Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

I wish I knew.

But I'll tell you one thing for certain.

The Whitechapel murders have not remained a closely-guarded state secret for almost 125 years because "Jack the Ripper" was either a low-class Polish Jew or an effete barrister/schoolteacher.

Regards,

Simon

Closely guarded state sercret? Please Simon, dont treat me like a Newbie my friend.

Hello Robert,

Well I'll tell you one thing for certain..anybody who decides the guilt of another, in the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in his own mind, based on moral guilt..has got SERIOUS problems with his integrity, his sense of right and wrong and what's more, his sense of justice.

It brings into question his sense of fair play, it brings into question his sense of judgement over another human being, and shows a personal bias based on the fact that he regards his feelings of moralty over a person in a given situation ranking higher than that of the laws of the land regarding justice.

And that's just for starters.

The Judge being judged on the same standards.

In this new dawn of Admin, where if one hasnt got anything nice to say dont say it.....I shall further more remain silent.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Amazing.

You have such a low opinion of the police of the day. I wouldn't even know where to begin to address this.

There is an incredibly simple answer to much of this:

"Anderson only thought he knew."

Doesn't require him to be evil. No need for an intergalactic conspiracy carried on to this very day. It doesn't impugn the intelligence or the morality of a man none of us know.

Hello Robert,

No sir, I have a low opinion of this policeman. Sir Robert Anderson, Assistent Commissioner, Met Police. I didn't call him evil either. I called him moralistically above the law, in his own mind. He actually boasted about his ability to find people guilty of crimes morally, without due process.
I find that repulsive, from a man in his position.

And THAT is a policeman who shows no hint of bias? Not on your nelly would I trust such a man. If this man made his mind up that the man in front of him was morally guilty, he was immovable.

Amazing? Hardly. It's reality. The man was bloated full of his own ego. Only recently has he been hoisted upon his own petard.

best wishes

Phil

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

No sir, I have a low opinion of this policeman. Sir Robert Anderson, Assistent Commissioner, Met Police. I didn't call him evil either. I called him moralistically above the law, in his own mind.

Posters on this board seem to have a unique ability to channel the mind set of an official long dead. Also without reading any of his religious works, because they wouldn't be of relevance.

It's a Brave New History we're forging here.

[Phil Carter]

Posters on this board seem to have a unique ability to channel the mind set of an official long dead. Also without reading any of his religious works, because they wouldn't be of relevance.

It's a Brave New History we're forging here.

Hello Robert,

I have read three of Anderson's books.
Two religious, one not.
The two religious were, to me, comparable to chewing cement.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Hand on heart.

Do you honestly believe the Whitechapel murders have remained a mystery simply because a handful of high-ranking policemen disagreed about the possible identity of the culprit?

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

By why not 30 years later? I can see an argument for not making it public in 1889. But why not release the information in 1900? 1930? Why never?

Errrr 1912

[Errata]

Errrr 1912

That's not making it public. That's Anderson making a bunch of vague statements in a book that statistically very few people read. What I meant is why didn't the MET release a statement? One that every resident of London heard or heard about, finally laying to rest the mystery of Jack the Ripper in everyone's mind? Well, it probably wouldn't because everybody loves a conspiracy theory. But the police and their officials took a brutal beating from the press for not being able to find this guy. And they found him. And maybe they took that PR beating to protect people. But as some point that reason for silence ends. Why wouldn't they make an official statement? Individually, I get it. Not Swanson's call. Not even Anderson's call. But let's say that some official wanted to write a statement for the public, laying out what they knew and why things happened the way they did. Why would the brass say no? Especially if you didn't name the suspect. Or if you waited until he died? What could possibly be gained by keeping that a secret?

For the record I don't think they were protecting some famous or wealthy Jack or whatever. But why on earth was it so important to no official statement be made on any of it?

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"But no, I can't do it."

See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Attire

Attire.

Monty

Hi Monty,

"He wore a brown deerstalker hat, and she thought he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that".

