Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Garry Wroe]

"You appear to be assuming that the authorities utilized only one witness at the Seaside Home, Fish. That was neither implied nor stated explicitly by either Anderson or Swanson."

Correct. They did not say that there was only the one witness, nor did they say that there were two or more. They only speak of one witness, however. And the reports from the Sadler identification only mentions the one witness, and that witness was Joseph Lawende.

As I keep saying, Fish, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Police procedure then as now was to gather the evidence that established a suspect’s innocence or guilt. If the police had four witnesses at their disposal, they would have used four witnesses. Thus the fact that the press got wind of only Lawende’s involvement in the Sadler identification doesn’t mean that Lawende was the only witness used. The Violenia affair ought to be sufficient to dispel any notion that the authorities played fast and loose with suspects and witnesses.

"Either way, only Schwartz witnessed a physical assault inflicted upon what was considered to have been a soon to be killed Ripper victim. Thus only the evidence of Schwartz would have stood an earthly of convicting Kosminski in its own right."

None of the men would have stood "an earthly chance" to convict the suspect, Garry. You know as well as I do that Swanson had been adamant to point out that BS man was not necessarily the killer, and as I have pointed out before, pushing a woman is not something you swing for.

Then read Swanson’s annotations, Fish. What’s more, the fracas witnessed by Schwartz did constitute an assault – an attack that occurred within minutes of the victim being found murdered just feet away. If you fail to see the potential significance of these two events, Fish, you remain in very limited company.

The Church passage man and BS man were both men who had been seen with Ripper victims BEFORE their respective deaths. I concur with Chris that THIS is what could be used in a combination of circumstantial evidence and a close-by sighting. And what Lawende saw was enough to have him serve as a witness two and a half year after the killings, in spite of the uncertainty whether it was Eddowes or not and in spite of his own admission that he was not sure that he would be able to recognize the man he had seen.

All well and good, Fish. The problem being, however, that such information would by necessity have been shared with Major Smith – the same Major Smith who is on record as admitting that he and his force were utterly beaten by the Ripper. You appear to be forgetting too that according to Swanson the City mounted a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski shortly before the Seaside Home identification. Are you seriously suggesting that Lawende would have failed to identify Kosminski as a City witness only to then affirm that Kosminski was Church Passage man when conveyed to the Seaside Home on behalf of the Met?

"Lawende probably was used at the Seaside Home, Fish, just as Schwartz was almost certainly summoned to view Sadler. Or are we to believe that those hunting the Whitechapel Murderer were so hopelessly incompetent that they failed to use each and every witness they had at their disposal?"


But WAS Schwartz at the policeīs disposal at the relevant times, Garry? I was under the impression that he went under the radar after the Berner Street issue..?

It would seem that he retained links with Berner Street for many years after the murders, Fish.

I feel pretty confident in saying that the self same "competent" police may well have used just the one witness: Lawende. And if they HAD used two, I think it would be very strange not to touch upon it at all in either case.

And I’m equally confident, Fish, that the authorities would never have compromised established procedure by neglecting witnesses such as Schwartz, Cox and Long, leaving themselves wide open to allegations of incompetence or even corruption.

Thatīs my view, Garry.

And you’re more than welcome to it, Fish. But I would encourage you to explore the bigger picture nonetheless.

[Phil H]

Errata

Many many thanks for your post about your personal experience. Fascinating, enltghtening and in a way humbling to read. I can see where you are coming from.

All I can say is that Anderson remained in his post for a long time, and men like Swanson held him in high regard it appears.

We tend to assume that everything Swanson wrote is correct.

My position is that I believe that Swanson believed what he wrote. We cannot ask for more. he noted events of which he was in a position to know (or with which he may even have been involved) and on which he and Anderson were in agreement. Whether he was RIGHT I cannot say. But then we have to accept many "facts" in this case (and often important ones), for which there is less corroboration.

A man named Kosminski was the suspect. We say it was Aaron Kosminski.

The position as I understand it, is that DSS and MM name a suspect as "Kosminski". Aaron kosminski is the only inmate of Colney hatch by that name and he fits MOSt of the criteria set out. Death date is wrong. Nature of his mental problems might not seem "Ripper-like" but in other regards he checks out.

