Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Cogidubnus]

I'm not convinced Eleanor's potentially painful suntan is fully documented, but the period's about right!

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

I'm not convinced Eleanor's potentially painful suntan is fully documented, but the period's about right!

All the best

Dave

I tend to buy it because it's such a brilliant battle strategy.
"Kill the... are those naked women?"

[harry]

Errata,(Ref post 502),
Would it be an animal type Kosminski,or an educated,intelligent Druitt?
Regards.

[Errata]

Errata,(Ref post 502),
Would it be an animal type Kosminski,or an educated,intelligent Druitt?
Regards.

given the circumstances, I imagine that just about everyone was convinced that Jack was not educated, not intelligent, by no means a gentleman, and very much an animal no matter his race, creed, or color. Even today society has problems with smart killers and less smart but well meaning cops. If a killer gets away, it's because the cops are stupid and corrupt. But it's never because the killer has a higher IQ than 98 percent of the population. And it's never because sometimes you just don't catch the bad guys. Every killer makes mistakes, but they don't all make meaningful mistakes. And every criminal leaves clues, they just don't always leave meaningful clues. We don't accept that now. The Victorians were a highly romanticized people where truth, justice and honor prevail over wickedness every time. Except they don't. Which is why Jack is the herald of the modern age. Not because of anything to do with crime and murder, but because he caused people to doubt that good triumphs over evil. What Jack started, the assassination of JFK sealed. We can't trust anyone.

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson?

Why couldn't Hutch have been the broad shouldered man that Schwartz saw attack Liz Stride?

Hi Abby,

I guess he could have been, if he had broad shoulders. Do we know that he did? Then again, any "broad-shouldered" man fitting Schwartz's description could have been that individual if he could be shown to have been in the general area at the relevant time. I think the more appropriate question to ask here is:

"What reason is there to believe that George Hutchinson actually was that individual?

We know that Abberline questioned Hutchinson at some length and I think it unlikely that any similarity between him and Schwartz's description would have gone unnoticed by an officer of his experience. Then again, this is a Kosminski thread. Does Hutchinson have any relevance here?

Regards, Bridewell.

[miakaal4]

Hi Errata, I think you make a good point there mate. Preconceived idea's of a man (woman) who "rips" open the belly of a helpless woman, must have caused a bias in the majority of the police and public. They would have lurid descriptions from the newspapers, local gossip, and gory cartoons to help there vision of JtR along. We should remember Spring Heeled Jack, and how people were perfectly willing to believe this maniac could leap over walls or bound away like a grotesque grasshopper. Fictional books of the horror genre were much more popular and for them scarier than they are to day, (because we have been desensitised by films).
Their imagination would distort their views, and perhaps even rule out certain types of people.
Kosminski may have fitted into this distorted image, because of the way he looked combined with his unusual behavior.
He may have been seen with Stride scuffling, by "someone" near where he was living? Why would this "witness" be believed above all others?
Or are those here who support the Kosminski being JtR theory suggesting he was seen red-handed?
What had this witness seen that made those policemen so sure they had their man?

[Phil H]

Kosminski may have fitted into this distorted image, because of the way he looked combined with his unusual behavior.

Or they may have had information which we do not have.

Why do we always make judgements as if we have access to all the information that Anderson, Swanson et al had in the 1880s/90s? This is not a zero sum game - or do you think it is? new information, often from old sources continues to emrge - reports, pictures etc, and we KNOW that many official files were pilfered in the recent past.

It seems to me that as well as seeking patterns in the evidence that survives, it can also be useful to seek those areas where a "blank" might - at least circumstantially - suggest evidence is missing.

The identification of Kosminski at the Seaside Home is surely a prime candidate for such a "blank" - before the marginalia appeared we had no information on any of this, even the existence of THAT identification. Yet Swanson's words clearly suggest that there was/is much more information about the reasons for the ID being conducted as it was (and where it was); the witness and the "difficulties in getting Kosminski to the venue.

So why do we limit our consideration of the witness to names we knw - BS man; Schwartz; Lawende? I find discussion of whether Hutchinson might have been BS man slightly bizarre as we have minimal information about the appearance of either!!! Why not ask rather - where else might a witness have come from?

Anderson and Swanson were not fools - far from it - DSS had risen from the ranks; Anderson was something of an intellectual. They would, IMHO, not have needed us to tell them that recognition over time faded; or that a fleeting glimpse of a victim and a man would not be enough to convict. But Swanson - who would have known - is clear - there was every likelihood of a successful ID at the Seaside Home leading to a murder conviction.

