Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"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."

That is so. But does it hold up legally, evidencewise? Thatīs what I am questioning.

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

Ptrrroooo, Fleets! In the event Schwartz was the witness, then he saw an altercation outside Dutfieldīs Yard, nothing else. And Swanson was very clear in stating that the timetable very much allowed for another man doing the deed than BS. So no red-handed scenario here! Plus Cutbush was ID:d in connection with his crimes, a very short time had elapsed only. Not two and a half years.

"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."

Then or today? Iīd submit that if the suspect did not have a very marked look about him that made him stand out, then two and a half years turns any suggestion of a viable ID into sand. Maybe this was not the picture back in 1888 - maybe THEY relied on such things. But if they did, then it still applies that such a pointing out would be nigh on worthless.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

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.

Phil, I like the idea that the witness came forward following the 1889 case - although then you have to ask yourself who would have been in the courtroom. I don't suppose the witness could've been a polliceman? (sure this will have been discussed already)

[Fisherman]

Phil:

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

Not to my mind, no. But that is the picture that comes across when reading about the Seaside ID, isnīt it? Immediate recognition and an admittance on behalf of the suspect that he was made. Therefore, I donīt think the witness pointed the suspect out as the Ripper. I think he only ID:d the man or put him on one of the murder spots. And as two and a half years had passed, well ... I would not give much for the latter suggestion, legally.

"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. "

But if he was watched and followed by the police, then why would they need a witness? Why not just go get the man and bring him to court? Police witnesses are star witnesses, generally. It would have sealed the case and done the deal in no time at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac:

"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."

That is so. But does it hold up legally, evidencewise? Thatīs what I am questioning.

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

Ptrrroooo, Fleets! In the event Schwartz was the witness, then he saw an altercation outside Dutfieldīs Yard, nothing else. And Swanson was very clear in stating that the timetable very much allowed for another man doing the deed than BS. So no red-handed scenario here! Plus Cutbush was ID:d in connection with his crimes, a very short time had elapsed only. Not two and a half years.

"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."

Then or today? Iīd submit that if the suspect did not have a very marked look about him that made him stand out, then two and a half years turns any suggestion of a viable ID into sand. Maybe this was not the picture back in 1888 - maybe THEY relied on such things. But if they did, then it still applies that such a pointing out would be nigh on worthless.

The best,
Fisherman

Swanson does say, in his October report, that BS Man was more likely than PC Smith's man to have been the murderer; and qualifies this by saying that after all the mudererd woman was discovered 15 minutes later. This is not the same as saying BS Man was probably the murderer, granted, but clearly Swanson is making a link between the short time frame between Schwartz's incident and the discovery of the body - the implication being that Swanson acknowleged the limitations of someone else coming along.


I still maintain that 'unhesitantly' leaves us with no doubt that the witness was convinced, and this would be of evidentuary value (two years or no two years).

[miakaal4]

Well for me, Schartz "sighting" of BS and Pipe, could have no more relevance than Hutchingsons detailed description of Ashtrakan man. He is the only one that said he saw the face of the suspect. He made a detailed description of it and I believe was paid to look for that man in the days that followed.
Why could he not be the witness? Because he was not Jewish. Sir R.A. would have been aware of his statement, but seemed to choose the idea that it was rubbish. Otherwise Hutch would have been on the trip to the Seaside, wouldn't he? How do we choose which of our witnesses to believe?

[Fleetwood Mac]

The other possibility Fisherman, is that Scwhartz's (or another witnesses's) description of Kosminski turned out to be remarkably accurate, thus adding weight to the whole ID.

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood Mac:

"Swanson does say, in his October report, that BS Man was more likely than PC Smith's man to have been the murderer; and qualifies this by saying that after all the mudererd woman was discovered 15 minutes later. This is not the same as saying BS Man was probably the murderer, granted, but clearly Swanson is making a link between the short time frame between Schwartz's incident and the discovery of the body - the implication being that Swanson acknowleged the limitations of someone else coming along."

