Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Your Post #947 is nothing if not ingenious.

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

Serial killers often claim to be hearing voices and commands as part of a defence of diminished responsibility - this was tge case with the Yorkshire Ripper and Mullin - effectively trying to fake schizophrenia.

In all fairness, Mullin spent about four years in an institution before he started killing. Not having seen his records, I cant swear he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but whatever was wrong with him clearly involved paranoid delusions. It happens that schizophrenics become serial killers. Chase was one, Mullin was one, Toole may have been one, but no one has any idea to what extent that actually influenced his killing. Son of Sam, John Wayne Gacy, I think even Kemper all got the diagnosis before trial, but not of them were delusional. None of them actually were schizophrenic. And it's sad because this is why people fear schizophrenics. And they are more harmless than the the sane ever have been.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed, but I did describe it as a "reasonable conclusion", not a matter of fact. So I take it you do agree it was a reasonable conclusion.

As a general principle, I would not agree. Clearly it depends upon the strength of the evidence. In this case, I would agree because without the witness they did not have enough.

What could the witness have said that "would be the means of murderer being hanged"?
Swanson should have said "could be the means" unless the evidence was pretty conclusive.
Therefore, if the evidence was so conclusive then Kosminski would have to be the murderer.
Therefore, the authorities would know he was the killer, and so would Macnaghten.
Anderson would know, Macnaghten would know, and Swanson would know, instead we only have talk of Kosminski being a suspect. And, we would also know that the witness truly did see something worthy of a conviction. As it is, Macnaghten and Anderson cannot agree on whether anyone actually did see the killer at any point.

MacNaghten tells us that Kosminski was a strong suspect with many factors rendering him such. Pretty strong stuff.

But let's remember the purpose of the MM:

It was to discredit Cutbush as a suspect, as opposed to naming Jack The Ripper.

Anderson and Swanson were loathe to name the killer in any document; it could be argued that MacNaghten followed suit.

My assumption about Swanson was that he was an example of the consummate professional. He does not write about the case using specifics, and at no point does he offer his own personal opinions. What he does do is elaborate on the convictions of his boss, offering background on why Anderson developed those opinions. Not that Anderson was right or wrong, just that this is, why.

Swanson say's nothing which indicates he was present, only that he was in the best position to clarify his boss's thoughts on the matter.

Regards, Jon S.

Again, Jon, I'm not convinced with your logic.

I would expect this consumate professional to record two things in his notes: who it was, how he knew. He tells us who, he tells us how: "sent by us", as opposed to "as told by Anderson".

Perhaps we have different views on what a consumate professional does, particularly one with operational responsibilities. In my view, such a person is rigorous; he does not simply repeat stories verbatim.

[Cogidubnus]

Your Post #947 is nothing if not ingenious.

I'm more inclined towards Monty's assessment of it...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

I would willingly agree if it wasn't for the fact that Swanson wasn't running the investigation.. he took orders from above. Also that Swanson himself was in the thick of trying to name Jack the Ripper with Sadler. Swanson would not be chasing Jack the Ripper if he knew that the likely Jack the Ripper was already locked up.

Hi Phil,

i think your first sentence addresses the point made in the last in this extract. Swanson was acting under orders, and so would have been compelled to pursue other lines of enquiry even if, on a personal level, he thought the killer was incarcerated.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Not Arrested?

The police had that power,witness the large number who were arrested and not brought to trial.So why was he not arrested?

Harry, how do we know that Kosminski wasn't arrested? We don't know the names of all those who were, in fact, arrested do we? So what reason is there to conclude, definitively, that Kosminski was not among their number? We don't know that he was arrested but, by the same token, we certainly don't know that he wasn't.

You don't release a murderer who has killed a number of victims,not if the evidence is strong enough to convict,not even in 1888,or thereabouts.

But if the evidence is not strong enough to convict, you have no choice but to do so.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I'm more inclined towards Monty's assessment of it...

