Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Whitechapel murders have not remained a carefully-guarded secret because a masturbating Polish Jew named Kosminski carved up five East End unfortunates.

Up until just prior to WWII various attempts were made to provide a "solution" to the Ripper mystery. Then Hitler came along and buggered everything.

In 1914 Melville Macnaghten published his memoirs containing references to a "sexual maniac" Ripper committing suicide just after his final murder. In 1923 William Le Queux claimed the Ripper was a mad Russian doctor sent to London by the Russian secret police "to annoy and baffle Scotland Yard." In 1929 Leonard Matters told of the Ripper being a Dr. Stanley, bent on avenging the death of his son. In 1935 Edwin T. Woodhall wrote of the Ripper being Olga Tchkersoff, a Russian immigrant out to avenge the death of her sister, and in 1938 William Stewart posited that Jack was once again Jill, but this time a midwife.

Interest in the Ripper mystery was kept alive during these years perhaps because nobody ever pointed out that it had been solved back in 1910, when Sir Robert Anderson, one of Scotland Yard's highest-ranking police officers at the time of the Whitechapel murders, identified the Ripper as an unnamed low-class Polish Jew, his ethnicity stated to be a "definitely ascertained fact."

If true, here was a revelation which should have put an end to matters once and for all. After all, who could have been better placed to know the truth than the authoritative figure of Sir Robert Anderson?

Yet somehow the mystery refused to die, persisting well after Anderson's death, rumbling on with the police and press insisting that the Whitechapel murders were unsolved whilst various authors seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum of public curiosity with increasingly extravagant "solutions".

One thing is certain. If Anderson had been telling the truth—or, if otherwise, the press had elected to put their faith in this pillar of moral rectitude—matters would have ended there and then.

The mystery endured because Sir Robert Anderson's revelation about a low-class Polish Jew was either ignored by the press as unlikely or dismissed as untrue.

Yet now, just over a century later, we are being encouraged to believe Anderson actually spoke the truth.

The Ripper wheel has turned full-circle, yet still the Whitechapel murders remain a carefully-guarded secret.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

The Whitechapel murders have not remained a carefully-guarded secret because a masturbating Polish Jew named Kosminski carved up five East End unfortunates.

Up until just prior to WWII various attempts were made to provide a "solution" to the Ripper mystery. Then Hitler came along and buggered everything.

In 1914 Melville Macnaghten published his memoirs containing references to a "sexual maniac" Ripper committing suicide just after his final murder. In 1923 William Le Queux claimed the Ripper was a mad Russian doctor sent to London by the Russian secret police "to annoy and baffle Scotland Yard." In 1929 Leonard Matters told of the Ripper being a Dr. Stanley, bent on avenging the death of his son. In 1935 Edwin T. Woodhall wrote of the Ripper being Olga Tchkersoff, a Russian immigrant out to avenge the death of her sister, and in 1938 William Stewart posited that Jack was once again Jill, but this time a midwife.

Interest in the Ripper mystery was kept alive during these years perhaps because nobody ever pointed out that it had been solved back in 1910, when Sir Robert Anderson, one of Scotland Yard's highest-ranking police officers at the time of the Whitechapel murders, identified the Ripper as an unnamed low-class Polish Jew, his ethnicity stated to be a "definitely ascertained fact."

If true, here was a revelation which should have put an end to matters once and for all. After all, who could have been better placed to know the truth than the authoritative figure of Sir Robert Anderson?

Yet somehow the mystery refused to die, persisting well after Anderson's death, rumbling on with the police and press insisting that the Whitechapel murders were unsolved whilst various authors seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum of public curiosity with increasingly extravagant "solutions".

One thing is certain. If Anderson had been telling the truth—or, if otherwise, the press had elected to put their faith in this pillar of moral rectitude—matters would have ended there and then.

The mystery endured because Sir Robert Anderson's revelation about a low-class Polish Jew was either ignored by the press as unlikely or dismissed as untrue.

