Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Errata]

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

You mock, but I'm going to take it as a sign of love.

I know what the marginalia says. It's the tone that prompted the question. He related a series of events as best he knew in a very matter of fact way. There is no emotional coloring of the statement, which is something people often do in their private notes. But he also says that Kosminski was the suspect, not that Kosminski was the killer. So I was asking he thought Kosminski was the killer, or if he was merely relating why Anderson thought Kosminski was the killer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob,

I think we read the Batty Street episode differently, but that's okay.

Hi Errata,

Yes, I took the opportunity of your post to make a funny. No offense intended. As for the writings about Kozminski, I'm sure you've noticed there's quite a bit of debate. But taking these men at their word, Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaghten all tell us quite plainly that Koz was in fact a suspect. However, whereas Anderson sells the story as a fact that Koz was the Ripper, Swanson dovetails and only seems to communicate that, to his mind, Koz was a viable suspect, but nothing more. Then we have Macnaghten telling us that Koz was a suspect, but in no way the Ripper - again, in his opinion. Each man likely had his own criteria as to what made a good suspect. I believe that Macnaghten was sold on the idea of a suspect with medical knowledge, and this alone might have caused him to dismiss Koz. But that's just my speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Kosminski did come under suspicion during the murders as a result of the October house to house search.

[Stephen Thomas]

Kosminski did come under suspicion during the murders as a result of the October house to house search.

No he didn't.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Yes, I took the opportunity of your post to make a funny. No offense intended. As for the writings about Kozminski, I'm sure you've noticed there's quite a bit of debate. But taking these men at their word, Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaghten all tell us quite plainly that Koz was in fact a suspect. However, whereas Anderson sells the story as a fact that Koz was the Ripper, Swanson dovetails and only seems to communicate that, to his mind, Koz was a viable suspect, but nothing more. Then we have Macnaghten telling us that Koz was a suspect, but in no way the Ripper - again, in his opinion. Each man likely had his own criteria as to what made a good suspect. I believe that Macnaghten was sold on the idea of a suspect with medical knowledge, and this alone might have caused him to dismiss Koz. But that's just my speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

None taken. Although I'm beginning to think a sarcasm font is increasingly necessary.

But it colors things that the man we get the story from isn't sold on the idea. Certainly one thing that I have noticed in modern communication is that generally the more "matter of fact" a person is, the less they believe what they are saying. If you listen to people discussing and debating, you can tell when somebody is being scrupulously fair about a view they don't share. It's how they choose their words. And Swanson has more than a little bit of that in his writing.

Which raises some questions. If he knew about the Seaside Home event, enough to describe it, if he was involved in it in any way, why doesn't he think it's Koz? In theory this suspect has been identified as the Ripper. Why doesn't Swanson buy that? What trumps that identification in his mind? Is it just that he has a per theory that Koz doesn't fit into, or does he know something that could legitimately challenge an eyewitness? Or is it possible that he isn't writing about something he had direct knowledge of, and is just repeating a story, one that possibly he himself doubts?

And of course the next logical question is that if he didn't believe it was Koz, why write it down in personal notes? But that's another argument for another day.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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

Lawende became a UK citizen a few years later, no? Outright refusal to testify might have derailed that.

[c.d.]

When it comes to Anderson, I can't help but think of the old line "the operation was a success but the patient died." The whole didn't want to testify against a fellow Jew could have just been a way to save face.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

No he didn't.

According to Anderson, he did.

[Fleetwood Mac]

According to Anderson, he did.

Not doubting it, but would like to read this.

My understanding is that the house-to-house produced nothing with the exception of a diagnosis on the type of person Jack may have been.

[robhouse]

According to Anderson, he did.

The Batty Street incident was discovered as the result of a house-to-house search... that occurred while Anderson was out of the country.

RH

[Errata]

When it comes to Anderson, I can't help but think of the old line "the operation was a success but the patient died." The whole didn't want to testify against a fellow Jew could have just been a way to save face.

c.d.

It reminds of how sometimes a woman gets pissed off about something she has every right to get pissed at, and the guys dismisses it as "PMS". It's that whole "I didn't screw up, you're just being irrational" mentality. Like what the witness actually said was "I'm not testifying because I am not certain this man is guilty of anything other than being in the neighborhood." and someone dismissed a perfectly rational objection as "Oh he's just saying that because they are both Jewish." because they can't hear a rational argument against their own opinion.

[robhouse]

Lawende became a UK citizen a few years later, no? Outright refusal to testify might have derailed that.

My point was that the witness was possibly not so sure of his identification, so forcing him to testify wouldn't have resulted in a conviction anyway. Again, just speculation.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

I often see it mentioned that Koz was suspected 'long after the murders'. What precisely does that mean to you?

Hi Tom.

What that indicates to me is that none of the evidence obtained from any of the murders could be attributed to this Kosminski at the time (Sept-Oct.).
The police investigated 300 persons of interest, Kosminski could have been among them, that is true. Even so, indications are, for all their efforts nothing of substance was gained from those investigations.

So, we cannot assume, nor even argue, that Swanson "should know" because he was in "the best position to know".
Yes he was in the best position "to know", at the time! So why didn't he know?, at the time!
The short answer is, at the time, Swanson did not suspect Kosminski, no-one did.

We all seem to accept the police had reason to suspect Kosminski around the time of the I.D., but when was that I.D.? and, why was that?

Why did the police feel the need to bring forward a witness from a previous case to face "this" particular suspect? - this we are not told.
We are left to ponder what was their later suspicions based on? - was it only heresay, or something stronger?

Regards, Jon S.

[Scott Nelson]

So why didn't he know?, at the time!
The short answer is, at the time, Swanson did not suspect Kosminski, no-one did.

We simply don't know this.

[Wickerman]

We simply don't know this.

Swanson names those whom the police held suspicions against - thats how we know.

Regards, Jon S.