Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[robhouse]

Actually, it's interesting that some online sources describe it as being equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt", which would be the standard of proof in a criminal trial. In using the phrase "moral versus legal proof" to describe Anderson's views, Hargrave Adam must have meant something weaker than that.

It is a fine point, but, I think, and important one to ponder. To me, it has always seemed that Andersons "definitely ascertained fact" should be read more precisely as a "moral certainty", since Anderson is more explicit in explaining this in other places. So I think he was certain enough to be satisfied that he knew the Ripper's identity, although he obviously knew that he was lacking sufficient legal proof.

Indeed, one might assume that if Anderson had been 100% certain, he would presumably have had sufficient evidence to convict. This suggests that the type of evidence they had was probably quite convincing, but circumstantial.

Rob

[Chris]

Well, just google the term and read about it.

Actually, it's interesting that some online sources describe it as being equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt", which would be the standard of proof in a criminal trial. In using the phrase "moral versus legal proof" to describe Anderson's views, Hargrave Adam must have meant something weaker than that.

[Chris]

[Duplicate post]

[Abby Normal]

Well, just google the term and read about it. It is a philosophical concept that was first discussed by Aristotle. From wikipedia:

"Moral certainty is a concept of intuitive probability. It means a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical certainty."

It is a bit more than saying "in my opinion" and a bit less than 100% certainty.

My point was that it does not have anything to do with the "morality" of the person making the judgement. Anderson's use of the term was to illustrate that he believed that he knew the identity of the Ripper with a high degree of probability, but was lacking legal evidence to convict the suspect.

RH

Thanks Rob

[robhouse]

hi Rob
What does "moral certainty" mean anyway? Certainly it is no different than "in my opinion" Or "I believe".

Well, just google the term and read about it. It is a philosophical concept that was first discussed by Aristotle. From wikipedia:

"Moral certainty is a concept of intuitive probability. It means a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical certainty."

It is a bit more than saying "in my opinion" and a bit less than 100% certainty.

My point was that it does not have anything to do with the "morality" of the person making the judgement. Anderson's use of the term was to illustrate that he believed that he knew the identity of the Ripper with a high degree of probability, but was lacking legal evidence to convict the suspect.

RH

[harry]

Sir Robert,
Because you state a personnel claim that I have an 'Axe to grind',perhaps you would ela borate on that claim,so that I have a fair chance of reply.As to the rest,I will add my answer tomorrow.Axe to grind against who?I do not personnely know any member that posts here,never met anyone that posts here,and am not in contact with anyone except through these posts,and I certainly never knew anyone from 1888 that I post about.

[Chris]

And apparently, he read the book twice. The first time making a majority of the notes, and the second when he wrote in pencil "Kosminski was the suspect".

The differences that have been observed between the two sets of writing aren't between the majority of the notes and the final sentence, they're between:
(1) The notes at the bottom of page 138 and
(2) The notes in the margin of page 138 and everything on the endpaper, including the final sentence.

[Monty]

Im going to repeat personal experience.

Ive conducted observations in the UK in November, Last Thursday in fact, though that was daylight.

Im assuming we are talking about the Leman Street follow here? If so then Id say its possible, though admittedly not ideal.

The suspect must have been seen or know or be quite distinctive.

Monty

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes it is a serious statement but I don't agree that they are a complete waste of time because stakeouts are a very valuable part of police life. Do you mind my inquiring as to the nature of this stakeout?

Mr Holmes

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I know what weather conditions prevail in England,in November and following months,and I know that such surveilance would have been a complete waste of time and personnel.So did it take place?Is it just another attempt to bolster a stronger case against Kosminski?To the first I'll say no,to the second,yes.

Is this a serious statement??

That police stakeouts - as detailed by Harry Cox - were "a complete waste of time and personnel" ???

Citation please. Don't repeat your "personal experience" because it's clear that you have an axe to grind.

I want to know why it would have been a waste of time for the police in 1888 to have engaged in the type of stakeout described by Cox.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Okay. So we know Swanson screwed up. He wrote down the wrong fate of the suspect if the suspect was Kosminski. And apparently, he read the book twice. The first time making a majority of the notes, and the second when he wrote in pencil "Kosminski was the suspect". I assume that if he had gone to look up the name, he would then have corrected his previous error.

I am more inclined to think at a later date, he decided he wanted to write the suspect's name down....not giving up the name to the public, but going as far as his sense of decorum would permit.

[harry]

I do not set myself as knowing better than the police at the time.I state that what I write is opinion,but that opinion is based on what was said in 1888 and after.As Michael,Phil(Carter)and others point out,The evidence,if any,was not detailed by those making the claims back then.Consider the"he was watched day and night'.Seems,on the surface,a perfectly sensible and straight forward account of what eventuated after the the identification,but is it?Now I know what surveilance amounts to,so I am talking from experience,I know what gas lit streets look like,I w as brought up in such conditions,I know what overcrowded living arangements mean,and I know what weather conditions prevail in England,in November and following months,and I know that such surveilance would have been a complete waste of time and personnel.So did it take place?Is it just another attempt to bolster a stronger case against Kosminski?To the first I'll say no,to the second,yes.

[Errata]

One of two possibilities..
Kosminski was the suspect, who Mr Anderson was talking about.
Kosminski was the suspect, whom Mr Anderson suspected.

Regards, Jon S.

Okay. So we know Swanson screwed up. He wrote down the wrong fate of the suspect if the suspect was Kosminski. And apparently, he read the book twice. The first time making a majority of the notes, and the second when he wrote in pencil "Kosminski was the suspect". I assume that if he had gone to look up the name, he would then have corrected his previous error. Which he didn't do. But let's assume for a moment that finding the identity of Jack the Ripper was a huge freaking deal, and he in fact remembered the information correctly. What if he didn't make a very puzzling factual error? What if he made an ordinary word substitution? An extremely common transcription error? What if he wrote suspect when he meant witness? We do it all the time. And if he never cracks the book open again, and I don't know why he would, he would never catch it.

So let's say this is true. (And obviously, I have no idea if it is.) Does that make more sense in terms of Swanson's reputation for professionalism? Does it put a different light on the plight of the Kosminski family? Didn't many of them relocate to various places around this time? And if the witness Anderson refers to is in fact insane, does that put the lack of any further police action against the suspect into some kind of perspective?

I think it's possible. I don't know that it explains everything, so I'm honestly asking what this might mean.

[Abby Normal]

OK, but you said this:

"Well I'll tell you one thing for certain..anybody who decides the guilt of another, in the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in his own mind, based on moral guilt..has got SERIOUS problems with his integrity, his sense of right and wrong and what's more, his sense of justice."

Presumably you are referring to this statement in Anderson's preface to The Police Encyclopedia: Volume IV, By Hargrave Lee Adam:

"Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest, certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent themurderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear. So again with the 'Whitechapel murders' of 1888. Despite the lucubration of many an amateur `Sherlock Holmes,' there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal, and if our 'detectives' possessed the powers, and might have recourse to the methods, of Foreign Police Forces he would have been brought to justice. But the guilty sometimes escape through the working of a system designed to protect innocent persons wrongly accused of crime. And many a case which is used to disparage our British `detectives' ought rather to be hailed as a proof of the scrupulous fairness with which they discharge their duties."

I do not see how this means in any way that Anderson had "SERIOUS problems with his integrity, his sense of right and wrong and what's more, his sense of justice." I would say it demonstrates quite the opposite—that Anderson recognized the letter of the law, and realized that the suspect must be set free due to lack of legal evidence, despite the fact that Anderson was "morally certain" that the suspect was guilty. This refers to a philosophical concept meaning a degree of certainty, approaching knowledge, if not 100% known... and this is an important thing to point out in terms of how "definite" Anderson was re: Kozminski's guilt. In other words, if we read this precisely, he was not 100% certain of it, but still was basically convinced of it.

It has nothing to do with Anderson's sense of "morality" as you suggest. (his "personal bias based on the fact that he regards his feelings of moralty over a person in a given situation ranking higher than that of the laws of the land regarding justice.") The term "moral certainty" means something entirely different that that which you are (apparently) assuming.

RH

hi Rob
What does "moral certainty" mean anyway? Certainly it is no different than "in my opinion" Or "I believe".

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Sorry, I missed this posting.

No, I was referring to H.L.Adam's direct quote of the man himself, and the example he gave H.L.Adam..all about how he uses his moral guilt.
Please excuse the lack of any further quick reply.. sleep awaits.

best wishes

Phil

OK, but you said this:

"Well I'll tell you one thing for certain..anybody who decides the guilt of another, in the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in his own mind, based on moral guilt..has got SERIOUS problems with his integrity, his sense of right and wrong and what's more, his sense of justice."

Presumably you are referring to this statement in Anderson's preface to The Police Encyclopedia: Volume IV, By Hargrave Lee Adam:

"Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest, certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent themurderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear. So again with the 'Whitechapel murders' of 1888. Despite the lucubration of many an amateur `Sherlock Holmes,' there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal, and if our 'detectives' possessed the powers, and might have recourse to the methods, of Foreign Police Forces he would have been brought to justice. But the guilty sometimes escape through the working of a system designed to protect innocent persons wrongly accused of crime. And many a case which is used to disparage our British `detectives' ought rather to be hailed as a proof of the scrupulous fairness with which they discharge their duties."

I do not see how this means in any way that Anderson had "SERIOUS problems with his integrity, his sense of right and wrong and what's more, his sense of justice." I would say it demonstrates quite the opposite—that Anderson recognized the letter of the law, and realized that the suspect must be set free due to lack of legal evidence, despite the fact that Anderson was "morally certain" that the suspect was guilty. This refers to a philosophical concept meaning a degree of certainty, approaching knowledge, if not 100% known... and this is an important thing to point out in terms of how "definite" Anderson was re: Kozminski's guilt. In other words, if we read this precisely, he was not 100% certain of it, but still was basically convinced of it.

It has nothing to do with Anderson's sense of "morality" as you suggest. (his "personal bias based on the fact that he regards his feelings of moralty over a person in a given situation ranking higher than that of the laws of the land regarding justice.") The term "moral certainty" means something entirely different that that which you are (apparently) assuming.

RH