Yet now, just over a century later, we are being encouraged to believe Anderson actually spoke the truth.

The Ripper wheel has turned full-circle, and still the Whitechapel murders remain a carefully-guarded secret.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Indeed. And yet the wagon still has all four wheels still wobbling along (Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety and the refit of PAV/Sickert/)

If the Anderson statement from 1910 was so believable or even true.. then would someone PLEASE tell me what prompted other people involved at the time. including high ranking policemen and medical men, to DENOUNCE the Polish Jew story, amongst others?

Nobody have succesfully been able to explain to me why Anderson and possibly Swanson ONLY knew of this "guilty" man. TWO policemen..but all others don't agree. The story of JTR wobbles along with "the truth" already told? WHY?????

It seems totally obvious. Anderson's story is rubbish. There isn't a sliver of proof in it, and apart from Swanson noting a name alongside the story in Anderson's book, there isn't a scrap of contemporary evidence connecting Kosminski with ANY of the story.

Now the wheel has turned full circle, can somebody tell the people promoting this story as "truth" that we have had it for 100 years... and from 100 years ago it was ignored or treated as rubbish.

JACK THE RIPPER is the biggest single crime killing promotion story ever. To find the answer is the ultimate goal. It was in 1888. It was in 1898. It was in 1910, 1923, 1929, 1939, 1959, 1965,1970,1972,1974,1976,1978 1987,1988,19991,1992,1996,2000,2002,2006,2008,2010 and in 2012, it is STILL the one killer story screaming out "hunt the ripper".

Bloo*y strange then that all of us for 100 years have missed the truth that we have been told. How odd. Nobody screamed "Oi!, Anderson told us the truth in 1910!--not when Le Queux said what he said..not when Matters said what he said, not when Jill the Ripper was the run of the publishing department. Not when Farson, claimed Druitt, not when he was backed up in the mid 60's, not in 66 even when a Jewish knife was thought used.. nope.. nobody said..OI!..Anderson!..Jew!...Not when the biggest selling Ripper book ever came out even!. Stephen Knight had the run of the world with his story.. yet NOT ONE EXPERT said..OI!..Anderson has already told us!
And Anderson's "Jack the Ripper" just fizzled out without the merest hint of a bang when he first pronounced it..and was pooh poohed by his peers for it.

No, Kosminski was not "Jack the Ripper". He may, just may, have been involved in a murder..but that really is stretching the imagination. Occam's razor...just because he was living in the area doesn't make him a killer. Just because he made a threat with a knife.. and we don't know what type of threat or how, doesn't make him a ripper up of bodies.

Would somebody please explain to me why only these TWO out of many who have commented on it all before and since, knew this "truth"??

Spot the contrived excuse. Cue more complete and utter hogwash.

I'll say one thing for the Press in 1910. Thew knew a load of old tosh when they saw it.

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

... the same could be said for hundreds of people at that time; but in the documented fact that he was considered a suspect by senior police officials at the time.

Hi Sally.
If you don't mind me asking, what 'document' would you be referring to?

I have understood that he was not a strong suspect because he was not named as a suspect at the time. All the suspicions were written years later. I'm assuming "at the time" means the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[robhouse]

Hi Sally.
If you don't mind me asking, what 'document' would you be referring to?

I have understood that he was not a strong suspect because he was not named as a suspect at the time. All the suspicions were written years later. I'm assuming "at the time" means the fall of 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

Presumably this means "by senior police officials [who investigated the case] at the time."

RH

[Paddy]

I wouldn't be surprised if Jacob Cohen and Joseph Hyam Levy were both involved in the identification....(just a hunch)
Pat

[Phil H]

Good thoughts, Paddy.

It seems totally obvious. Anderson's story is rubbish. There isn't a sliver of proof in it, and apart from Swanson noting a name alongside the story in Anderson's book, there isn't a scrap of contemporary evidence connecting Kosminski with ANY of the story.