He does - and I think he makes the exact same reflections that I do myself; it COULD have been another killer, but chances are that it WAS BS man, given that he DID seem violent and DID have the altercation with Stride.

Thatīs a wise view of it all; quite probably but not certainly. Anyne who is capable of that distinction is also capable of the insight that a witness that saw BS man did not necessarily see the killer. And thereby, this witnessīvalue is extremely limited, not to say unexistant. He may be able to put BS man on the spot (if he had a photographic memory and was not subjected to the erosion of time that the rest of us are), but that is it - nothing more.

"I still maintain that 'unhesitantly' leaves us with no doubt that the witness was convinced"

Or claimed to be convinced. Thatīs option number two.

"...and this would be of evidentuary value (two years or no two years)."

Three, Fleets? Five? Fifteen? The way it has gone down in history, I donīt think you have to answer that question - I think the ID was a very fresh one or one made by somebody who knew the suspect before. I know that if I was to see a man, an ordinary man, at nighttime and for a very short time, when I was scared to boot, I would never - unless the man was a unicorn or something to that effect - unhesitatingly say: Thatīs him!

But that is of no consequence if the police at the time nourished the misconception "once seen, never forgotten". Then THAT rules the game.

Anybody out there who knows?

"The other possibility Fisherman, is that Scwhartz's (or another witnesses's) description of Kosminski turned out to be remarkably accurate, thus adding weight to the whole ID."

Youīve seen the description, Fleetwood. Would a sturdy man in about the right age and length and with a moustache be "a remarkable fit"? Or are you saying that more was added to the description at a later stage - like that unicorn horn?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

How do we choose which of our witnesses to believe?

It's a pretty narrow field.

Murderer would hanged on the basis of the evidence.

This leaves us with Schwartz, and possibly, but unlikely to have been, Lawende and Hutchinson.

Hutchinson wasn't Jewish.

Leaves us with Schwartz as a viable option, or someone else of whom we are not aware.

[Errata]

I have a theory, and it's one that has received absolutely zero support from anyone else in Rippeology, but it's to the effect that Anderson, in a round about way, was referring to Jewish socialists/anarchists when he talks about there being a certain type of low class Jew who would shield a murderer from authorities. If he was referring to anarchists, he was absolutely 100% correct. And your recent find that Koz lived within a short walk from the Berner Street club doesn't exactly prove me wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I want to second Rob's sentiment regarding Phil H's excellent post.

Well, I have to divide this up into two parts.

I don't support your theory because I don't see Anderson referring to anarchists or socialists THAT elliptically. I mean, that requires Blechley Park to figure out what he means, and he was writing for an audience. There is no reason for him to include an aside that would be understood by no one.

BUT you are correct that Jewish anarchists (who weren't really anarchists, just violent thugs pointed in a particular direction) would not have cooperated with the police, and would have shielded one of their own. What really beggars the imagination is why they wouldn't have have taken care of the guy on their own. Because they certainly did do that. If he was an Anarchist, they wouldn't have delivered him for identification. They would have left his body in an alley.

The Socialists wouldn't have protected the guy. The Socialists still moved about in society, many were people of note, or wealth, or relatively highly placed. Many were artists, writers, actors, etc. They couldn't afford to be uncooperative, and they really had no motivation to do so in such a case. If the cops knocked on their door and wanted to know who wrote some seditious pamphlet, they would stonewall them. But not a murder. Certainly not the Ripper.
.

[Errata]

Maybe we just need to accept that the Seaside Home story just doesn't make sense.

We can make it make sense, by sort of twisting it and turning it. It makes sense if the witness wasn't identifying him as Jack the Ripper, or at least told he was identifying him for some other reason. It makes sense if the witness either lied about why he wouldn't testify, or if there was somehow someone else there intimidating him to keep quiet. It makes sense if there was no other witness to take a look at the guy, because somehow literally every other witness no matter how brief a glimpse he got of the man was a massive liability somehow.

