Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

But WHY would the commissioner remain unconviced? If the ID was successful and enough to hang the suspect, why doubt it?

I think there are a number of good/sufficient reasons we can discern:

a) because there could be no trial and no conviction, the ID was essentially useless except in convincing police officials involved. The police could not say "Oh, we know who Jack is" because they had no proof. So...

b) in the public interest and to allay fears they had to keep up the the high level of police presence and to take each subsequent murder as a potential Ripper crime (though as I recall manpower levels were reduced from time to time);

c) the politicians (even if confidentially informed of the ID) may have put pressure on the Commissioner to maintain a high level of vigilance to manage public perceptions.

I begin to discern that we may be looking here at internal, high level views within the Yard, and at the same time the management of public safety and perception. I can, I think, detect some shades of that in the tone and choice of words of Anderson and Swanson.

Further reasons for the Commissioner being sceptical, might be that he disapproved of Sir RA and DSS's methods (being extra-curricular); that he felt the ID weaker than did his two subordinates; or that - again for "presentational" reasons - the Commissioner did not want to force a reluctant witness to testify (could it have been a female witness - a potential victim?) and had to live with the consequences.

[I'm thinking as I type here, ideas coming to me!!]

Munro or Bradford may have been convinced by the ID of course (in private0 but not have believed that a prosecution could proceed; or that the police methods ruled it out.

Anderson and Swanson are adamant in combination: There was no doubt that the killer was taken off the streets and incarcerated, the witness never wawered for a second, the suspect knew he was identified, and if the witness had stood up in court, then the suspect would have hanged.

In my working life, I was often in a position where i might be convinced of a course of action, convinced my bosses, but they or their superiors, with a broader/higher perspective determined not to go down that route. There may have been other factors at work that we know not of social/political etc.

Edited to add:

The idea of a female witness, a potential victim had not occured to me before. But what if, while the City police were watching Kosminski's residence and following him, they had interrupted him in an assult? The potential victim would then be a very good witness. (A female witness might also explain why DSS is so "coy" in his wording and why sentiment might have played a part in her decision not to testify.) I'm not sure though. and will think through, the implications of that idea for Kosminski's treatment pending his being sent to an asylum.

Phil H

[Sally]

The idea of a female witness, a potential victim had not occured to me before. But what if, while the City police were watching Kosminski's residence and following him, they had interrupted him in an assult? The potential victim would then be a very good witness. (A female witness might also explain why DSS is so "coy" in his wording and why sentiment might have played a part in her decision not to testify.) I'm not sure though. and will think through, the implications of that idea for Kosminski's treatment pending his being sent to an asylum.

Hi Phil

The implied reason for the reluctance of the witness is that he/she learned that Kosminski was a fellow Jew. To me, that tells us that the witness did not know Kosminski, other than by sight. The most plausible explanations for the witness seem to be either that he/she witnessed Kosminski in an attack; or that he/she was the victim of an attack themselves. In the latter, one would assume the witness was a she; but in attacking a Jewish woman, Kosminski, if the Ripper, would have been doing something that as far as we know, he hadn't before.

All interesting ideas.

[harry]

I believe we shall never get the answers,Phil.What I would do,however,is refuse to accept that Kosminski was or is a suspect untill at least some answers were forthcoming.

[harry]

Phil,
That's not negative.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

" might be that he disapproved of Sir RA and DSS's methods (being extra-curricular); that he felt the ID weaker than did his two subordinates"

This would be the better guess, I believe. If there had been any real agreement at the top that the Ripper had been ID:d but could not be convicted using the ID:ing witness, then we would not have as calm waters we have. It would have rippled the surface, I think we may be pretty certain of that!

"There may have been other factors at work that we know not of social/political etc."