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.

Other details seem to check out. One can "explain" the wrong death date fairly easily, but whether than explanation is correct, who knows?

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.

Possible.

Has anyone looked for someone with a similar name fitting the the terms described by Swanson? A Kaminsky, Karinsky, etc.?

Martin Fido, in the 80s researched this for the first time - he found a nathan KAMINSKY who died around the right date; also a David Cohen/Aaron Davis Cohen and wondered whether there might have been a mix-up over names between City CID and the Met. I think, though, that Martin's ideas did not find a ready acceptance.

I always bear in mind that "Kosminski" (neither MM nor DSS give a forename) could be a "code" or something similar for a suspect. But Aaron Kosminski seems, on balance to be the best fit.

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.

Is it really? More so than Tumblety (suspected by another leading cop); Chapman who used different methods - but was Klosowski (a not dissimilar name to Kosminski); or druitt (named by MM)? None of the named suspects fit WELL, do they? Kosminski at least has three top cops naming him!!

Good posts errata. Thanks,

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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

And for this I wish to apologize. You and I have a differing point of view on the Cox article, and he grabbed that football and ran into the wrong end zone.

[Fisherman]

Rob:

"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."

Someone referred to as Kosminski, you mean! And that somebody does not tally with what we know of Aaron Kosminski in all details, some of them being very deviant!
Otherwise, I see what you are saying, but I think it needs amendment. You write of "anything that supports the assertion that Kozminski should be regarded as a suspect in the case", but I only think you have something that tells us that he WAS regarded as a suspect. Whether he SHOULD have been or not is a VERY open question. The grounds may have been faulty and they may have been good - and we donīt know which alternative applies.

In no other respect than this does any evidence at all exist against Kosminski. And this kind of "evidence" amounts only to what I would call meta-evidence; We know a man called Kosminski was suspected, that is evidence that he was suspected - hooray, we have evidence! No smoking gun, exactly ...

"I am not necessarily talking about "direct evidence."

Of course not, Rob. It is not there.

"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."

We cannot dismiss it, no. But we need to keep our minds focused on what it is - evidence that there may have been evidence. Meta-evidence again, therefore, to my mind. And that is NOT said in a derogatory manner - like I have said before, much points in the direction of true and useful evidence once having been there. But as it stands, the opposite may also apply.

"The "evidence" is circumstantial."

To me, circumstantial evidence has a focus and a direction: The man had a gun, and the victim WAS shot with that type of gun, sort of.

Of course, in this context, Iīd agree that there is circumstantial evidence that there was evidence! But after that, the account is empty, Rob. No circumastantial evidence exists pointing to Aaron Kosminski being the Ripper - but circumstantial evidence tells us that he was possibly suspected of being so. Someone referred to as Kosminski surely was!

"the point is, when you take into consideration ALL of the evidence, it really adds up"

With respect, Rob, the exact same thing goes for my preferred suspect. And others will think that their material adds up too, Hutchinsonians, Chapmanians, Graingerians, Feigenbaumist Marriott etcetera. The added evidence on Kosminski offers a reasonable chance to place him in or close to the epicenter of the crimes - but there are others in place already at that spot!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"the fact that the press got wind of only Lawende’s involvement in the Sadler identification doesn’t mean that Lawende was the only witness used."

That is what he have and what we need to make do with. If the press found Lawendes dismissal interesting, why would they not fina any other witnessesīditto EQUALLY interesting? Or doubly so, if an ID WAS made? Adding witnesses like this is adding conjecture, nothing else.

"Then read Swanson’s annotations, Fish. What’s more, the fracas witnessed by Schwartz did constitute an assault – an attack that occurred within minutes of the victim being found murdered just feet away. If you fail to see the potential significance of these two events, Fish, you remain in very limited company."

If so, Iīd still choose the INFORMED company, Garry.

"The problem being, however, that such information would by necessity have been shared with Major Smith – the same Major Smith who is on record as admitting that he and his force were utterly beaten by the Ripper."