All the best

Dave

Likewise. Actually, there is no reason why the post can't be cut & pasted by the author and used as a dissertation imho.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Aarron Kosminski,was ,we are led to believe,a suspect,who because of an identification,has been accused of being the Whitechapel murderer,and the person known as Jack the Ripper.The Prime suspect,as some say.That the evidence at the time was enough to sustain this accusation.Yet in spite of this,he was allowed to go free and given the opportunity to go out on to the streets and kill again if he so wished.Strange way to treat such a person,even in 1888.If it were true?All it needed to arrest him was a reasonable suspicion,which we are told was there,in fact the suspicion was more than reasonable.Some may jump in here and say,but if he was arrested he would have had to stand trial.Wrong.At any time he was under arrest and before trial began,he could be released from arrest.The police had that power,witness the large number who were arrested and not brought to trial.So why was he not arrested.Some may have different ideas,but mine is that it was because there was never any reason to arrest,never any evidence of suspicion,never an identification.You do'nt release a murderer who has killed a number of victims,not if the evidence is strong enough to convict,not even in 1888,or thereabouts.

Hello Harry,

This seems a logical methodology of policing.. perhaps I am wrong..but yes, it seems that way.

I just have this very odd feeling that someone somewhere is going to propose that he wasn't arrested, charged, brought to trial and (possibly) hanged because he was of the Jewish faith and that somehow Anderson and the Home Office feared an anti-establishment backlash from the Jews of the East End..or something akin to all that.

Well, as far as I can see, the leaders of the Jewish community in the East End were as anxious to get the murderer under wraps as the next man, because of the effect of the reputation on the East End Jews themselves. They were taking quite a bashing in certain quarters following the Pizer problem. Anderson's correspondences with the leaders of the Jewish community have been questioned and I can certainly smell the odour of the Jews being Anderson's "whipping boy" in all of this.

So any eventual excuse or suggested reasoning linked to Jewish reaction should this Polish Jew have been arrested, charged, etc etc, would be clutching at straws, imho.

You are correct Harry, imho. There is absolutely nothing to stop the police arresting the man. Nothing. And if all was so heavilty circumstantial as has been said, that his guilt was beyond doubt after the supposed ID, then letting Jack the Ripper toodle off down the road to his family is probably the most silly suggestion I am asked to believe. The POLICE didn't lock him away for his madness either!..His family did! It wouldn't have caused much bother to get the man incarcerated at all..as he was so "insane".

So we have a man SO dangerous that he is Jack the Ripper, SO mad that he ends up in a funny farm for 27 years, yet the police dont arrest him on suspicion, don't arrest him, don't charge him, don't take him to trial, and don't even get him locked away for his madness..they just let him quietly go back to his family.

What's more shocking..is the suggestion that they keep an eye on him for a while and during that time, this mad, insane lunatic doesn't do anything to cause the police attention to raise an eyebrow, until he gets sent to the loony bin by his own family for ONE episode of threatening his sister with a knife. We do not know if it was physical..we do not know what type of knife, we do not know the length of the episode and all this happened whilst Lord knows how many other people were being arrested and brought in to various police stations for making threatening comments, scowling at women, scaring women, being accused in pubs and streets of being the killer, others turning up in court and being accused of their wives of being Jack the Ripper because they are scared out of their minds... yet Aaron Kosminski? Nope.. he just gets farmed off to the asylum, nice and quietly. And THIS is Jack the Ripper?

There are so many reasons why Aaron Kosminski cannot be Jack the Ripper, factual and circumstantial, practical and logical. All this on top of some circumstantial evidence that either cannot be shown to have actually happened, or the details are wrong, or the people giving us the details are confused..or or or.....