Canīt gainsay you there, Phil. But the pressure to produce a killer would have been immense. And we have Monro saying, in retrospect "the killer should have been caught", and that does not point me in the direction of an agreement on HIS behalf that this ever happened. We have Abberline, who was specifically drawn into the case on Monroīs and Williamsonīs request, who said in 1903 that the police never had a clue.
I find it beyond belief that men like these would have been kept in the dark, and even it there was politics or social concerns involved, telling Abberline that the case was regarded as solved would not have done any harm. He could have been ordered to keep quiet about it, or simply given the news but not the name.

"The idea of a female witness, a potential victim had not occured to me before. But what if, while the City police were watching Kosminski's residence and following him, they had interrupted him in an assult? The potential victim would then be a very good witness."

Yes, an extremely good witness - but only to the latest assault and not to the Ripper murders. Charles Ludwig also waved a knife in front of a woman and was taken to task for it - but not for the Ripper murders. He was dropped since he was in custody when Stride and Eddowes died, and that would have effectively taught the police that particular lesson.

But Ludwig serves to show what it took to become a red hot Ripper suspect.

I remain firmly at the position that the Seaside Home ID is not any clincher of the case, that Kosminski does not add up as the suspect and that Abberline got it right, speaking to the Pall Mall Magazine.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

If the City Police interrupted an assault by Kosminski the he would have been arrested and charged.

It wouldn't just be the victim who witnessed the attack.

Monty

[Chris]

Both Anderson and Swanson refer to the witness as 'he'.

[miakaal4]

Can anyone tell me why the witnesses name is not on record?
Where is the statement t/he/y made which led to the I.D. scenario?
Who took the suspect to the Seaside home, and how? There must have been a guard, mental health nurse/worker?
If they really were sure that Kosminski was the killer, why keep it quiet for so long? And why did the actual invetigators not know about, or if they did, agree with it?

[Bridewell]

And why did the actual investigators not know about, or if they did, agree with it?

Chief Inspector (later Superintendent) Swanson was one of the investigators.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The Marginalia?

I believe we shall never get the answers,Phil.What I would do,however,is refuse to accept that Kosminski was or is a suspect untill at least some answers were forthcoming.

Harry,

"Kosminski was the suspect" alluded to by Anderson, according to Swanson. Whether or not one agrees that he is a good suspect, I can't see how 'some answers' are needed, to confirm that Kosminski was a suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And it gets a little morally dicey here, but in theory we have a very unique situation. As it stands, we have a witness who says "Yes, that is absolutely Jack the Ripper, no question about it. But I'm not going to testify." And clearly certain officials believed that this man was in fact Jack the Ripper. So in theory, they have him. They know it's him. And their best witness just caved on them. It occurs to no one that three middling to poor witnesses will serve to get this guy convicted perfectly well? Because three witnesses from other crime scenes would have identified him, just because they knew they were going to go identify a Jack the Ripper suspect. Unless it was three year old girl paraded before them, and I'm willing to bet at least one guy would have put the toddler at the scene. It doesn't build the world's best case against the suspect, but not the worst either. How do they just give up like that? It makes sense if you have no idea whether this guy has anything to do with it or not, but your evidence says he does, your witness says he does, in theory, they KNEW this was the guy. How do you not even try to see if someone else can ID him before letting him go?

Let's say the witness is Schwartz, and our witness of lesser importance is Lawende.

I personally would take Schwartz to ID him first and foremost, but I would also plan for Lawende in the event Schwartz failed to identify him (out of assurance I had the right man, even where his testimony was unlikely to yield a conviction).

So, I take Schwartz. Schwartz identifies him unhesitantly. We know this is the man. On the journey back to London, we discuss the possibility of Lawende identifying him and giving evidence. We have no use for Lawende as mere assurance because we know we have the man. The only question now is: will Lawende's evidence be enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor? We decide it won't be, and it follows there is no point in arranging another ID.

There is always the possibility, of course, that both Schwartz and Lawende were at the ID, but Swanson and Anderson spoke only of the only man who had ever had a good look at him.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"Schwartz identifies him unhesitantly. We know this is the man."