Exactly WHAT information, Garry?

"You appear to be forgetting too that according to Swanson the City mounted a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski shortly before the Seaside Home identification. Are you seriously suggesting that Lawende would have failed to identify Kosminski as a City witness..."

At WHAT stage, Garry?

"... only to then affirm that Kosminski was Church Passage man when conveyed to the Seaside Home on behalf of the Met?"

I would not invest heavily in EITHER scenario here, Iīm afraid!

"It would seem that he retained links with Berner Street for many years after the murders, Fish."

The conclusive evidence being ...?

"I’m equally confident, Fish, that the authorities would never have compromised established procedure by neglecting witnesses such as Schwartz, Cox and Long, leaving themselves wide open to allegations of incompetence or even corruption."

So we differ. And the papers support my wiew, thankfully!

"I would encourage you to explore the bigger picture nonetheless."

We may well differ in measuring which picture is the big one too, Iīm afraid.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Tom,

Yes, odd that. I wonder what it is that keeps the Kosminski wheel on the wagon? Because it sure as hell isn't evidence of him being a killer. Or violent. Or a proven time he was taken in to be interviewed about the murders. Or indication of any sort of pathalogical history of a hatred of women. Or indication he was actually in the immediate area of any of the murders on any of the murder dates. Or evidence that he took a trip to the coast for any identification. Or evidence of who was with him at any supposed identification. Or evidence for why a non-entity Polish Jew wasn't taken along to the local cop shop 2 minutes down the road to be identified. Or reasons why, when supposedly identified as a multi lurdering crazed killer, he was just let go and "kept an eye on", IF that happened. Or evidence that the family he belonged to actually DID suspect the man apart from what we have been told by an odd policeman. Or why he cannot have been The Whitechapel murderer because after he was locked up the police were still looking for the Whitechapel Murderer, with the one man who supposedly named Anderson's suspect, DSS, right slap bang in the middle of the continued investigation to catch the Whitechapel murderer. Or why the man DSS had in his posession a long list of Whitechapel Murder victims that may have been an official document, which if so, was as has been suggested, (retained?????) by DSS himself at his home, leaving us to wonder why DSS, a straight policeman with a proud code of honour and behaviour, would do that. Nor is there any back up from MM about the Kosminski figure being The Whitechaple murderer. Nor Reid, Nor Abberline. Noe X, Y, Z in the force...nor X amount of Commisssioners from Monro and Bradford onwards. Nor Littlechild, in Special Branch, something that Anderson was involved with.

Notwithstanding all the OFFICIAL comments from 1888 to Lord knows when saying that nobody had a clue who the murderer was. Notwithstanding that those comments came from amongst others Anderson himself. Notwithstanding the amount of people brought into the fray who have never, ever commented on Kosminski.
Not withstanding there are no official words or files on Kosminski at all, even if there was, which cannot be presumed, we do not know whether he was regarded on paper as a serious suspect.

And finally, not withstanding the fact that no member of the Kosminski family in the last 124 years has breathed one tiny word of this amazing story about their ancestor. Not even when his name was pumped out into the World Wide Fame situation during the 100 year anniversary, with all the pomp and circumstance of his name being used to promote a Crime Museum re-launch..nope... not one whisper from anyone in the family...ever.

You'd have thought that a story like this WOULD have been passed down within the family, wouldn't you. Someone must have heard it. Someone must have passed it on in conversation. But no.

You would have thought someone in the police other than the intrepid two, DSS and SRA, knew about that supposed "arranged" id parade. Or someone from the Seaside Home, or a doctor, or a someone at the asylum, or, or, or, or, or, ........

and not a hint to a newspaper man... ever.......!

And to give the topping a real flavour....we don't actually know the FIRST name of Kosminski IS Aaron!!!

Nope... the first poster of this thread asked for some sort of realistic identifiable structure to weight the name Kosminski as a suspect for being a multi murdering, slicer-upper and internal organ taker of women.

The Kosminski bandwagon has clutched at more straws than a MacDonalds take away. The argument for is as weak as a southpaw 2 week old kitten.

Get the rake out.. and after that... the broom...and start sweeping.