But too many things demand explanation. How do you get a violent crazy guy in a carriage for a 45 minute trip out of town, in secret? Why bother going away to do it, instead of at some local station? Why wouldn't the witness testify? Why bother identifying the suspect at all if he wasn't going to testify? Why even show up? Why lie about why he won't testify? If you know that this is the guy, why not throw every other witness you can think of into the mix before letting him go? And after letting him go, how do you lose him?

It's not that there aren't answers to those questions. But if this in fact happened, we have no way of finding the answers to those questions. So if the MM is true, it's of very little value. All we can really take out of it is that If McNaghton wrote this, he believed that Kosminski was a suspect. And that's not nothing, since McNaghton was in a position to have an opinion. But the rest of the story is useless if it doesn't make sense.

[Phil H]

Maybe we just need to accept that the Seaside Home story just doesn't make sense.

I don't think we can do that, or have reason to do so.

But too many things demand explanation. How do you get a violent crazy guy in a carriage for a 45 minute trip out of town, in secret?

It appears it happened.

Why bother going away to do it, instead of at some local station?

They could well have had a reason, I've suggested a few.

Why wouldn't the witness testify? Why bother identifying the suspect at all if he wasn't going to testify? Why even show up?

We don't know but we can try to understand.

Why lie about why he won't testify?

On what do you base the question? Are you still beating your wife?

If you know that this is the guy, why not throw every other witness you can think of into the mix before letting him go? And after letting him go, how do you lose him?

How do you know they didn't?

It's not that there aren't answers to those questions. But if this in fact happened, we have no way of finding the answers to those questions. So if the MM is true, it's of very little value.

You mean the marginalia, I assume, not the macnaghten memo?

The marginalia (as the MM) remains prime source material, written by a major figure of the time. We may not UNDERSTAND it fully, but we can try to. Certainly we cannot, as scholars, simply dismiss it because it is inconvenient. That it clashes with surviving evidence does not mean it is untrue, or in any way misleading.

All we can really take out of it is that If McNaghton wrote this, he believed that Kosminski was a suspect.

Don't you mean Swanson? MM simply put forward Kosminski as a possible.

the rest of the story is useless if it doesn't make sense.

Not so. Many things in history are difficult to understand, but we cannot simply dismiss prime source material. We have to use intellect to penetrate the veil.

Phil H

[curious]

[o.
quoting Errata

But too many things demand explanation. How do you get a violent crazy guy in a carriage for a 45 minute trip out of town, in secret?

It appears it happened.



Phil H

drug him?

curious

[Phil H]

We don't know how crazy etc, Kosminski was. When the family took him to the workhouse it was with his hands tied behind his back.

Phil H

[Errata]

the rest of the story is useless if it doesn't make sense.

Not so. Many things in history are difficult to understand, but we cannot simply dismiss prime source material. We have to use intellect to penetrate the veil.

Phil H

The story is useful in many ways. But as evidence, I think it's useless. We can come up with literally dozens of scenarios to fill in these massive gaps, and probably come up with five or six completely different totally plausible stories to fill in the holes. But it's on a level of what happened to the Princes in the Tower, or the fate of DB Cooper. Tons of perfectly understandable explanations, zero facts.

Swanson wrote it down. So it has value. The story that accompanies the name does not add to the value. It makes it very confusing. So we have this prime source material, but outside of the name, it doesn't tell us anything of any probative value. As I see it, keeping Kosminski in the suspect pool "because Swanson said he was a suspect" is in fact of more value than keeping him in the suspect pool because of anything from this Seaside Home story, which is just baffling.

[Errata]

As an aside, astrophysics is difficult to understand. The Seaside Home story is impossible to understand. In astrophysics, facts are known so some guy can drill me on it every day for a year, and in theory I will pick some of it up. Beating on the Seaside Home story for 100 years isn't going to make it yield more facts.