Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Errata]

By the way, and I only mention this because it's a pet peeve of mine and so I've been going silently apesh*t for half the day until now...

Occam's Razor does not mean that the simplest theory is the correct one. It means the theory with the fewest external variables, or makes the fewest assumptions should be chosen. Not because it is right, but because the burden of proof must be satisfied in simplicity before it can be satisfied in complexity.

Therefore, according to Occam's Razor, we should choose to believe that the marginalia is true, because that requires the least amount of assumptions. Having proved or disproved that, we can then move on to other theories.

I for the life of me don't know why it bothers me, but it does. That and when people use literally to emphasize a statement, when really they mean figuratively, and then need a bunch of exclamation points at the end.

[Errata]

I occurs to me that this whole Polish Jew suspect theory couldn't possibly have been Anderson's idea. He wasn't there. He left before Annie Chapman's Murder, and came back right before Mary Kelly's murder. Of course he would have been given the facts of the various cases, but as far as suspect development goes, he wasn't there for that part. So really he would have just gotten summaries.

How do you think Anderson worked? Why do you think Swanson was given the co-ordinating role he had?

Warren and Anderson were not traipsing around the East End at all hours!1 neither, I suspect was Swanson most of the time. They were desk warriors, the equivalent of the "bridge" on a warship, directing the activities of the various parts of the organisation.

Anderson was also back in London by the time the furore was at its height, and capable of assessing the responses from the house to house and the contents of the notebooks.

These men were trained administrators - that's what the old, English, classical/grammar school education was aimed to produce - imperial adminsitrators. And, by and large, they were good at what they did.

Phil H

I know what their jobs were. I think someone in Anderson's job receiving information in real time would be have a real ability to pick out little details on the suspects. For example, cops could be pursuing a type of person, and Anderson would have been able to formulate opinions based on even seemingly random pieces of information. For example he makes the statement that certain low class Jews do not give up their members to gentile justice. But if that is a personal opinion, that has to be an opinion formed before or after the Ripper killings. To the best of our knowledge, we don't know that to even be true in the Ripper case. And secondly, he implies that the problem is gentile justice, not justice in general. So, they should have no problem with handing this guy over to other Jews. Which seems unlikely. If it isn't a personal opinion, then he is parroting something that he heard or read. Likely because he believes it, but then not because he has any personal knowledge on the subject.

But to the point, Anderson wasn't there to know who had been cleared and why. He wasn't there to adjust the thought process of the investigative bodies. He got back home, and was presented with summations of the cases, lists of suspects, coroner's reports... but he only had the opportunity to form an opinion based on what was given to him months after the fact. He was not privy to the assumptions being made. And by the time he got back, he certainly wasn't hearing dissenting opinions on anyone who may have been a suspect. That would have been resolved while he was in Switzerland. It's not that he wouldn't have had suspect information available. Of course he did. But he had no means of critically assessing the process. He had no choice but to accept what was given to him, with the commentary that had accompanied it.

Example: Anderson says that the Polish Jew was identified by the only person person to have had a good look at the murderer. Based on what? We have read testimony of any number of people who said they got good looks at the murderer. How does Anderson decide that only one of them was telling the truth? Well, he doesn't. He didn't interview the witnesses, was not in town when they were interviewed. He has nothing whatsoever to base this assumption on. He has no way to even get a vibe that someone is lying, much less all of them barring one. That comes from someone else. And Anderson parrots it. Which means that he can be really wrong about this, because he is forced to accept someone else's judgement on the matter. Something he would not have been forced to do if he had been at his desk in London.

I'm not saying it's his fault. I'm saying it means that it isn't his expertise in question. It's his sources.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

For example he makes the statement that certain low class Jews do not give up their members to gentile justice. But if that is a personal opinion, that has to be an opinion formed before or after the Ripper killings. To the best of our knowledge, we don't know that to even be true in the Ripper case.

I try to address this here:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=180221&postcount=58

Mentor's comments seem to me to back up Anderson's claim. Certainly Cox does.