No Tom, someone somewhere is afraid that if we take the big broom out and use it... somehow Ripperology would be no more. It "has to" be kept going. The three ringed circus of MM, DSS and SRA. And not a jot of EVIDENCE between them.

Ahhhh.... diddums.


best wishes Tom..am glad you brought up the most important point of all.
It's weak hogwash being protected.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer,

A question from one outsider to another...lol

Please note the effort of the Kosminskiites to picture how dangerous and deranged this man was.

Ummm, I hate to mention this but..

The women who were killed must have thought that the person who was accompanying them to a dark corner was trustworthy. He would have been pleasant in his attraction, I'd say.

Doesn't fit the proposed image really does it?..You know, the low life gutter hugging masturbator who was so disgusting in his habits that the Ass Comm of the police made reference to them.

Still, the argument will be of course that beggars cant be choosers...

The women weren't THAT stupid...were they?

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter:

"The women weren't THAT stupid...were they?"

As the scare grew they would reasonably have become more wary, of course, relying as much as they could in their accustomed clientele. Otherwise, they would opt for as little madness as possible, Iīd say!

But Iīm not sure that this rules Kosminski out. What he was in 1888 is not easy to establish.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Phil Carter:

But Iīm not sure that this rules Kosminski out. What he was in 1888 is not easy to establish.

Hello Christer,

So I am supposed to believe that the man started off "relatively normal", by slicing open Polly and Annie, taking an internal organ..then got worse with Eddowes, then lost it with MJK...

and by the time he was put away, if the process of normal development in this madness is to get worse, was so bad that he was id'd and let go to the safety of his family, and put away by them because he threatened his sister with a knife?..ONCE??

And nobody noticed these deranged signs of dementia in the asylum afterwards in the next 27 years? Not one mention of a connection with a blood curdling obsession with a hatred of women and showing a desire to slice up someone and keep the innards? Not once?

Thats a very strange development of the psychosis being proposed.

I wouldnt believe that wavy line for a second.

It all fades away as if it never happened in his head because he never shows a twinkle of such behavioural tendencies in 27 years.

Yeah right. And I'm a giant panda.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Following the Seaside Home identification Komsinski was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, where he was watched by day and night by the City CID before being taken away with his hands tied behind his back to Stepney Workhouse and afterwards Colney Hatch.

I'd be fascinated to know what the cops might have learned during this "very short time" of surveillance which finally decided them to effect Kosminski's arrest and committal.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Following the Seaside Home identification Komsinski was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, where he was watched by day and night by the City CID before being taken away with his hands tied behind his back to Stepney Workhouse and afterwards Colney Hatch.

I'd be fascinated to know what the cops might have learned during this "very short time" of surveillance which finally decided them to effect Kosminski's arrest and committal.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

He started carving the family Yuletide Goose with relish aforethought.
You should see what he did with the giblets.

best wishes

Phil

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1akLZkVe4

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Then again...For all we know he could have threatened someone with a butter knife.


best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

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?

I have no problem at all with him taking leave, nor why he did it or when he did it. You gotta do what you gotta do, and I'm not going to blame a man for that at all. Especially not in that kind of job.

But it doesn't change the fact that he just wasn't there. I mean, if he had been hit by a bus, it would be equally understandable why he was not at his desk, but he wasn't at his desk. And that has consequences. That changes things. And it doesn't have to prevent someone from doing their job. I think Anderson did his job as best he was able, regardless of his absence. And I think he did it well.

I just think that he was never in a position to judge the relative guilt or innocence of anyone. I don't think he would have been able to pick out Kosminski in a crowd of one. Which is a position that has very limited perspective, so he would rely on the judgement of others in order to make that kind of determination. In other words, he may agree that the Polish Jew was the killer, but it's not his theory.

[Fisherman]

Phil C:

"So I am supposed to believe that the man started off "relatively normal", by slicing open Polly and Annie, taking an internal organ..then got worse with Eddowes, then lost it with MJK...

and by the time he was put away, if the process of normal development in this madness is to get worse, was so bad that he was id'd and let go to the safety of his family, and put away by them because he threatened his sister with a knife?..ONCE??

