Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Phil H]

Same old Fisherman, same old message. YOU simply HAVE to rubbish Rir RA and DSS to support your own case, not as an impartial reviewer of the evidence.

I simply apply a principles to the evidence from Swanson and Anderson:

* they occupied senior positions and were in a position to know;
* their language is clear and pretty unambiguous;
* Swanson gave us information we had never had before from a prime source (see bullet 1);
* that information has been demonstrated to be in DSS' hand and to be in line with his usual practices;
* there is some corroborative evidence to back up Swanson (medical evidence on Kosminski/Harry Cox);
* yes there are mistakes but the death date of Kosminski is not (IMHO) sufficient to warrant questioning of the other statements;
* it is clear that a number of other senior officers/officials did not accept the conclusion or were out of the loop (Smith and Macnaghten for two, Littlechild also?) but disagreement should not necessarily imply untruth;
* Government sometimes need to keep secrets - more in 1888 when there was no policy of openness perhaps than today but they still do. The "need to know principle means that some people will be uninformed and may well resent that strongly. But it happens and again should not discredit the marginalia per se.

We need to know more, maybe one day we will,. Until then, Swanson and Anderson are EXACTLY the two people to have been in the know on Kosminski (not Abberline, not Macnaghten, not Littlechild) and they agree.

I rest my case.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

divide

Hello Phil. I see what you mean. Nevertheless, can you not see the investigative divide between the copper on the ground, say, Abberline, and the clerk in the carpeted office, like Swanson?

Just to catch a hint of what I mean, look at Swanson's quandary vis-a-vis "Lipski" and Fred's straightfoward, "Let me explain what that means."

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"Same old Fisherman, same old message."

Consistency ...? Yes?

"YOU simply HAVE to rubbish Rir RA and DSS to support your own case, not as an impartial reviewer of the evidence."

It would be very comfortable if we could always rely on people with favoured suspects to make prejudiced calls in all instances. I´m afraid that is not necessarily true, though, in spite of your repeated claims; same old Phil, same old message, eh?

"they occupied senior positions and were in a position to know"

Who? Littlechild and Swanson? Anderson and Smith? Littlechild and MacNaghten?

"their language is clear and pretty unambiguous"

I did NOT have sex with that woman (Bill Clinton). Clear and unambiguous, wouldn´t you say?

"Swanson gave us information we had never had before from a prime source"

So did Clinton.

"that information has been demonstrated to be in DSS' hand and to be in line with his usual practices"

I´ll refrain from guessing what was in Clinton´s hands for bashfulness´sake. AND his "usual practices"...

"there is some corroborative evidence to back up Swanson"

... and some to pooh-pooh him. Right?

"yes there are mistakes but the death date of Kosminski is not (IMHO) sufficient to warrant questioning of the other statements"

Of course we must question the rest, when we find that one pice of information is way off! It is standard procedure, Phil, as I´m sure you know.

"it is clear that a number of other senior officers/officials did not accept the conclusion or were out of the loop (Smith and Macnaghten for two, Littlechild also?) but disagreement should not necessarily imply untruth"

No - but it urges us to question the veracity on the whole. Same mechanism as in the former point, as it were.

"Government sometimes need to keep secrets"

Yes! But this did not apply here, did it? Anderson and Swanson let the cat out of the box, and went public with the killer being a Polish Jew, incarcerated after the murders, plus Swanson spilled the beans about the name in a book that was admittedly private - but why on earth would he need to write the name at all, if it was a state secret? Ask yourself that, Phil. Why did the two not just zip it totally? If they had, we would never be any the wiser. And I would have thought that was the aim of a secret?

And then ponder what I said in my earlier post: If Anderson and Swanson WERE sworn to secrecy, and still - for some unfathomable reason - blabbered about the identification, then why is it that none of the men that wrote memoirs, like Smith and MacNaghten SAYS that this happened? "Apparently there was an identification process that satisfied my colleagues Anderson and Swanson that the killer had been incarcerated". They KNEW that Anderson CLAIMED that there had been such a process. Why would they call the claim that the killer had been ID:d "outrageous" if they had no idea what had happened at this identification? Why would MacNaghten grade Kosminski down, if he was only privy to the knowledge that an ID process had established that Kosminski was the killer? From such a viewpoint, how could he - with no substantiation at all - DISREGARD Anderson´s claims?

It is like I said, Phil: As long as the fairytale picture of a secret ID (so secret that the man responsible for it described it in his memoirs!) is allowed to live on, there is some small lebensraum offered for the "correct ID" notion. But those of us who - on account of our almighty biases, of course, of course! - think that what Smith, MacNaghten and Littlechild say, tells us that they knew very well what value to ascribe to the identification.

Like you say, I never change on that point!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Swanson didn't actually say that the identification "would have secured a conviction in its own right", only that the "witness would be the means of murderer being hanged", which is rather different.