Rabbi Adler's Sabbath address of Nov. 16th also appears to indicate "that some segments of the Jewish population were being less than helpful to the police." (House p.157) He's pleading for the assembly to cooperate AND to avoid making a "false but terrible accusation" that might spark a riot.

So Cox, Adler and Mentor all point to the same impression. Errata had a superb post the other day that helped me understand why the East End Jews weren't thrilled with the door to door investigations. Their behavior is understandable. As is Anderson's comment....

[robhouse]

Hello Rob,

Occam's razor?..Oh...

You mean that if DSS makes a lovely list in copperplate writing of more than 5victims in the Whitechapel murder series, including ones after Kosminski is packed off to an asylum, the logical conclusion is that Kosminski cannot be the Whitechapel murderer? Isn't that Occam's razor too?

Or the fact that he made the list in the first place, thereby putting the end page annotation of the named "Kosminski" in direct conflict with said list?
Both written by the same man, note. Occam's razor conclusion?....

I assume you are referring to the "Whitechapel murders" list which is shown in SYI (which also contains Emma Smith, Tabram, and McKenzie).

As far as I am aware, there is no indication that this list was written by Swanson, as you state. You say "he made the list." What is your proof he made the list? The caption in SYI merely says he "retained" the list. It seems to me that the list was probably written by someone else and simply taken by Swanson.

Moreover, in my view, this list does not imply an opinion as to which victims are victims of the Ripper. It is simply the full list of unsolved Whitechapel murders.

RH

[Tom_Wescott]

LOL. Good one.

I've observed off and on over the years that many of the anti-suspect researchers and commentators often like to rally around Kozminski for some reason. Or at least let him by wthout any negative comment, while otherwise bashing other suspects (legit or otherwise) and the people researching and writing about them. Any thoughts as to why this is? Because it sure as hell isn't because of the mountain of evidence backing Koz up as the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

A very pertinent observation, Tom! And I agree - I fail to see what it is that turns Kosminski into the crčme de la crčme. Well, actually I DO see what makes him the pinnacle of Ripper suspects - Anderson said he was the guy. Otherwise, no - not a scintilla of evidence points in his direction.

To be perfectly honest, Tom, you are not free from responsibility here either - you have occasionally pointed to the great importance you think must be attached to contemporary suspect status. Your Le Grand fellow, of course, gets a little boost if accepting such thoughts - we may entertain the notion that the police "must" have had something on him that made him viable as the Ripper.
In this context, Le Grand and Kosminski make for a nice pair - both contemporary suspects and no evidence. After that, one may reason that if Kosminski gets all the favours, why not Le Grand? I can see the frustration.

Myself, I will stand by my earlier observation that a contemporary suspicion is only of interest if it was soundly grounded. And in an age of racism and phrenology there is every reason to suspect that many of the suspicion grounds were NOT sound, leading me to grade down the usefulness of contemporary suspicions to a significant degree.

As for me, I think that practically functioning, existing evidence trumps non-existing evidence any day in the week, especially if the suspects who enjoy their suspect status do so courtesy of a bunch of contemporary people who are totally unagreed inbetween them as regards who did it. But in the wacky world of Ripperology it is okay to vote for people with contemporary suspicion and no evidence, commendable to vote for people with contemporary suspicion offered by highranking officials - and no evidence, and supremely commendable to vote for Kosminski, Andersons golden boy - with no evidence pointing his way whatsoever.

To vote for men who have lots of circumstantial evidence pointing their way but who were NOT suspected by the contemporary police, however, immediately makes you an outcast and has you castigated as biased. A Kosminski favourer is - on that account - using historically grounded evidence, he is not biased. When did anybody hear a Kosminski follower being called biased?? I just doesn´t happen.

