Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob, thanks for that. I suppose I must have read that to mean since he worked in the West End and did not reside in the Leman Street district, that he resided in the West End. Still, the rest of my post should apply since Wolf Kozminski lived in the Leman Street district and the man seems of better circumstances than your typical East End sweater.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Harry,

I merely point out that Kosminski was a suspect, on the basis that Swanson says that he was.


Best Wishes, Bridewell.

I'm sure I could find this if I looked, but did Swanson say he was a suspect or did he believe he was a suspect? I mean, was he reporting that somehow, someone got it into their head that this might be the guy, or was he himself of the opinion that Kosminski was the guy?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Errata,

To quote the Swanson marginalia precisely, he wrote "Kosminski was kinda sorta a suspect, but not so much really, if you know what I'm saying." Many less than scrupulous researchers have modified this actual quote to suit their own purposes. Don't be taken in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

That is very funny.

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

From what we read, both Anderson & Swanson developed suspicions about Kosminski long (months/years?) after the last murder (Kelly), so what was the basis for their suspicions, being that they developed so late?

My suspicion, Jon, has long been that Kosminski simply fitted the preconceived notions that Anderson had developed with regard to the wanted man. He was Jewish, mentally unstable, lived in the immediate neighbourhood, had a family that might have been seen as protecting him, and was said to have practised ‘self abuse’. Beyond this there appears to have been little or no evidence against him. There couldn’t have been, otherwise the entire case wouldn’t have rested on an eyewitness identification. Remember too that the City investigation failed to convince Major Smith of Kosminski’s guilt. The round the clock surveillance apparently uncovered nothing incriminating. Even if it did, we may be certain that Lawende never identified Kosminski as part of the City investigation. Thus the overwhelming likelihood is that the case against Kosminski consisted of Anderson’s ‘profile’ and Schwartz’s Seaside Home identification – neither of which ought to be considered reliable in my view.

[Monty]

Hi Errata,

To quote the Swanson marginalia precisely, he wrote "Kosminski was kinda sorta a suspect, but not so much really, if you know what I'm saying." Many less than scrupulous researchers have modified this actual quote to suit their own purposes. Don't be taken in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Absolutely true Tom.

Monty

[Fisherman]

I think you will be very close to the truth here, Garry. I very much second the opinion that Anderson may have had a preconceived notion about what sort of man the Ripper would have been, and that Kosminski fitted neatly on that score.

I am, however, not equally sure that Schwartz would have been the witness. Yesterday, I reread Rob´s chapter about the identification process in his gem of a book, and he makes a very fair case about the witness probably being Lawende. He fits the bill better than Schwartz when it comes to the recorded material as such, I think.

That said, you are of course correct; having seen what Lawende saw, was not going to hang anyone. But I think the same applies to Schwartz - pushing a woman who subsequentially falls to the street is not going to earn you a rope around your neck either.

Therefore, irrespective of whether the witness was Joseph or Israel, I think we must acknowledge that Anderson and Swanson were probably overenthusiastic about their witness and the identification, and that both men described it in too positive terms. MacNaghtens words about the strong circs surrounding Kosminski and the wordings about how he closely resembled the person seen by a City police witness in height and bodily construction seem to echo Anderson and Swanson, but with a moderation caused by the insight that what these men had was not enough.
I think Rob´s description was that the two may have "glossed over" some of the wordings Lawende may have used, making the case look a tad better than it actually was. Cherrypicking, in other words.

And if we accept that there was something like this afoot - a propensity not to hear the bits that made the ID look lees tight than they wanted it to be, combined with an enthusiasm that may well have been uncalled for, then we may throw forward EITHER Lawende or Schwartz as the probable witness - and then Lawende will fit the overall picture better, I think.

One has to ask oneself in what mood Swanson was when writing his annotations in that book - did he jot these things down since he genuinely believed it would be wrong to deprive the world of the truth about the Ripper case? Surely not - there would have been thousands of channels better fit to make that point!
Or did he write it down with a sense of defeat, perhaps mixed with a feeling of not having earned the recognition he may have believed himself entitled to? Had it all blown over by then, the Kosminski proposition having been thrashed by Smith, by MacNaghten, Abberline...? I believe so.

Of course, Smith´s resentment of Andersons proposition was very clearly recorded, as was the fact that MacNaghten did not see Kosminski as anything more than a man that had been thrown forward, and that did have merits, as opposed to Thomas Cutbush - but in the end, is not the Memoranda just a way to say "All right, we were never able to prove who the Ripper was - but claiming that CUTBUSH was the killer is to lower ourselves to totally unsubstantiated allegations. And much as we failed, we at least know that there are better bids than him! Take these three men, for example ..."

And much as Smith and MacNaghten make their counterclaims, we should perhaps not expect Anderson and/or Swanson to go on record acknowledging their own mistakes, least of all if they did not agree that they HAD been to quick to pull the trigger on Kosminski. People normally don´t oblige like that, and even less so if there is prestige involved.