Not to my mind, Chris. Swanson’s words are unequivocal. Any hope of a conviction rested on the identification. Thus the ‘witness would be the means of the murderer being hanged’. In other words the identification was a smoking gun – and demonstrably so given that the case against Kosminski collapsed once the Seaside Home witness withdrew his cooperation.

If someone had been convicted as a result of a combination of circumstantial evidence and a witness identifying him as having been close to the scene of the crime, that wouldn't be a unique occurrence by any means.

Perhaps, Chris. But Swanson’s words indicate that Kosminski (or someone presumed to have been Kosminski) wasn’t merely seen close to a crime scene. In order for the identification to have been instrumental in securing a conviction it must have related to something far more compelling. Assuming that the Seaside Home witness was either Lawende or Schwartz, only the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders could have linked a suspect to an actual murder. Thus the Seaside Home witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

[Garry Wroe]

Do you think that since it seems the Met (SRA and DSS)was running the ID, then that actually points to Scwartz being the witness used in the Kosminski ID since he was a witness to an attack (on stride) on Met territory?

I incline to the view that the Met would have adhered to standard operational procedure and used any and all of the witnesses it had at its disposal, Abby, irrespective of jurisdictional considerations. Anderson was clearly of the opinion that the man who identified Kosminski was the best of these witnesses, and Swanson’s annotations leave little room for doubting that this man was Schwartz. The problem I have with the Anderson/Swanson version of events relates to the fact that no-one other than Schwartz appears to have identified Kosminski. We can be sure that Anderson would have bolstered his claims still further had Lawende, Cox and Long also fingered Kosminski. Yet he made no mention of the other eyewitnesses. This suggests one of two things. Either the Seaside Home episode was an ad hoc affair which flouted normal procedure, or Kosminski was confronted by other witnesses who failed to identify him. Either way, Anderson’s contention that Jack the Ripper’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’ appears to be anything but evidentially robust.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"only the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders could have linked a suspect to an actual murder."

Not at all. That "assault" (hrmm), linked BS man to the place, but not to the murder. The exact same thing applies to the Church Passage man - he is linked to the place, but not to the murder.

The differences in evidence value between the men are mainly two:

1. BS man displays something that may be violence, something the Church Passage man does not do.
2. BS man may be as much as fifteen minutes removed from the murder time, whereas Church Passage man offers a more narrow window of time in relation to the strike, perhaps some seven, eight minutes only.

The first point speaks more for BS man, the second more for Church Passage man. But in effect, NEITHER man can be tied to the respective murders in any true sense! That is beyond dispute.

... and in the end, we do know that Lawende was the Sadler witness, whereas nothing implies any other witness in place at that stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Not to my mind, Chris. Swanson’s words are unequivocal. Any hope of a conviction rested on the identification. Thus the ‘witness would be the means of the murderer being hanged’. In other words the identification was a smoking gun – and demonstrably so given that the case against Kosminski collapsed once the Seaside Home witness withdrew his cooperation.

Perhaps, Chris. But Swanson’s words indicate that Kosminski (or someone presumed to have been Kosminski) wasn’t merely seen close to a crime scene. In order for the identification to have been instrumental in securing a conviction it must have related to something far more compelling. Assuming that the Seaside Home witness was either Lawende or Schwartz, only the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders could have linked a suspect to an actual murder. Thus the Seaside Home witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

I think you are missing the point of what Chris said. He said: "If someone had been convicted as a result of a combination of circumstantial evidence and a witness identifying him as having been close to the scene of the crime, that wouldn't be a unique occurrence by any means."

[Errata]

Same old Fisherman, same old message. YOU simply HAVE to rubbish Rir RA and DSS to support your own case, not as an impartial reviewer of the evidence.

I simply apply a principles to the evidence from Swanson and Anderson:

* they occupied senior positions and were in a position to know;
* their language is clear and pretty unambiguous;
* Swanson gave us information we had never had before from a prime source (see bullet 1);
* that information has been demonstrated to be in DSS' hand and to be in line with his usual practices;
* there is some corroborative evidence to back up Swanson (medical evidence on Kosminski/Harry Cox);
* yes there are mistakes but the death date of Kosminski is not (IMHO) sufficient to warrant questioning of the other statements;
* it is clear that a number of other senior officers/officials did not accept the conclusion or were out of the loop (Smith and Macnaghten for two, Littlechild also?) but disagreement should not necessarily imply untruth;
* Government sometimes need to keep secrets - more in 1888 when there was no policy of openness perhaps than today but they still do. The "need to know principle means that some people will be uninformed and may well resent that strongly. But it happens and again should not discredit the marginalia per se.

We need to know more, maybe one day we will,. Until then, Swanson and Anderson are EXACTLY the two people to have been in the know on Kosminski (not Abberline, not Macnaghten, not Littlechild) and they agree.