I don't see how she could conclude 'appeared to be a foreigner' from that?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Much has been made of the "historical methodology" when analizing the viability of Aaron Kosminski as a suspect in the ripper murder series and the view has been put forth many times that the people who made the statements that incriminate him at the time should be given much weight.

And they should. However, the historical methodology also involves taking in many other factors, such as: how accurate were the sources, is there evidence of possible alterior motives, how did other contemporary sources view those statements, what were the personalities of the men making those statements and what is the consensus of modern experts of the subject.

Historians take all these things into consideration when making judgements as to what actually happened and how events of the past should be percieved today.

Whether assessing the events like the shoot out at the OK Corral, the capture of the Vercingetorix by Caesar, or the role of Josephus accounting for events in the Jewish war- all the aforementioned have been analized by historians using the historical method and the same should be done so when assessing the viability of Aaron Kosminki as a suspect in the ripper murders. I have yet to see this balanced approach anywhere on this website nor in publication, except perhaps by Sugden.

[Bridewell]

Motive?

Everything we know about Swanson indicates that he would never give up the name. Didn't even do it in penciled annotations written in privacy.

In a private annotation in his personal copy of a (then) relatively obscure book:

"Kosminski was the suspect"

What was he doing, if not 'giving up the name'? Trying to mislead? Who? Himself?

I genuinely can't see what purpose he could imagine would be served by writing the name of a false suspect. Kosminski was the suspect. Based on what, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly suspected, we don't know but there is one inescapable fact - and fact it is - someone by the name of Kosminski was a suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hi Sir Robert,

How else might you categorize the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

As a series of unsolved murders?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hi Monty,

Hand on heart.

Do you honestly believe the Whitechapel murders have remained a mystery simply because a handful of high-ranking policemen disagreed about the possible identity of the culprit?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Not addressed to me, I know, but surely that's a different issue to a claim of JtR being a "closely-guarded state secret", which is what Monty queried?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Much has been made of the "historical methodology" when analizing the viability of Aaron Kosminski as a suspect in the ripper murder series and the view has been put forth many times that the people who made the statements that incriminate him at the time should be given much weight.

And they should. However, the historical methodology also involves taking in many other factors, such as: how accurate were the sources, is there evidence of possible alterior motives, how did other contemporary sources view those statements, what were the personalities of the men making those statements and what is the consensus of modern experts of the subject.

Historians take all these things into consideration when making judgements as to what actually happened and how events of the past should be percieved today.

Whether assessing the events like the shoot out at the OK Corral, the capture of the Vercingetorix by Caesar, or the role of Josephus accounting for events in the Jewish war- all the aforementioned have been analized by historians using the historical method and the same should be done so when assessing the viability of Aaron Kosminki as a suspect in the ripper murders. I have yet to see this balanced approach anywhere on this website nor in publication, except perhaps by Sugden.

Hi Abby,

Great post & very well argued. I think the viability of Kosminski should be argued by just such a process. What I think we should not now be arguing, as still seems to be the case, is whether or not 'Kosminski' was a suspect at all. We have a handwritten statement :'Kosminski was the suspect' written in what we now know, beyond reasonable doubt, was the handwriting of Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson & initialled by him. I think we should, as you suggest, be debating the viability of Kosminski as a suspect, not the fact of his being a suspect which is, to my mind, now beyond argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

In a private annotation in his personal copy of a (then) relatively obscure book:

"Kosminski was the suspect"

What was he doing, if not 'giving up the name'? Trying to mislead? Who? Himself?

I genuinely can't see what purpose he could imagine would be served by writing the name of a false suspect. Kosminski was the suspect. Based on what, we don't know. Rightly or wrongly suspected, we don't know but there is one inescapable fact - and fact it is - someone by the name of Kosminski was a suspect.

Regards, Bridewell.

I meant to say he never gave up the name except in penciled annotations written in privacy. (We can argue whether that is really giving up the name. It's debatable either way.)

But how do you get from that to any implication that Swanson was trying to mislead? Of course he wasn't.