Not quite true.

Swanson noting a name in Anderson's memoirs IS EVIDENCE, thoughas i have said before, not so good as an official file IMHO.

It certainly equates to the Macnaghten version which also mentions Kosminski. So we have pretty strong evidence that his name was being bandied about.

My position is quite clear. there seems to be no reason to dount that in the immediate aftermath of the murders (if you insist on being pedantic) two senior officers involved in the case suspected a man named Kosminski of being the killer. I have no reason to doubt that an ID took place as I do not think men like Sir RA or DSS would lie.

Further, there is material to link Aaron Kosminski with those statements, as modern research appears to fit most if not all the details given - resinding with family, only Kosminski in an asylum etc. AK lived in the area, knew the locations, threatened at least one woman. Now, all I am saying is that that puts him closer to the ground as a suspect than Druitt or Ostrog or even Tumblety who are all mentioned by senior police officials. To me that is as far as we can go.

It is JUST possible in my mind that ALL the suspects named are red-herrings, put there as a diversion. But if so, why was there division between senior officials? They should all have sung from the same song-sheet.

I take your point about the responsible officers wanting to cover-up their failure, but I think we know enough to say that Kosminski was probably a clear suspect at the time and thought to be the "one that got away" - at least by Sir RA and DSS. MM's LATER names (which include Kosminski) being someone who came to the case later having a divergent view - for whatever reason. I thus do conclude that there was some deep 1888 interest in Kosminski which continued for some years.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Such chaotic reasoning as you emply and such undiscriminating intellectual reasoning at least explains your strange posts and unfathomable conclusions, Fisherman."

...aaand a few posts further down you have to admit that you did not check on one of the issues and "fired from the hip".

Well, well Mr Eastwood ...!

And yes, I can see that it IS unfathomable for you to recognize the very simple fact that we have no evidence at all against Issenschmidt, Le Grand (who WAS a contemporary suspect, by the looks of thing - maybe you forgot to check that one too...?), Kosminski etcetera.

To me, it is a lot more unfathomable why these men, against we have no evidence, should all be regarded as much more viable than Lechmere, who we know we can logically place at all murder sites, who used a false name and who seemingly lied his way past the police. Plus, just as we have a bunch of police officials saying that each and everybody of them had the answer to the Ripper riddle, we ALSO have men like Abberline, who told the press adamantly in 1903 that the police had gotten absolutely nowhere in fifteen yearsī search for the Ripper.

If this is as strange and unfathomable as my other posts to you, Phil, then you can take solace in the fact that I will not post anything about Lechmere on this thread anymore. Iīve made my point, and as such, I think the comparison needed to be made here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Presumably this means "by senior police officials [who investigated the case] at the time."

RH

That's right, yes.

Jon, sorry if that wasn't clear. We could argue about the degree of validity that identification has because it was recorded retrospectively - but I'm not sure there's very much point. Its not as if that identification occurred outside of living memory, so there's no immediate reason to suspect that it wasn't correct to the best of belief.

It was the space of a few years, not centuries.

[Phil H]

Le Grand (who WAS a contemporary suspect, by the looks of thing

Source? I am aware of some of the new research, but not of that.

We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it.

To me, it is a lot more unfathomable why these men, against we have no evidence, should all be regarded as much more viable than Lechmere, who we know we can logically place at all murder sites, who used a false name and who seemingly lied his way past the police.

As I have said before, you have no need to remind me that Lechmere/Cross is interesting. But other than the fact that he was found close to the first (or an early) victim, I see everything else as speculation at present.

Plus, just as we have a bunch of police officials saying that each and everybody of them had the answer to the Ripper riddle, we ALSO have men like Abberline, who told the press adamantly in 1903 that the police had gotten absolutely nowhere in fifteen yearsī search for the Ripper.