It very much resembles religion´s victory over science in my eyes. But then again, I am one of the outcasts, am I not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Example: Anderson says that the Polish Jew was identified by the only person person to have had a good look at the murderer. Based on what?
For all we know Anderson might have been present and talked to the man. Re the ID, DSS uses the term "us" when annotating Anderson's book, so COULD refer to the two of them.

We have read testimony of any number of people who said they got good looks at the murderer. How does Anderson decide that only one of them was telling the truth?

Perhaps because he had more information available to him than to us. Because he had a trained mind. Because he was in a position to talk to people who had spoken to suspects een if he had not himself.

Well, he doesn't. He didn't interview the witnesses, was not in town when they were interviewed.

he had returned by the later stages of the series and was in london in 1889 when kosminski might well have first been identified as a suspect.

He has nothing whatsoever to base this assumption on.

That is YOUR sophistical assumption, based on your prejudice against Anderson. You don't WANT him to be right so you seek to rubbish him. You do not KNOW on what he based his comments and whatever else he may have been Anderson was no fool.

He has no way to even get a vibe that someone is lying, much less all of them barring one. That comes from someone else.

Given his position much of what he learned would have been through others. But he WAS in a position to receive top quality information. We no longer have the suspect file to refer to - HE DID! We cannot discuss the case with DSS or Abberline - HE COULD!!

And Anderson parrots it. Which means that he can be really wrong about this, because he is forced to accept someone else's judgement on the matter.

I doubtr whether, in his arrogance and self-confidence, Sir RA accepted the judgements of others' easily. Even today in the UK civil service, the key skill of senior officials is to ask questions, to worry at detail and to see both sides of the argument so that they can disappasionately deconstruct it. Anderson would have possessed those abilities.

Something he would not have been forced to do if he had been at his desk in London.

You confuse earlier and later periods, so your whole asssessment is flawed. According to SYI Anderson was back in London on 6 Oct 1888.

Phil H

[robhouse]

and supremely commendable to vote for Kosminski, Andersons golden boy - with no evidence pointing his way whatsoever.

I would point out that there is "evidence" contained in the available documentation, for want of a better word, that supports Kozminski as a suspect in the case. The evidence, part of which is summarized in the documentation, others which may be inferred, other which may be speculated upon, was obviously not sufficient legal evidence for conviction. And beyond what is known, it is probable that there was more stuff—"circs" as Macnaghten puts it— that made Kozminski a very serious suspect, and which is now unknown. It is not true to say that Kozminski was an example of "contemporary suspicion and no evidence."

To vote for men who have lots of circumstantial evidence pointing their way but who were NOT suspected by the contemporary police, however, immediately makes you an outcast and has you castigated as biased.

I assume you are referring to yourself. Your suspect does not have "lots of circumstantial evidence pointing his way"... certainly not if unless you are using the word evidence loosely, as indeed I tend to do myself in this context. You cannot possibly claim that there is "lots" of evidence pointing to Lechmere and "no evidence" pointing at Kozminski. That's an absolutely absurd contention. Moreover, you cannot merely dismiss the accounts of Swanson, Anderson and Macnaghten as not being evidence... saying, "oh yeah, there was no evidence except that! Except that the two top men in charge of the investigation seem to have believed Kozminski was the top suspect."

Again, we are (both) using the word "evidence" loosely here... more in the context of historical evidence, which we know, as opposed to actual legal proof, which the police may have had, but we dont know what it was.

When did anybody hear a Kosminski follower being called biased?? I just doesn´t happen.

Umm... I beg to differ here. Jonathan Hainsworth just claimed that my entire book was riddled with "unconscious" bias, and that I left out stuff, again "unconsciously" as he says (so as to avoid directly accusing me of knowingly doing something despicable), to bolster the case against Kozminski. I did leave stuff out, usually intentionally and for good reason, and responded to him regarding this. And he did not bother to respond to me. Which is the way it goes.

RH

[miakaal4]

Swanson

Just read that two contemporary newspapers reported that a "prominant and experienced police officer" believed the ripper had worn womens clothes during the murders, basing this two hats being found on the murder site of Frances Coles. They strongly infer that this cop was C. I. Swanson no less.