Only we donīt. Not two and a half years after the event, we donīt. But of course, that is using todayīs standards, where an ID on grounds like these would be extremely doubtful and something that would not hold up in court. Was it very much different back in 1888? We can see that there was no line-up, meaning that the ID process was a very bad one from the start, but would a pointing out by a witness after almost a thousand days really carry the kind of weight to hang somebody back in 1888? I hope I may doubt it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac:

"Schwartz identifies him unhesitantly. We know this is the man."

Only we donīt. Not two and a half years after the event, we donīt. But of course, that is using todayīs standards, where an ID on grounds like these would be extremely doubtful and something that would not hold up in court. Was it very much different back in 1888? We can see that there was no line-up, meaning that the ID process was a very bad one from the start, but would a pointing out by a witness after almost a thousand days really carry the kind of weight to hang somebody back in 1888? I hope I may doubt it!

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman, I know we don't. I was putting myself in Anderson's and Swanson's shoes. They felt they had their man when the witness unhesitantly identified him. From what we know, I feel it is unreasonable to suggest anything other than Swanson and Anderson were convinced this was the man.

When Cutbush was arrested, they took a couple of women to ID him - no line up - and although he wasn't fit to plead it was enough to have him shipped off to Broadmoor; so, clearly, a positive ID, by what ever means, was a striong card to play in those days.

Cutbush was caught red handed, granted, but in the event the witness was Schwartz then so was Jack.

Edited to add:

So then we're left with the timeframe.

And, I disagree with you.

In the event the witness unhesitantly identified him, which is another way of saying this is definitely the man I saw, then I think it would hold water in a court of law 2 years after the event.

For one thing, he is not saying: "probably the man I saw but couldn't be sure two years after the event"; he's saying: "definitely the man, regardless of the two years".

[Phil H]

Yes, an extremely good witness - but only to the latest assault and not to the Ripper murders. Charles Ludwig also waved a knife in front of a woman and was taken to task for it - but not for the Ripper murders. He was dropped since he was in custody when Stride and Eddowes died, and that would have effectively taught the police that particular lesson.

But surely NO single witness would have been proof that Kosminski was "Jack" per se.

SPECULATION: On the other hand, if there was a witness who saw Kosminski on the night of Eddowes' death, then put a name to him at the court case in 1889 which led to AK being watched and followed, during which he made an attack was interrupted and got away - then a witness recognising and being recognised by AK, MIGHT just be enough to deal the deal.

I am striving hard to put the pieces together to make a coherent picture.

Can anyone tell me why the witnesses name is not on record?
Where is the statement t/he/y made which led to the I.D. scenario?

Perhaps on a file lost, destroyed or pilfered between then and now. maybe on a file retained by the Government for some reason. If City police were the main agents in all this any file might have been destroyed with other City records in the Blitz.

On the other hand, if - as I have been speculating - Sir RA and DSS were acting outside procedures, the file might not have been in the normal run.

Who took the suspect to the Seaside home, and how? There must have been a guard, mental health nurse/worker?

We only know DSS said "was SENT by us...." I have speculated that City CID (who watched AK) might have been responsible, or his family, who eventually took him to the workhouse.

If they really were sure that Kosminski was the killer, why keep it quiet for so long?

MM knew of Kosminski - so the name was no secret.

Anderson gives the reason, and Swanson underlines it: the ethos of the Service. Add to that they had no trial or conviction nothing that was publishable as proof. What could they say - Anderson was discreet but gave details.

Phil H

[Tecs]

Whether born in Lincolnshire (my country of origin) or Lancashire, doesn't mean he could not have had Jewish ancestry, does it, especially maternal ancestry.

Phil H

It's pretty much irrelevant as it seems almost certain that Sagar was not Jewish, but just to complete the story the only Mr sagar I ever met was middle eastern in appearance which would come under the umbrella of Semitic I believe. I always assumed he was Arabic but never actually asked.

regards,