I will say this again. If this suspect was named Walter Sickert, Prince Eddy, or James Maybrick..all hell would break loose. Aaron Kosminski is on a par with them all. We are told we cannot dismiss Kosminski. I am told that dismissing AARON Kosminski is even worse...even without a scrap of evidence against the man for these henious crimes... that's the same as Sickert, Eddy and Maybrick. And they have been roundly dismissed for the inconsistencies ijn their candicacy. Yet Kosminski's inconsistencies are pooh poohed away in a flurry of unbelieveable excuses, reasoning, logic, counter logic, suppoosition and at times, guesswork.

We are told..we have what we have and have to work with it. Well there is nothing connecting Aaron Kosminski with the Whitechapel murders. And if 25 years of dedicated research has turned up nothing...then logically, the conclusion is that his candidacy is as weak as a day old kitten. Relegate Aaron Kosminski to where he belongs, I say.. and let him rest in peace. UNLESS something comes along connecting Aaron Kosminski with the Whitechapel murders, that is.

In other words... firm evidence. On the table of Aaron Kosminski connection or involvement. Perhaps the Swanson family with hopefully come up with something with Aaron Kosminski's name on it. Or a Home Office document. Or a Police document. etc etc. Then, I humbly suggest, we can all reconsider his candicacy in another light. Until then... it is more like a constructed possibility with ever widening circumstantial evidence being drummed up and lumped together. Some of us see it as it is....

Waxing a cog in wheel that turns nothing and goes nowhere. It's a dead end. It is time to accept that and move on, imho.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Cris,

In regard to Donald Swanson's role and perception...

He was the most senior official involved in this case who was actually trained in investigative procedure and had acquired years of on-the-job experience. A study of other cases he was involved in gives demonstrable clues to his methods and the application of investigative practices in place by the CID at the time. Understanding this is critical in analyzing what took place during and after the Whitechapel Murders and where the CID's - and Swanson's in particular - strengths and weaknesses lie.

I look forward to seeing these strengths and weaknesses further along.

The main sources of information in a criminal investigation were informants - or 'noses' as they were called. In the days before scientific forensics had effectively evolved to disseminate evidence, informants were vital in directing attention to a certain suspect and then hopefully gaining a confession by direct confrontation with the suspect or by 'shadowing' that person until he is actually caught in the act. Swanson's career is full of cases like these and this method - for the most part - worked.

Does this also apply to other policemen linked to the case? If so, I point out Littlechild, and his supect (Tumblety). I point out Macnagthen, and his chosen suspect (Druitt).

What they ran into with the Whitechapel Murders was a type of killer who confided in no one; someone who struck with no discernible motive, left few physical clues for even the basic forensics, and no witnesses to the actual crimes. They had never faced this before and their usual methods of detection garnered nothing concrete and - at best - vaguely circumstantial. They were left with persons who's behavior was suspicious and maybe one or two witnesses who may have seen a victim with a man shortly before she was murdered, and many people who deluded Swanson's desk with theories. He had to process and eliminate each and every one.

"The type of killer"...surely we do not know if one killer was responsible for all of the murders..if so, we are talking of more than one person acting in exactly the same fashion, with the same police reaction against he or them as well.

"He had to process and eliminate each and every one".. excuse me for asking Cris, but what exactly did Swanson do BEFORE he was put into his "eyes and ears" role? Who did the processing then? How is it that the "eyes and ears man" is only introduced at a certain stage? Could this be because the police hadn't any sort of system in their investigations thusfar? I only ask.

In an attempt to narrow their focus on probable suspects, they developed a profile, probably based on Thomas Bond's thesis, as to what type of individual that focus should be on. Most of these officials agreed that they were dealing with someone who was 'sexually insane', or on a lesser scale, someone who was violent against women out of retribution. It is the one consistent theme throughout. Nothing that has been learned since disputes the idea that they may have been correct in those assumptions. Even if this profile is correct, then who could it have been?