I rest my case.

Phil H

Okay. Let us suppose that everything they say is the unembroidered truth. And I can easily see a case for Anderson representing the case as far more open and shut in his book than it actually was, but Swanson has little motive to do so. As I understand it, Swanson certainly identifies Kosminski as the suspect that Anderson is talking about but Kosminski is not Swanson's suspect of choice. Which begs a pretty important question.

They knew what they were talking about, but did they know what the other was talking about? Do we know what they were talking about?

Also, Anderson makes an interesting statement regarding the affair in his book. He said "And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice." If we wonder why an arrest on an airtight identification never happened, surely this statement explains why. Unfortunately, I have no idea what it means. I don't don't know what powers the French Police possessed that the English Police did not, nor which particular power he is referring to. So if anyone knows, that would be helpful.

[Abby Normal]

Garry Wroe:

"only the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders could have linked a suspect to an actual murder."

Not at all. That "assault" (hrmm), linked BS man to the place, but not to the murder. The exact same thing applies to the Church Passage man - he is linked to the place, but not to the murder.

The differences in evidence value between the men are mainly two:

1. BS man displays something that may be violence, something the Church Passage man does not do.
2. BS man may be as much as fifteen minutes removed from the murder time, whereas Church Passage man offers a more narrow window of time in relation to the strike, perhaps some seven, eight minutes only.

The first point speaks more for BS man, the second more for Church Passage man. But in effect, NEITHER man can be tied to the respective murders in any true sense! That is beyond dispute.

... and in the end, we do know that Lawende was the Sadler witness, whereas nothing implies any other witness in place at that stage.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, Garry
Re BS man and Church passage man.

Both Lawende and Scwartz both describe their man as wearing a cap with a peak (and marshall for that matter). Surley this is the same man, and therefore the murderer of both Stride and Eddowes, no?

[Chris]

I think you are missing the point of what Chris said. He said: "If someone had been convicted as a result of a combination of circumstantial evidence and a witness identifying him as having been close to the scene of the crime, that wouldn't be a unique occurrence by any means."

Thank you.

I was disagreeing with Garry's claim that Swanson indicated that the identification "would have secured a conviction in its own right". He didn't indicate that at all. There may be an implication that it was necessary, but obviously that is quite different from its being sufficient.

As for Garry's assertion that "In order for the identification to have been instrumental in securing a conviction it must have related to something far more compelling" [than the suspect having been seen close to the scene of a crime], it's simply not true. For obvious reasons, murders committed in the view of an eyewitness are relatively rare. And - barring conspiracy theories - we know that none of the Whitechapel murders was committed in the view of an eyewitness.

[Phil H]

errata

As I understand it, Swanson certainly identifies Kosminski as the suspect that Anderson is talking about but Kosminski is not Swanson's suspect of choice. Which begs a pretty important question.

I'm sorry, that's just not right nor logical. DSS wrote his marginalia commenting on what his old chief had said. It was a custom of his to add details he knew to books in his possession. That's clear from other examples.

In the Ripper marginalia, he writes a coherent piece, short but clear, leading to the suspect's name. DSS had every opportunity to say that he disagreed with Anderson but he did not. Equally, he wrote elsewhere:

We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters.

While I doubt that the Ripper case was as central to these men's careers as some appear to think, I don't think Swanson would have dismissed it as "trivial". So that they DID NOT differ over Kosminski is IMHO a logical and clear conclusion to draw.

Nor is there any indication that the information he set down was a surprise to DSS - it is precisely the sort of information he would have known And he uses the word "us" which could well include himself.

On French legal practice, I think those much more qualified than i have commented on it. I think it is about powers of arrest on suspicion, but you should check with the relevant threads.

Sorry to disagree so strongly,

Phil H

[Phil H]

Hello Phil. I see what you mean. Nevertheless, can you not see the investigative divide between the copper on the ground, say, Abberline, and the clerk in the carpeted office, like Swanson?

Just to catch a hint of what I mean, look at Swanson's quandary vis-a-vis "Lipski" and Fred's straightfoward, "Let me explain what that means."

I don't think Swanson was co-ordinating officer on the Lipski case, was he? He was in a position to know a great deal about the Ripper case. He was also senior to Abberline and thus possibly privy to a different kind of information.

The divide you mention is clear to me. Anderson was "management" in loose terms, with wider policy, strategy and perhaps high-level administration as his main concerns and responsibilities.

Abberline was a on the ground investigative copper, nose to the grinder, deep in the detail.

Swanson was specifically a co-ordinator seeing every paper on the subject (as laid down by Warren). He was thus in a position to know information that did not come from men like Reid or Abberline, would have had other sources, and was (unlike the more junior investigators) in a position to draw threads and strands together.