And nobody noticed these deranged signs of dementia in the asylum afterwards in the next 27 years? Not one mention of a connection with a blood curdling obsession with a hatred of women and showing a desire to slice up someone and keep the innards? Not once?

Thats a very strange development of the psychosis being proposed.

I wouldnt believe that wavy line for a second."

Iīm a cautious man, Phil. I try not to rule things out that I canīt truly rule out.

I donīt think Kosminski is our killer. I think that if he WAS, then his killings would be related to a deteriorating mind, and if this was the case, I donīt think he would have been able to get away with the murders. To my mind, a disorganised behaviour would have been to expect, and it would have given him away.

Thatīs what I think. It is not what I know, however. And therefore I keep the door open that he was a cunning and clever killer back in 1888, and was taken apart mentally by his disease only later.

I donīt believe that it was so. But I much respect the hard work Rob House, for instance, has put into presenting a viable case for Kosminski. In the end, it has not convinced me of anything else than this very thing: a case CAN be made for Aaron. And I very much appreciate all the hitherto unknown material that has been dug up, surrounding his candidacy.

What I dislike a lot, is the artificial levelling of suspects that is going on. In that respect, I think Kosminski is awarded far too much weight, as things stand. The evidence is not there to implicate him in a strictly practical meaning.

I will follow the future work on him with great interest - and a feeling that he was wrongfully implied back in 1888. If Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski that was implied at all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Hello Christer,

So I am supposed to believe that the man started off "relatively normal", by slicing open Polly and Annie, taking an internal organ..then got worse with Eddowes, then lost it with MJK...

and by the time he was put away, if the process of normal development in this madness is to get worse, was so bad that he was id'd and let go to the safety of his family, and put away by them because he threatened his sister with a knife?..ONCE??

And nobody noticed these deranged signs of dementia in the asylum afterwards in the next 27 years? Not one mention of a connection with a blood curdling obsession with a hatred of women and showing a desire to slice up someone and keep the innards? Not once?

Thats a very strange development of the psychosis being proposed.

I wouldnt believe that wavy line for a second.

It all fades away as if it never happened in his head because he never shows a twinkle of such behavioural tendencies in 27 years.

Yeah right. And I'm a giant panda.

best wishes

Phil

It's funny. In the descriptions of his thought process and behavior, he clearly spent some time delusional. But everything else he does tracks almost precisely with OCD. Not the hand washing kind, but like, scrupulosity. Even violence is not unheard of when people try to interfere with someone's rituals or behaviors to deal with their OCD.

I have a form of it, where I pull out my own hair (I know. It's gross. But I'm fine now) Which not only worried my parents because I was sort of mutilating myself right in front of them, but evidently pulling out one hair at a time has a peculiar noise that is VASTLY irritating to those around me. We'd be sitting around watching TV, and all of the sudden my mom would just shout "STOP IT!!! Or go upstairs. I can't take it anymore." And she would shout, because when I was 12 and it first started, she tried to grab my hands and pin them so I couldn't do it anymore, and I went absolutely nuts. I started screaming and head butted her in the face, almost breaking her nose. My sister tried a couple of time, but I was stronger than her so I would get a hand free and punch her in the face. Not because I was pissed, although I was. Because it was OCD, I felt like I was going to die if I didn't do it. And when they tried to stop me, it's like they were trying to kill me. I'd have pulled a knife on my sister in a heartbeat if my particular issue didn't actually involve the use of hands. Fortunately, my family are quick learners, and they haven't touched my hands since, despite the fact I actually stopped pulling my hair about 15 years ago. I guess I made an impression.

Which brings up why it's funny. If Kosminski was delusional or schizophrenic, then a lot of people think that explains how an ordinary person could do such things. It certainly would make him a lock for the police at the time of the murders. But I never thought Jack was crazy. If he wasn't delusional or schizophrenic, then a good many people would drop him as a suspect, because without the crazy there would be no accounting for him being the killer. But it would mean in my mind, that he actually could have been the killer, since his particular crazy doesn't preclude him from violence, stealth or anonymity.