Thomas Bond's thesis was after the Kelly murder, no? So until then can we presume that no such profile was made?
"What type of individual should be focused upon".. now here I bring in expert comment, known of before the so called profiling, of Dr Tuke, who shows clearly what type of profile any such lunatic would or would not have. As an expert in his field, the top of the range mostlikely, surely any profile would have included the best of the best when it came to such knowledge? Because Swanson and even Bond for that matter, knew very little about the varying degrees of madness. Therefore the "sexually insane" conclusion of the police does not take into account the experts views..experts in the field of madness...i.e.insanity..which would include sexually insane, would it not?
As far as I am aware, no contemporary lunacy expert was consulted on the matter. Please do correct me if I am wrong?

The City CID checks asylum records while the Met interviews people in the area to determine the comings and goings of certain individuals. Some of these people are shadowed, as procedure dictates. It is a process that continues long after the death of Mary Kelly and involves probably hundreds of 'suspects'. Somewhere in this process 'Kosminski' shows up. There is nothing substantial to indict him, but he ticks enough boxes that an ID is attempted under special arrangement, probably due to the delicate fact that he is a Jew and in a deteriorating mental condition. Only one person would have been qualified to conduct such a procedure and that would have been Swanson. Looking at his position in the investigation and the policies of the CID in other cases involving witnesses, I have little doubt that he was directly involved. The structure of his comments in Anderson's book only serves to reinforce that conclusion. Anderson may have been involved in giving his authorization, but maybe nothing more.

Sorry Cris, but here I beg to differ.
"Only one person would have been qualified to conduct such a procedure and that would have been Swanson."... so no person in Special Branch, CID or Scotland Yard was qualified to do this? And this is SO special that he cannot be ID'd in the normal way?..because he was a Polish Jew and he was insane?
I'm sorry Cris.. but that really is stretching the bounds or realistic police behaviour. Can you please show me other examples of such individual behaviour in other cases?
"I have little doubt that he was directly involved.".. this is your opinion only. There is nothing to suggest that Swanson was directly involved in the supposed ID at the supposed Seaside Home. And should Swanson have been so closely involved in the ID etc of Kosminski, he would have known, without a shadow of a doubt, when Kosminski died or not. You don't forget the details of Jack the Ripper. It would be etched on his brain forever.
"Anderson may have been involved in giving his authorization, but maybe nothing more"... this is pure supposition. There is no reason to accept this as true. Because now you are turning around Anderson's story in Anderson's memoirs called "The lighter side of MY Official life".... Anderson's book, into being Anderson's account of Swanson's work. I am sorry Cris, I don't buy that.

However this ID turned out, the result might have been compelling to Swanson, but not conclusive at the time. As a professional, he had to continue to follow any leads to other possible suspects who came to his attention afterward, because it was his job. He understood that. He pays special attention to the Coles murder; conducting his own personal interrogations and follow ups months later. If you look at the timing of this murder and the possible timing of the events surrounding Kozminski, it easy to see why he did so. When Sadler was cleared of the preceding murders - if not for the murder of Coles - Kozminski's candidacy becomes stronger. And subsequent suspects reveal nothing substantial to change that.

So hang on a minute. You are telling me that Swanson, the comsumate professional, carries on hunting Jack the Ripper officially, even though both Swanson and Anderson, his Boss, unofficially believe that they have Jack the Ripper under lock and key?
So what are you going to say about the conclusions of Anderson, Swanson, et al BEFORE Sadler was let go? Because they are a matter of record. That includes the medical student, it also includes that "nobody" is suspected.
So what you are saying is that as Sadler ISN'T the Ripper, Swanson then decides that Kosminski probably was?.. that is backwards if they already knew of the man's guilt Cris. He was identified as the Ripper at this supposed ID... they were CERTAIN. Therefore the theory that Sadler was let go making Kosminski a stronger suspect is silly. Either Kosminski was ID'd or he wasn't. Or are you now saying that the ID took place AFTER Sadler? Because that goes against the fact that he must have been Id' straight before his incarceration. And remember, Swanson said that this lunatic was dead. He was certain he was guilty, identified and dead.