While Abberline would have been duty bound to relay ALL information UP the line management chain, the chain of command had no such responsibility to tell Abberline everything they knew (for security or other confidentiality reasons).

hence why I believe that (despite popular myth) Abberline was perhaps less well informed on some aspects of the case than his superiors.

Phil H

[Errata]

errata

As I understand it, Swanson certainly identifies Kosminski as the suspect that Anderson is talking about but Kosminski is not Swanson's suspect of choice. Which begs a pretty important question.

I'm sorry, that's just not right nor logical. DSS wrote his marginalia commenting on what his old chief had said. It was a custom of his to add details he knew to books in his possession. That's clear from other examples.

In the Ripper marginalia, he writes a coherent piece, short but clear, leading to the suspect's name. DSS had every opportunity to say that he disagreed with Anderson but he did not. Equally, he wrote elsewhere:

We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters.

While I doubt that the Ripper case was as central to these men's careers as some appear to think, I don't think Swanson would have dismissed it as "trivial". So that they DID NOT differ over Kosminski is IMHO a logical and clear conclusion to draw.

Nor is there any indication that the information he set down was a surprise to DSS - it is precisely the sort of information he would have known And he uses the word "us" which could well include himself.

On French legal practice, I think those much more qualified than i have commented on it. I think it is about powers of arrest on suspicion, but you should check with the relevant threads.

Sorry to disagree so strongly,

Phil H

Disagree as strongly as you like. Well, without name calling, but otherwise I'm fine. Arguing is how I learn.

Speaking of which, I disagree about your interpretation of the statement "We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters." I don't think it's possible for two people working in law enforcement for as long as they did to agree on the interpretation of evidence in every case. I think the statement refers more to their relationship that to their profession. I think that having two different suspects 5, 10, 20 years after the fact would not be an unpleasantness. It seems like everyone has a different pet suspect, and I can't fathom that all of the main players were at each others throats about it, or even argued about it. There are professions that require a level of compartmentalization. Doctors, Lawyers, Law Enforcement, soldiers... they can't afford to get personal with their work. I don't think these guys did either. They certainly don't show the signs of having done so, which usually involves social ruin. I think the working relationship between Anderson and Swanson was not in the slightest contentious, even when they disagreed.

My interpretation of the Marginalia is that Swanson has an odd tone to his writing. He's writing for himself, expounding upon the story of another. But he doesn't write as though he has an opinion. He has no reaction to any part of this tale that he relates. Really the only commentary he offers is that the suspect was transported "with great difficulty". So I assume he is either implying that it should have been easier, but for some reason wasn't, or he's giving himself a bit of a pat on the back for managing a difficult task. He says that Kosminski was the suspect, not that Kosminski was the killer. And then proceeds to get the man's fate wrong. Combined, it suggests that this was suspect he was not particularly invested in, certainly not so invested in that he kept track of the guy.

On the other hand, we have only Swanson's word that the suspect was in fact Kosminski. Anderson, though it seems unlikely, could have been referring to someone else entirely. Given the nature of eyewitnesses, it's certainly possible that multiple witnesses identified multiple suspects. Which would make Kosminski Swanson's suspect, and not Anderson's suspect.

An of course, we are assuming that they meant Aaron Kosminski. Solitary vices certainly conjures up the idea of masturbation, and certainly that was a euphemism for that practice. But it also means drink, or drugs, even begging. If the solitary vice they were referring to was opium or laudanum etc., then they aren't talking about Aaron Kosminski. He didn't have access. And we are assuming that Swanson didn't misremember the name, and meant the more common Kaminsky. Which is not a sign of idiocy, it's something everybody does. To my shame, I have never addressed my parent'h housekeeper by her proper last name. It's Kircher, and I keep saying Crutcher. No idea why.

I mean, when we get right down to it, what do we really know? We know that Swanson says that this whole series of events is what Anderson is referring to. Since we can't corroborate any of it, we don't know if Swanson confused the suspects, the names, the places, we don't even know if this i s something he knows first or second hand. So if we are going to analyze this statement for evidence, where do we start? Do we have to assume it is true? Do we have to assume that it is error free? Do we have to assume that that the obvious interpretations of the evidence are correct? On face value, the initial interpretation of the whole thing being correct has gotten us nothing, except assumptions that don't fit the text.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Surley this is the same man"

No, Abby, it is not. Lawendes man was a shabby, ruffianish man, whereas Schwartz´ ditto was described as respectably looking. Not the same man at all, therefore.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Errata:

" he doesn't write as though he has an opinion. He has no reaction to any part of this tale that he relates."

My take too. It is NOT the writing of a man sworn to silence - for if it was, there would BE no writing of any marginalia, would there? He seems mostly to fill in the blanks as he follows his masters´ lead, once again relating that ID that went all wrong all them years ago, having so much criticism rain down over them ...

The best,
Fisherman