[Fisherman]

Rob:

"I would point out that there is "evidence" contained in the available documentation, for want of a better word, that supports Kozminski as a suspect in the case. The evidence, part of which is summarized in the documentation, others which may be inferred, other which may be speculated upon, was obviously not sufficient legal evidence for conviction. And beyond what is known, it is probable that there was more stuff—"circs" as Macnaghten puts it— that made Kozminski a very serious suspect, and which is now unknown."

Well, Rob, here we enter the Country behind the Mirror, don´t we? I find it a circular argument to say that there must have been evidence against Kosminski, otherwise he would never have turned a suspect. That sort of reasoning would inevitably lead us to the decision that we need not question whether there really WAS evidence, since we know there must have been. Nobody, however, gets to see it ...?

To me, if this is to be regarded as evidence at all (and I note that you wisely use quotation marks around the epiteth), then it should be regarded as evidence of suspicion, and not as evidence of a potential guilt. And that is an important distinction, since it places Kosminski in a category of people of whom we know, in some cases, that they could not have been the Ripper. Ostrog is a good example.

And to be frank, I am being generous here. As for myself, I would not use the term evidence at all relating to Kosminski - I would settle for "suspicion" only. That much is proven, and no more!

If we have a look at MacNaghten, we are left with just as little evidence. We get "circs" instead. And they could have contained just about anything, could they not, Rob? A tip from a family member that he thought Aaron could have been the Ripper, blood specks on Aarons clothes (that could have come from anywhere), an overhearing that he had claimed to be the Ripper (as many a man did) ... that sort of stuff.

Now, let´s not take this as if I diss Kosminski on the whole - I don´t. Like I´ve said before, I think your book on him is probably the best suspect-based book I have read, and I fully recognize that Anderson´s and Swanson´s efforts MUST put him on the map of suspects. But claiming that this automatically endows him evidence to show for this status - no, I don´t agree about that at all.

What I can see, what I can touch, feel, hear, read; that´s evidence. What other´s assert me must have been there I can´t see, touch, feel, hear OR read, and I therefore settle for saying that it is by no means a bad suggestion that some sort of evidence may once have existed. But that´s as far as I will go.

"It is not true to say that Kozminski was an example of "contemporary suspicion and no evidence."

Correct. Let´s change it for "Kozminski is an example of "contemporary suspicion and no evidence to show for it today". This is what I meant, and I should have made the distinction clearer.

"I beg to differ here."

Hmmm. Well, you would know, Rob! Let´s just say that you are not subjected to the same sort of canonade that is fired against those who speak for "illegitimate" suspects, illegitimate in the sense that they were not suspects back then - although at least one of them SHOULD have been!!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

"Powers the French Police Possess"

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.

Hi Errata,

Just looked in briefly, so apologies if someone has already addressed this. I suspect that what is being referred to here is the authority of French Investigating Magistrates to authorise detention of a suspect without charge for a quite lengthy period of time whilst evidence is gathered to support (or otherwise) a charge. The following is from a Daily Telegraph article dated 7th January 2009:

"Created by Emperor Napoleon two centuries ago, the "juge d'instruction" handles the most serious or complex cases and collects evidence for and against a suspect before deciding whether a case should go to trial. This contrasts with the "adversarial" system of the English-speaking world, where defence and prosecution lawyers spar in court almost from scratch."

My understanding is that, if the police had tried to do the same in 19th century London a writ of habeas corpus would have required them to either produce the evidence or release the suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

That is YOUR sophistical assumption, based on your prejudice against Anderson. You don't WANT him to be right so you seek to rubbish him. You do not KNOW on what he based his comments and whatever else he may have been Anderson was no fool.

Phil H

Actually I don't have a horse in the race regarding Anderson. I have no problem with him being right. After all, all Anderson says is that it was a Polish Jew, which is something I can live with.