It is, to my mind, quite possible that Abberline was not up to speed on some aspects of the case. As co-ordinator, DSS could well have had access to reports and information not available to Abberline. If Kosminski was being handled in any way sensitively (outside normal procedures, involving City/Met liaison), then it might well not have involved Abberline, though for obvious reasons I would assume he knew the name.

So I don't think you should build too much on that.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

Source?

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TC18920402.2.10

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=IT18920331.2.5

"We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it."

Source?

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Phil H:

Source?

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TC18920402.2.10

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=IT18920331.2.5

"We all make mistakes Fisherman, some of us are big enough to admit it."

Source?

The best,
Fisherman

The source for Le Grand as a contemporary suspect is well documented in the article 'Le Grand The new Prime Suspect' by Tom Wescott, which appeared in Casebook Examiner issue two,June 2010.

[Fisherman]

Thank you kindly, Debra!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac:

"All I'm saying is that there was an ID, the suspect was Kosminski, and they believed they had their man."

And all I am saying is that there alledgedly was an ID, the suspect alledgedly was someone named Kosminsky and the two CLAIMED that they believed they had their man.

Isnīt that, after all, where we stand?

The best,
Fisherman

Not at all, Fisherman.

In the event the ID claim had been made by The Star newspaper and rubbished by the police, as opposed to being claimed by two authoritative figures within the police force, then we would stand in an altogether different place.

You can claim that it cannot be proven, which is true enough, but to then reduce police statements on events they witnessed to that of mere 'alleged', without qualifying 'alleged' in this context; with the inference being that Anderson's and Swanson's words are of no more use than a plethora of witness statements often hazy and fuelled by alcohol, is disingenuous.

[miakaal4]

I think I agree with Fleetwood on this, it does seem as if there was some prejudice from the senior police against the Jews, their reasoning is amateur when you consider they only had those two options. The police on the beat must have been moaning their heads off! I don't really know why so much faith has been put in Macnaghten and Andersons work. Okay I know they had all the information that had been collected, but what was in it that we don't know about? Andersons career was a career wasn't it. He bounced around one government job after another, was downgraded, called a "second class detective", then for no apparent reason is given a good job in the Special Irish Department by Monroe with a large raise in salary! And Macnagten got his job in much the same way; the OLD BOY NETWORK. He gets beaten up in India, meets Monroe, (all masons no doubt) becomes a friend, returns to Britain and gets offered Assistant Chief Constable and adviser to Warren! His past experience was managing his fathers estates in India for the past 14 years! These two armchair experts have blighted ripperology for over 100 years. That is my armchair opinion.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"You can claim that it cannot be proven, which is true enough, but to then reduce police statements on events they witnessed to that of mere 'alleged', without qualifying 'alleged' in this context; with the inference being that Anderson's and Swanson's words are of no more use than a plethora of witness statements often hazy and fuelled by alcohol, is disingenuous."

Agreed. And I donīt put Anderson and Swanson on par with drunkards, Fleetwood.
However, and as I have said, they were succeeded by MacNaghten who offered certainty that another man was guilty. Monro thought one thing, Abberline something else, Reid was of another meaning, Littlechild had his ideas etcetera, etcetera. We could add more people, all in a position to have a good insight into the investigation and practically having added to it.
All of these people, in a somewhat varying degree, but nevertheless, I put on par with each other.
I can only call Anderson and Swanson the masters of detection if I dub Macnaghten ignorant and uninformed. I donīt want to do that. Nor do I wish to call any other of the people in charge in some respect, stupid. I therefore end up with an illustruous collection of worthy gentlemen who made a mess of coming to a unanimous decision about who the Ripper was - and whether he was caught or not.

If we add to this that Anderson became somewhat foggy in his recollections and apparently was anything but accurate in his statements and writings in later years, then we may need to open up for the very real possibility that Kosminski was nothing more than a man with a diagnosis that fit the bill.

The best,
Fisherman