That´s what I see, looking at the Anderson/Swanson allegations against Kosminski and the MacNaghten memoranda: a red-hot wish to make a good case, but in the end nothing more than that. The evidence was not there in either case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I simply repeat that it is most unwise to rationalise away what Anderson and Swanson wrote and agreed on, as some of you are guilty of doing.

I note also a good deal of clinging to old ideas - such as that Lawende must have been the witness at the Seaside home. He may have been, he may not.

I have set out the position several times and now quit the thread to allow full rein to those like Fisherman and Jonathan who (I sincerely believe) will bring so much more clarity and open-mindedness to the debate.

I'm so sorry to have interrupted your deep thinking guys.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Pat.

"Then finally attacked his sister with a knife . . ."

Perhaps a tad too strong? Wasn't the phrase something like, "Threatened his sister with a knife"?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

And I think one current explanation that might fit even better and more logically (to the quote) is that it was COHEN's sister AK threatened - see recent Ripperologist article.

[robhouse]

Hi Rob, thanks for that. I suppose I must have read that to mean since he worked in the West End and did not reside in the Leman Street district, that he resided in the West End. Still, the rest of my post should apply since Wolf Kozminski lived in the Leman Street district and the man seems of better circumstances than your typical East End sweater.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

The early news reports of the Batty Street incident got the "suspect" confused with another man the police had under surveillance at the time, Charles Ludwig. Hence, later reports of the Batty Street suspect made a point to say that the man under suspicion did not live in the Leman Street district. It seems likely that Mrs. Kuer was asked if the suspect lived in the Leman Street district (to determine if Ludwig was the suspect), and she said no. In short the papers seem to have confused Ludwig for the Batty Street suspect for a while. See below:

"The Press Association says that some strange statements have been made with reference to a German named Ludwig, residing in the Leman-street district, who has already been in custody on suspicion of being concerned in the murders, and who was released after an exhaustive inquiry. It has, it is said, been reported to the authorities that this man has again been seen flourishing a knife and acting in a suspicious manner in the neighbourhood. The police are keeping him under surveillance at present, as there are some doubts as to his state of mind." ----- The Echo, October 17:


Rob

[robhouse]

I think Rob´s description was that the two may have "glossed over" some of the wordings Lawende may have used, making the case look a tad better than it actually was. Cherrypicking, in other words.

I think I am perhaps being misrepresented here. I believe what I said in my book is that Anderson/Swanson may have oversimplified the reason the witness refused to testify to "because he was a fellow-Jew". I think the real reason the witness may have refused is because he was not 100% certain of his identification AND because he knew what a furore it would cause in the East End if it was discovered that the Riper was a Jew.

Of course that is speculation. But in my opinion, if the man was absolutely certain of his identification, he would have testified. Indeed, he might have been forced to testify.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Rob:

"I think I am perhaps being misrepresented here. I believe what I said in my book is that Anderson/Swanson may have oversimplified the reason the witness refused to testify to "because he was a fellow-Jew."

That´s what I read too, Rob - and what I mean. The two, Anderson and Swanson, may have heard Lawende acknowledging that he really wasn´t up to the task of making a positive identification, since he did not feel that he could be certain. And somehow, that has got "lost in translation", if this was so. Therefore, the part about how the witness "unhesitatingly" pointed out the suspect may point us in the wrong direction. Anderson/Swanson can have remembered that Lawende recognized likenesses, but forgotten that he didn´t think they allowed him to make the ID.

That is how I read you, and that is what I am trying to convey in my post.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

My suspicion, Jon, has long been that Kosminski simply fitted the preconceived notions that Anderson had developed with regard to the wanted man. He was Jewish, mentally unstable, lived in the immediate neighbourhood, had a family that might have been seen as protecting him, and was said to have practised ‘self abuse’. Beyond this there appears to have been little or no evidence against him. There couldn’t have been, otherwise the entire case wouldn’t have rested on an eyewitness identification. Remember too that the City investigation failed to convince Major Smith of Kosminski’s guilt. The round the clock surveillance apparently uncovered nothing incriminating. Even if it did, we may be certain that Lawende never identified Kosminski as part of the City investigation. Thus the overwhelming likelihood is that the case against Kosminski consisted of Anderson’s ‘profile’ and Schwartz’s Seaside Home identification – neither of which ought to be considered reliable in my view.

Hi Garry
if Israel Scwartz was the witness used for the Kosminski ID at the Seaside home, then why was the City police the ones keeping surveillance on Kosminski?
Scwartz saw an attack in Berner street in Met area, whereas Lawende saw a suspect in City area(Mitre square). If Scwartz was the witness, then the crime scene, suspect etc are all in Met area-and the city would have no part in it, right?
Am i missing something here? Does not the City involvement in the surveillance point to Lawende being the witness as he saw a suspect in City jurisdiction?

[Paddy]

Lynn,

"Then finally attacked his sister with a knife . . ."
Perhaps a tad too strong? Wasn't the phrase something like, "Threatened his sister with a knife"?

Yes I was just a bit over enthusiastic there ! You are correct...

Pat