By 1896, it all becomes a revelation of hindsight, later strengthened by Anderson's conclusions, based on the information provided by his lieutenant, that this Polish Jew was their man. With Anderson's public writings, culminating in his 1910 publication, Swanson is impressed that his old master determined that the suspect he (Swanson) was involved with was actually the killer. That would explain the flurry of annotations in this section and the extra details he provides. Whatever reservations Swanson may have previously had about the culpability of the suspect, Kosminski, Anderson's reinforcing comments gives him reason to now dispel them.

See above re hindsight. The ID was certain in 1891 Cris... there can be no hindsight.

Opinion only. But your posting shows very few "weaknesses" in Swanson's role..as you stated at the start, and therefore has to be re-balanced, imho.

I will only mention the "blurred writing" on the wall following the Eddowes murder to ask whether we can actually remain totally confident of what Swanson has written. Because of all the descriptions of that writing in chalk, Swanson is the only one that goes against all the comments, both in newspapers and at the inquest, by stating the writing was blurred.
Now where would he get that from? That's not what I call reliable comment on a case..and it goes alongside the "suspect is dead" comment about Kosminski.

It shows, imho, serious weaknesses.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

I'm more inclined towards Monty's assessment of it...

All the best

Dave

Its an excellent assessment of Swansons position and duty.

I'd answer Phils post above however he has me on ignore and Admin would chew my ass, rightly or wrongly, who am I to judge? I'm sure Cris will counter as expertly as he has always done.

Anyway, Cris's post was spot on and deserves a wider audience. I do hope he does turn it into a dissertation. Its needed after all, because in my most humblest of opinions, there is a degree of ignorance and hysteria revolving around Kosminski, Swanson, Anderson, procedure and the marginalia.

Monty

[Errata]

As something of an aside, however estimable Sir Robert Anderson may have been I find his tone somewhat repugnant. It reminds me of an 8 years dancing around singing "I've got a secret nyah nyah". If the identity of Jack the Ripper had to remain a secret, or if he honestly did not want to tell tales, the most responsible action is to say nothing at all. If he feel the need to refer to a suspect at all, the best course would be to simply acknowledge that there was one, that there had been credible evidence but not enough to prosecute, he was off the streets, and that's it. Do not reference anything else about him, not race, not personality, nothing. What he does however is give everything but names. Which still means that it could have been any number of folks, but it's just enough that those who read this would have been able to say "I think I know who that is!" about a whole lot of people.

What Anderson had no way of knowing is that Ashkenazi Jews (the vast majority of Jews in the East End) are more prone to mood disorders than any other group of people. Nor could he have known the effect of living in the Pale could have on a person's permanent mental well being. To be blunt, There were a lot of Polish Jews who ended up in asylums. And Anderson set up a situation where every single one of those people became suspects for Jack the Ripper in the minds of those who knew them. Anderson was bragging. He was dancing around singing "I've got a secret" and gives just enough information to potentially cause a great deal of damage, all just to make himself look more competent. It's reckless, it's smug, it's potentially damaging, and it's utterly pointless. That does not make me think well of his judgement.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As something of an aside, however estimable Sir Robert Anderson may have been I find his tone somewhat repugnant. It reminds me of an 8 years dancing around singing "I've got a secret nyah nyah". If the identity of Jack the Ripper had to remain a secret, or if he honestly did not want to tell tales, the most responsible action is to say nothing at all. If he feel the need to refer to a suspect at all, the best course would be to simply acknowledge that there was one, that there had been credible evidence but not enough to prosecute, he was off the streets, and that's it. Do not reference anything else about him, not race, not personality, nothing. What he does however is give everything but names. Which still means that it could have been any number of folks, but it's just enough that those who read this would have been able to say "I think I know who that is!" about a whole lot of people.