We have some details - the witness was Jewish (notwithstanding recent discussions, Swanson's grammar is clear on that point); there is no mention of the witness having to be taken to the Home; and if he was a serving police officer witness pressure could have been brought on him to testify - so it may have been a civilian.

My point is that I think we need to think wider, deeper, outside the box on all this - not just ride the roundabout with the same tired mounts.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"why do we limit our consideration of the witness to names we knw - BS man; Schwartz; Lawende?"

I canīt speak for others, but I believe that the identification process concerning Sadler tells us that we need not look any further than Lawende. It is very obvious that the police - no matter how useful they believed a two and a half-year old glimpse actually was - actually called upon Joseph Lawende to try and identify Sadler.

What you have, you use. What you donīt have, you can wish for - but not use.

Without naming Lawende, the Daily Telegraph puts it beyond doubt that he was the person involved in the Sadler identification process, they put it beyond doubt that he failed to make the ID - and they say not a iota about any other witness involved, let alone any such witness who had seen much more than Lawende or who had made a more recent observation, and who was in a position to immediately and without hesitation nail the suspect. One would think that either success OR failure on behalf of such a witness would have made the pages too. It would have represented a far superior value as evidence material - if it had existed.

I would be very happy to see the future turn up the name of a hitherto totally unknown star witness, a man who could ID the Ripper unhesitatingly and with ease, but I feel pretty secure in saying that it is not going to happen.

"we need to think wider, deeper, outside the box on all this"

That is always a commendable thing to do. And Iīm happy that somebody is willing to take the task on in this particular errand, since I believe it is a waste of time, at least if we are looking for that illusive alternative witness with all that certainty and knowledge.

I am all for thinking outside the box, though, when it comes to finding an explanation to why Anderson and - seemingly - Swanson were so eager to push a failed identification process as proof of having found Jack the Ripper, keeping Andersonsīnext in command in the dark, keeping the leadership of the City police in the dark and keeping their men on the streets, the ones who devoted themselves to solving the case in the dark in the process. That is an alley of research that may well prove a lot more fruitful the way I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Why do we always make judgements as if we have access to all the information that Anderson, Swanson et al had in the 1880s/90s? This is not a zero sum game - or do you think it is? new information, often from old sources continues to emrge - reports, pictures etc, and we KNOW that many official files were pilfered in the recent past.

Well, of course we don't. But while new little tidbits come out, we aren't getting a whole meal so to speak. And if we did we would probably be too suspicious of it to give it due weight.

On the other hand, some of us are operating under some handicaps regarding this particular corner of Ripper studies. Take me for example. I have a series of beliefs, not based on fact per se, maybe at best based on trends. I don't think the Ripper was insane on any count. I just don't that that works, all things being equal. I also don't think the behavior described in the Seaside Home encounter reflects reality. That's just not how people in that situation behave in my mind. So in truth, I don't think the Seaside Home thing happened at all. Or if it did, it did not involve a successful identification, and did not involve someone with a severe mental illness. So anything I say on the subject is just intellectual spit balling, so to speak. Since I don't think I have to actually believe in something to contribute, I don't feel like I have no business here. But I admit it's going to limit my creativity on the matter.

But if we are going to think outside the box, then we either have rules, or we have no rules. For example, the possibilities available if we accept that everything Swanson said was true are much fewer than if we are allowed to discard certain elements as falsehood. Or if we are allowed to chuck the whole thing as fiction.

For example, lets assume everything happened as Swanson said it happened. But let's add one caveat. Let's say that the witness did not see Jack the Ripper, but he saw a man who he thinks did see him, or witnessed the murder itself. So he identifies Kosminski as a man who say, was seen coming out of the murder scene completely freaked out, not covered in blood, not in some murderous rage, but whimpering and crying and clearly just totally broken. Now let's say that the cops believe that his presence at the scene makes him the murderer, especially since they can't get any sense out of him regarding what he saw. Well the witness doesn't believe that Kos was the murderer, but he can see the logic of a prosecutors argument. So he won't testify. He won't be responsible for a man hanging for something he didn't do. so the witness is essentially saying "Yes, that is the man I saw, but I don't think he was the killer." and the cops are saying "He's insane, he was at the murder scene, and he isn't telling us anything at all. Why should we believe he isn't the killer?" But they let him go without a fight, without trying to get him identified by someone else, without holding him on any charge they can think of. Because they believe that this man wasn't the killer. He's too sad and too weak. They think he saw something that broke him, not really considering that he was broken before. So they put a token tail on him for a couple of days, and then let it go.