I don't know what Anderson based his comments on. No one does. And obviously it's easy to construct about a dozen scenarios to explain what he said. And I am absolutely certain he had more sources than we have now. But he was gone for three of the murders. And obviously he got notes from a friend when he got back, but it isn't the same as being in class. I imagine it's very much like having someone describe a movie to you that you have never seen. He's not stupid. He is not a fool. He was playing catch up. Typically that results in accepting certain premises or judgements because it makes it easier. I don't think he did it without cause, or without good faith and good reason, but I think he did it.

But I will be scrupulously honest here. The reason I am so certain of that is because Anderson's job used to be my job, in a way. I had a lot less pressure on me, no doubt. I had to take a bunch of observations, testimonies, witness statements, personal statements, etc. collate it, come to conclusions and make recommendations to law enforcement and the justice system. About serious crimes and serious issues. And until my last few months on the job, I had never been there for any of the things I was working on. I was working with incidents that took place across the country, or a decade ago, or over a period of years. And when that changed is when I quit because frankly, I wasn't cut out for it. Not a problem I think Anderson had. But being there real time changed everything. Previously, I had access to anything I wanted. But except in the cases of contradictory statements, I had no reason to question what I was getting. When I was in it, suddenly it became clear how immediate context changed everything. And I got why law enforcement had one tone and victims had another. I got why witness statements were so varied in terms emotional context. I saw how mistakes were made, and were so very easy to make. For example, there was a guy who gave a statement, and it was factual and pertinent. His tone was distant, but I had been there so I knew the statement was true. But because I had been there, I knew his tone was off. He should have been angry, or sad, or confused. He was diffident, reluctant, very factual, and he had been dismissed a being afraid of retaliation. He was a member of the cult we were looking at. And he was a crack in their armor, because he was the only one who had ever talked to police. He was our way in, and if we hadn't been there, there's no way we would have picked that up. If we hadn't been at the scene, and known that there was no one there who was diffident or reluctant...

It makes a difference. Yes, I am functioning off of personal experience that is not identical to Anderson's. But it's pretty close, and I think it's a fair point. Of course I could be wrong. Of course he could have obsessively talked to every witness, every interviewer, gone back to every scene, talked to the people who were crowded around the crimes scenes. But I don't think he did. I think anyone who came up with a viable suspect would be the person who was in a position to see inconsistencies between tone and attitude. Been the guy who could see something off in the crowd. And it may have filtered up, and Anderson agreed, but I don't think it was "his" suspect.

[robhouse]

Well, Rob, here we enter the Country behind the Mirror, don´t we? I find it a circular argument to say that there must have been evidence against Kosminski, otherwise he would never have turned a suspect. That sort of reasoning would inevitably lead us to the decision that we need not question whether there really WAS evidence, since we know there must have been. Nobody, however, gets to see it ...?

To me, if this is to be regarded as evidence at all (and I note that you wisely use quotation marks around the epiteth), then it should be regarded as evidence of suspicion, and not as evidence of a potential guilt.

I think you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

This is why I was trying to suggest that there are different interpretations of the word evidence. I was not merely saying that "there must have been evidence" and we simply don't know what it was. Evidence as I am using it is basically anything that supports the assertion that Kozminski should be regarded as a suspect in the case... both then and now, historically speaking. I am not necessarily talking about "direct evidence." Nor am I talking about "legal proof"— and Anderson himself writes quite clearly on the distinction between proof and legal evidence.

"Moreover, it is not in finding the criminal that the greatest difficulty in police work consists, but in finding evidence on which to chrage him. … information is generally to be had, and not information only, but proof. But information and proof are not necessarily legal evidence."

Some of the evidence we are left with is secondary, in the sense that it is merely mentioned, by Macnaghten for example, although we do not know a) how accurate Macnaghten's assertions are, as you alluded to, or b) what his statements are based on. This does not mean it is negligible, nor does it allow us to dismiss it—for example, simply because it is unverified.