What Anderson had no way of knowing is that Ashkenazi Jews (the vast majority of Jews in the East End) are more prone to mood disorders than any other group of people. Nor could he have known the effect of living in the Pale could have on a person's permanent mental well being. To be blunt, There were a lot of Polish Jews who ended up in asylums. And Anderson set up a situation where every single one of those people became suspects for Jack the Ripper in the minds of those who knew them. Anderson was bragging. He was dancing around singing "I've got a secret" and gives just enough information to potentially cause a great deal of damage, all just to make himself look more competent. It's reckless, it's smug, it's potentially damaging, and it's utterly pointless. That does not make me think well of his judgement.

I don't think so, Errata.

It was an important event in his career and the most high profile murder case in the country.

It would hardly have been appropriate to leave it out of his memoirs.

He merely stops short of naming his man, for reasons that I think are pretty clear.

In terms of Swanson, I'm scratching my head struggling to understand the conclusion that this professional allowed himself to be led astray and as such turned a non event into damning evidence.

In the event he did so, he would not have been a professional. His duty to the force and the country was to assess the evidence with objectivity and rigour. In the event the ID was a non event and Swanson turned it into a major event, then that would make Swanson egotistical and conceited.

Can't have it both ways - was he a professional, or did his ego get in the way of the investigation?

If you accept that Swanson was a professional, then surely it is wise to accept that Swanson weighed up the evidence, in a professsional manner, and concluded that this was the man.

[Errata]

I don't think so, Errata.

It was an important event in his career and the most high profile murder case in the country.

It would hardly have been appropriate to leave it out of his memoirs.

He merely stops short of naming his man, for reasons that I think are pretty clear.

In terms of Swanson, I'm scratching my head struggling to understand the conclusion that this professional allowed himself to be led astray and as such turned a non event into damning evidence.

In the event he did so, he would not have been a professional. His duty to the force and the country was to assess the evidence with objectivity and rigour. In the event the ID was a non event and Swanson turned it into a major event, then that would make Swanson egotistical and conceited.

Can't have it both ways - was he a professional, or did his ego get in the way of the investigation?

If you accept that Swanson was a professional, then surely it is wise to accept that Swanson weighed up the evidence, in a professsional manner, and concluded that this was the man.

I completely understand why the Ripper investigation was an important part of his career. It's the discussing the suspect part that I'm talking about. As far as the public was concerned, the case was unsolved. He is very keen to point out that it wasn't unsolved. Which accomplishes nothing. That's ego. He and any others who knew about this guy let the public think that it was unsolved for 15 or 20 years. I assume they did so for a reason. Then he does this very gossipy thing, like "A certain Catholic Australian actor, An action star with a passion for historical film who will remain nameless, fathered a child out of wedlock" Oh shut up. That's Mel Gibson. You know? It's important to him that we know it was not unsolved. It's important to him to let us know what kind of person was the Ripper. It's important to him that we think that he was right in all his assumptions, since they then fit this Ripper suspect, and it's important to him to insist that he is not telling tales, when he clearly is. The guy clearly wants credit for catching the Ripper. And that's fine. But then don't sit there and tell me that you can't give me any more real information, because that would violate the spirit of the brotherhood. He already did. That's my issue. For all I know, everything he says is the god's own truth. But the way he says it, and what he chooses to reveal shows him to be something of an ass. It's taunting. It's smug. It's self glorifying. It's just a testament to self interest. And it's not productive.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Errata,

Spot-on.

TLSOMOL is packed with self-aggrandizing BS.

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

I completely understand why the Ripper investigation was an important part of his career. It's the discussing the suspect part that I'm talking about. As far as the public was concerned, the case was unsolved. He is very keen to point out that it wasn't unsolved. Which accomplishes nothing. That's ego.

I disagree.

There is a case to say he tells it how he sees it, but stops short of naming the individual for his own reasons.

That is only egotistical in the scenario where his convictions are built upon shakey ground.

As we are aware of Swanson's notes, it appears that Anderson had a decent enough case.

So, no; not egotistical.

He wrote a book detailing his career, while including one of the main events, but refused to name the suspect out of ethical consideration. It's not exactly blaggard proportions.