Kosminksi was the man identified by the witness. But despite the fact that a prosecutor could easily argue that he was the killer, they didn't really believe it. And maybe the higher ups don't take that view. Maybe they are irritated that they gave up on a slam dunk case. And maybe none of them were present for the identification, and came to some rather unfortunate conclusions as to why it failed. But none of them actually keep track of the guy. And the case against him was not pursued. So maybe despiite the fact that they are sure they could get a conviction, none of them really think Kos is the guy. They just keep him as a suspect because he has no defense. And maybe it speaks really well of everyone involved that they didn't just charge him with the crimes anyway, to get the city off their backs.

Or Kosminski looks just like his brother, who is in fact the Ripper. But since one was crazy and the other respectable, his brother had no problem with throwing his crazy brother to the wolves. Maybe he's the one who told the cops that Kos was the killer. Which worked as a distraction, but doesn't succeed in getting Kos arrested.

Or if we really want to go out of the box, I can make the case that the Ripper was the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant. I did it once at a party, I think I can do it again.

[Phil H]

I give up!!

[Errata]

I give up!!

No Grant then? Cause I could do a Powerpoint...

[miakaal4]

Hey Errata I like your idea that the police kept watch because they thought that Kos had seen something, and the killer knew it. After all, the killer would want Kos silenced. The whole case around Kosminski, like it or not, spirals back to the written thoughts of men who commented from their comfortable retirements years later. It is subjective and controversial but cannot be ignored. I just wish they had elaborated a little more!

[Phil H]

miakaal:

Anderson and Swanson were in a position to know, and the latter specifically says the SUSPECT was Kosminski.

Given that evidence, I don't think we can argue that Kosminski was other than a good suspect (at least circumstantially) - he had been watched and someone had seen him - otherwise there would have been no ID at the Seaside Home. The lengths the police went to (difficulties) with the ID suggests (to me at least) that they had something to go on. I also infer from the marginalia and Anderson that the ID was a good one, with recognition on both sides. the problem was bringing the case to court.

Phil H.

[Ben]

We know that Abberline questioned Hutchinson at some length and I think it unlikely that any similarity between him and Schwartz's description would have gone unnoticed by an officer of his experience.

Schwartz's description was far too generic and encompassing for any similarity to be noticeable, in my opinion, Bridewell. There would have been thousands of 30ish chunkily-built peaked-cap wearers in the district. A potential superficial similarity between Broad Shoulders and Hutchinson would only have been noted if Abberline et al already harboured suspicions that the latter might be the murderer, and there's no indication that they did.

To go back to an earlier point, if Lawende was the witness who later identified Grainger as the Church Passage man, there is obviously no reason to think that Lawende detected a Jewish appearance in the latter.

But back to Koz!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"The lengths the police went to (difficulties) with the ID suggests (to me at least) that they had something to go on."

Of course they had. But that something could be of VERY varying quality.

"I also infer from the marginalia and Anderson that the ID was a good one"

Yes, that is what the two gentlemen will have us believe. But if we are to infer, then why not infer from Major Smiths response that the ID was not something that held any water at all?

Smith stated that Andersonsīclaim was outrageous. Why would he do that? Why not react with a sound interest, saying "Wow, that sounds intriguing!" Because, I would infer, Smith was aquainted with what had gone down, he KNEW (he was also in a position to do so) and realized that the purportedly watertight ID process leaked like a plastic canoe having been showered with a tommygun.

We may also infer that MacNaghten (who would ALSO be in the know about all things Ripper), being next in command to Anderson, would have been equally aquainted with the whole hullaballoo, and we may therefore also infer that when he acknowledges that Kosminski was a useful suspect, BUT opts for Druitt as the Ripper, he does so since he is very much aware that the positive identification Anderson spoke of was never there.

And letīs not forget to infer that Littlechild (a man who was in the know about more things than Anderson, in all probability) would have had good reason to say that Anderson only THOUGHT he knew.

It is only when we accept that Anderson and Swanson played hide and seek with the rest of the police force that we may speak of a secret identification process, a hide and seek game that none of the other top ranking men EVER mentioned in any memoirs or reports. Once this cover - purveyed to Anderson and Swanson on behalf of a collection of pro Kosminski Ripperologists - is blown, the whole affair crumbles totally in the bright light of day.

The best,
Fisherman