit.