Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[robhouse]

I think you have a point, Jon, in that in the event the family were prepared to go to the police with information, then why didn't they testify? what would be the point in going to the police in the first place and not testifying thereafter?

For one thing, whatever information may have been supplied by an informant, family member or otherwise, it was apparently not sufficient to convict. So it may have been suspicion or other circumstantial bits of evidence. Whatever it was fell short of being evidence sufficient to get a conviction. So the question of "why didn't they testify" does not necessarily come into play. OK... maybe there was no informant at all. Granted. However, it is entirely possible that there was, and that they didn't testify because the police knew that whatever information they supplied would be insufficient "legally" to convict.

You also have to realize the enormous problem and pressure that a family member of the Ripper would be under. Say if one of Kozminski's siblings suspected him. This person would have a major problem. Go to the police and tell them? What if Kozminski had been convicted? Can you imagine the problems this would have caused for his family? Jews, living in the East End? It would have been a MAJOR problem. A major security issue. So what is the alternative? Not to go to the police? Or to go, and hope that the police can come up with some sort of "solution" to a very delicate problem?

"It is here, in his official sanctum, that we find the head of that complex organisation known as the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police. Dr. Anderson is an Assistant Commissioner, and his staff a strong body of picked officers are concerned with every matter relating to the prevention and detection of crime. These detectives are engaged, it may be, not merely in elucidating mysteries or in making arrests, but in the performance of a large amount of inquiry work, both for the metropolitan and for the provincial and foreign police; and in all their movements they are responsible to their chief, whose controlling hand and inspiring brain govern the conduct of every investigation requiring delicacy and originality of handling.

...

An observation of ours, that in England the police are necessarily hampered a great deal by the freedom-loving characteristics of the people which are opposed to the introduction of measures such as are at the command of the continental police, induces Dr. Anderson to observe that his department has "a great thirst for information," and the public might often assist him very materially by communicating with him in confidence, for very often a small matter sets his officers in motion."

June 11, 1892 - Representative Men at Home: Dr. Anderson at New Scotland Yard from Cassell's Saturday Journal

Note the date... [emphasis mine]

Rh

[Fleetwood Mac]

For one thing, whatever information may have been supplied by an informant, family member or otherwise, it was apparently not sufficient to convict.

Agreed, but that begs the question: who was the witness?

Lawende - obvious problems in terms of adding something concrete.

Schwartz - ditto.

So the question of "why didn't they testify" does not necessarily come into play.

On reflection, agreed.

[Phil Carter]

His brother had to go to court to explain why Aaron gave an 'incorrect' name and address. This suggests to me that Aaron was 'simple' and needed his brother to speak for him.

Just a quick question for all, off the top of my head without looking it up...

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Garbled?

Fleetwood
It was garbled as Aaron didn't die soon after, unless you think Swanson referred to some unidentified person.

There's a difference between being 'garbled' and having a mistaken belief that the Kosminski referred to (assuming it was Aaron) had died earlier than he actually did.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

I believe the witness was someone not mentioned in the surviving files - as I have said above, maybe someone who saw a man at the time of the Eddowes murder and then saw him again at the hearing in 1889 when Kosminski appeared. That would put a name to a face and be well after the inquest. Inquiries about Kosminski could then have produced other Jewish witnesses, who knew something - I guess. Pure speculation.

I increasingly dismiss Lawende (though i fully recognise why he is mentioned), because I don't believe that the police in 1888 were so stupid as to believe that he had seen enough or would remember enough to convict.

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Of course.. many thanks for replying.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Lechmere

Yes, I subscribe to that theory too: that Anderson and/or Swanson is misremembering the Sadler failed identification of 1891.

It is not that what Swanson writes is garbled, People who have a fading memory do not know this. Instead they recall what they think is a crystal clear memory. Therefore they write it in a confident manner if they think they are recalling it without impediment.

In early 1891 Aaron Kosminski was sectioned and then a few days later a Ripper suspect was 'confronted' with a Jewish witness, which has to be Lawende, who said a disappointing no.

Both Anderson and Swanson always give the impression that they are writing about an identification, a wrapping up of the case in late 1888 or early 1889 (exactly where Macnaghten has backdated the incarceration of 'Kosminski') and that there were no murders which the police thought were by Jack after Kelly -- which is demonstrably false.

The counter-argument is that this means both Anderson and Swanson had a memory failure about exactly the same aspect of the case.

It's not impossible, but does not seem very likely either.

On the other hand, we have another element provided by Swanson which might explain this: the Seaside Home, perhaps inspired by the Seaman's Home and that the Ripper suspect, Sadler, was a seaman. Another contributing element to Anderson's memory malfunction is that Coles was initially considered to be the final victim and was young and pretty like Kelly. They have arguably been fused together by 1910.

Thus the messy, unsatisfactory and humiliating events of 1891 have been collapsed into 1888/9 and therefore no longer exist.

In this theory Swanson had known about 'Kosminski' for as long as Anderson -- and agreed that this was the murderer -- but did not know that he had been positively identified by a Jewish witness until the memoir of 1910. Anderson clarified by explaining that the suspect had been transported to a seaside location outside of London by police of a different jurisdiction. This was all a generation before, eg. a long time ago, and so Swanson accepted it and made a private notation -- for which he would never be held accountable.

Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

In his memoirs, Macnaghten pointedly denied that there was some kind of definitive witness or sighting, or that the real 'Simon Pure' Ripper could possibly have been a Hebrew since he supposedly blamed -- via the graffiti -- a trio of Jews for disturbing him with Stride (Mac even corrected 'Juwes' into 'Jews', possibly to make it appear to be written by an educated Gentile).

That Anderson was challenged by Mentor and the Liberal government in 1910 is well known.

What is less well appreciated is that another police chief Macnaghten (and his pliable proxies), one who certainly knew about 'Kosminski', took on Anderson at the time and dismissed his Ripper prognostications.

That does not automatically mean that Macnaghten was right and Anderson was wrong. He may not have been.

But it does mean that, from 1898, Macnaghten was trying to inform the public that the likeliest Jack was not 'one of them' but 'one of us'.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

In his memoirs, Macnaghten pointedly denied that there was some kind of definitive witness or sighting, or that the real 'Simon Pure' Ripper could possibly have been a Hebrew since he supposedly blamed -- via the graffiti -- a trio of Jews for disturbing him with Stride (Mac even corrected 'Juwes' into 'Jews', possibly to make it appear to be written by an educated Gentile).

Ignoring for a moment the potential distrust and dislike that Anderson and or Macnagthen had for each other...the above quote given by you is important, I think.

"further romantic revelations" isn't a singular comment, it seems a generally accepted description of Anderson's comments..and that is important.

"imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ..."

This is simply reference to something that Anderson apparently thought and therefore referred to by Sims. To me, it links in something.. it's a step BEFORE the "his own kind refused to identify him"..in other words..it is a pointed comment that Anderson suspected Jews for harbouring the Ripper either financially or morally.(if not physically)...

What, I wonder, does that tell you about Anderson, and his attitude to the Jews? I know what it tells me.

Thanks for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

The version of events relating to Kosminsky described by Swanson and Macnaghton is garbled – as in mixed up or inaccurate.
A garbled or inaccurate version of events can be pronounced upon in a confident and assured manner. But the facts contained within that pronouncement can still be garbled. As they are in the case of Swanson’s comments about Kosminsky.

I suspect that Swanson and Anderson chatted about things in after years and reinforced each other’s errors and misconceptions.

Lastly – on the subject of Kosminsky’s madness. This is put forward as the reason for his killing. In other words he killed during early and spasmodic bouts when he became unhinged. However if he became momentarily or periodically unhinged it is not credible to he would be able to operate as a calculating stealth killer during those moments. Certainly not one who successfully murdered 4, 5, 6, 7 or however many victims. He would have been caught after the first one as such killers invariably are as they are careless as to their own security.

[Chris]

Meanwhile, above ground, I think Macnaghten in 1910 unleashed Sims against the claim of the Polish Jew as the fiend, as the latter accused Anderson of writing nonsense [allegedly] driven by ugly sectarianism:

'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
by Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee'

'... there is no truth in the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn the name of the imminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest ...'

That's new to me. Can you give us a more precise reference?

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

Well, I think that Sims is engaging in bigotry-baiting.

As in he is throwing in the despicable notion of the international conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

He does not mean it literally. It's a caricature.

It's also a real low blow -- and a schoolboyish one.

In his memoirs Macnaghten made no effort to write something like: there was a local Jewish suspect, but he must take a back-seat to the Gentile Gent.

Instead he just dumps 'Kosminski' and Ostrog all together. They are nothing. He had also told Sims that Ostrog was in an asylum abroad at some point (Sims, 1907).

Secondary sources have confirmed that detail and also confirmed why Mac never wanted to have his name linked -- in public -- to the Russian 'mad doctor' 'suspect' -- he was not a doctor, or homicidal, and had an iron-clad alibi for the Whitechapel murders.

To Chris

This was a new primary source to me too, until recently, and it backs my overall theory -- or so I claim.

It is, in my opinion, one of Mac's many salvoes against Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14725

[Errata]

Is it known how well Aaron Kosminski could verbally communicate?

See what we know of the 1889 case, he certainly expressed clear enough views then, it appears.


Phil H

I think his communication waxed and waned a bit. And I don't know if it was his ability to communicate, or his desire to communicate, which is actually kind of an important distinction. When he was on the streets, I got the impression that the motives for his behavior had a certain amount of guesswork. A relative/friend described why he appeared to be doing what he was doing in regards to his food issues and scrupulosity, but I think it was a guess. Not that it wasn't spot on, I just don't think Kosminski could articulate "I am doing X because of Y and Z." I think he was a little too locked in his head at that point to explain anything. Which is frankly not uncommon in a psychotic break. After he was hospitalized, he seemed to stop communicating after a couple of years. Which I think is why he threw a chair at an orderly instead of yelling at him. If I recall, he did have bouts of verbal abuse, but then there was the chair thing, and in terms a Kindergarten teacher might indulge in, "he forgot how to use his words." I think most residents of a Victorian mental institution stopped talking. People in institutions today stop talking, because that's the farthest they can withdraw. There's no privacy, it's loud, people are constantly in your face. Most people shut down. So it's not remarkable that Kosminski would. Nor would it even necessarily be a function of his illness. It's only notable because it makes it incredibly hard to know if he didn't want to communicate, or if his disease had progressed to a point that he couldn't communicate.

In other words, his episode in the streets could be a sign of severe schizophrenia, or a psychotic break from other factors. And the best way to know would be to see how he was five or ten years down the line. But we don't know because he was in an institution that predictably changes behavior for both the mentally ill and the perfectly sane. And the change in his behavior is the one that happens to everyone, whether ill in an asylum 150 years ago, or sane in a prison today. He became withdrawn, and shut down. He could have been sane, he could have been very ill, he could have been my teenage cousin after her first broken heart. His described symptoms in the institution are at best, not very helpful.

[Chris]

This was a new primary source to me too, until recently, and it backs my overall theory -- or so I claim.

It is, in my opinion, one of Mac's many salvoes against Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14725

Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can get a copy of the full article.

[harry]

People cannot,and could not in 1888 or thereabouts,simply take someone to court and declare that person would speak for them.It was the court which decided whether a witness or defendant was capaple of speaking on their own behalf,and it was the court which decided what procedure would follow,should a person be deemed not capable of giving evidence.However I am not sure what the case would be in the likelihood that a persons relative be used as an interpreter.When was the decision made not to proceed with the arrest of Kosminski,even though it has been claimed there was enough evidence to do so?That the officers present at the ID were the obvious people to do so,se ems to suggest they might have been under orders not to.
Sally's statemet that there was insufficent time elapsed to allow for memory failure on the part of Anderson and Swanson ,is one I totally agree with,which allows for a deliberate de cision by them to omit details which,had they been included,might have cleared the doubts so many are left with.

[Jonathan H]

Cheap Shot?

To Simon

Eh, I was being straight ... so I guess that's a no, mate.