The "evidence" is circumstantial. It is also varied, in source, type and the extent to which it supports a modern "case" against Kozminski.

That is not to say there is no evidence, and that was not what I was trying to say. There is in fact a large amount of evidence that we have inherited which supports Kozminski as a very serious suspect in the case, and I obviously go over all of this in my book. As you are probably aware, more "evidence" has recently emerged that supports the theory of Kozminski as the Ripper. This new evidence, like some of the other evidence, is not earth-shattering. It is rather small, in the scheme of things. But the point is, when you take into consideration ALL of the evidence, it really adds up. It really suggests that there is something to the suspicions of Anderson and Swanson.

RH

[Errata]

Let's suppose here for a second.

We tend to assume that everything Swanson wrote is correct. A man named Kosminski was the suspect. We say it was Aaron Kosminski. However, if it was Aaron Kosminski, then the eventual fate described by Swanson is incorrect. So we assume that everything but the fate of the suspect is incorrect.

What if the fate of the suspect was correct, but the name was wrong? What if Aaron Kosminski had been a suspect because of his madness, but was excluded. And Swanson is merely confusing the name of such a spectacular personality with that of the suspect. I have to think that anyone who talked to Kosminski, or tried to, would have remembered someone so profoundly ill.

Has anyone looked for someone with a similar name fitting the the terms described by Swanson? A Kaminsky, Karinsky, etc.? Or even someone who went in the asylum during the time frame Swanson describes who has symptoms similar to those described of Kosminski? I mean I'm sure someone has, which I think is where David Cohen comes from. But it seems that if we can't cram Aaron Kosminski into this role, we need to find someone else.

Because we (as a community) decided it was Aaron Kosminski. But he doesn't really fit, and it's a tough sell to turn him into the Ripper. Swanson just said "Kosminski" so in theory it could be another Kosminski entirely. But if the name is the part that is remembered wrong, then there might actually be someone out there who can be identified by his eventual disposition.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I've observed off and on over the years that many of the anti-suspect researchers and commentators often like to rally around Kozminski for some reason. Or at least let him by wthout any negative comment, while otherwise bashing other suspects (legit or otherwise) and the people researching and writing about them. Any thoughts as to why this is? Because it sure as hell isn't because of the mountain of evidence backing Koz up as the Ripper

I haven't observed this Tom but confess to not usually having much interest in things not Maybrick related. You might be right but examples would help. Looks to me like there are tons of anti-Kosminski posts here and on the Marginalia thread. At least we have moved on from people hinting that it was a forgery. For now that is; I'm sure they will regroup.

I'd be shocked if Kosminski turned out to be the Ripper but find the "police were idiots and/or anti-semites" school of thought" the mere product of message board group think. You chant something long enough at the Casebook you'll pick up a few adherents. A few years ago it was Hutch; today it's Lechmere. And this particular internet meme has been chanted a very very long time.

Anyhow back to Kosminski - he was a police suspect. He's a viable suspect. Not that complicated. Anderson didn't go out hunting for a Polish Jew. Not only would you have to prove Anderson was an anti-semite - which you can't - you then need to prove that his feelings were so strong that he would have overlooked other suspects.

To quote someone from my Facebook discussion group: " I actually think there have been two stages to that myth - firstly the acceptance that Anderson definitely was anti-Semitic, but over and beyond that, the even more dodgy assumption that even if he was that it would definitely have influenced the way in which this extremely senior policeman went about his job."

Do I think that as the years went on the police convinced themselves that they had caught the guy but hadn't been able to get solid evidence against him? Yeah. Is there a case to be made the East End Jews didn't bend over backwards to cooperate? Yeah. I'm not going to be the person that tosses aside the beliefs of Anderson and Swanson.

And when that changed is when I quit because frankly, I wasn't cut out for it. Not a problem I think Anderson had.

Another great post, Errata. Sorry to just snip two sentences out of it. I think it can be argued Anderson needed a little "me time"....he did go to Switzerland to deal with exhaustion, no?