Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Abby Normal]

Well, just google the term and read about it. It is a philosophical concept that was first discussed by Aristotle. From wikipedia:

"Moral certainty is a concept of intuitive probability. It means a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical certainty."

It is a bit more than saying "in my opinion" and a bit less than 100% certainty.

My point was that it does not have anything to do with the "morality" of the person making the judgement. Anderson's use of the term was to illustrate that he believed that he knew the identity of the Ripper with a high degree of probability, but was lacking legal evidence to convict the suspect.

RH

Thanks Rob

[Chris]

[Duplicate post]

[Chris]

Well, just google the term and read about it.

Actually, it's interesting that some online sources describe it as being equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt", which would be the standard of proof in a criminal trial. In using the phrase "moral versus legal proof" to describe Anderson's views, Hargrave Adam must have meant something weaker than that.

[robhouse]

Actually, it's interesting that some online sources describe it as being equivalent to "beyond reasonable doubt", which would be the standard of proof in a criminal trial. In using the phrase "moral versus legal proof" to describe Anderson's views, Hargrave Adam must have meant something weaker than that.

It is a fine point, but, I think, and important one to ponder. To me, it has always seemed that Andersons "definitely ascertained fact" should be read more precisely as a "moral certainty", since Anderson is more explicit in explaining this in other places. So I think he was certain enough to be satisfied that he knew the Ripper's identity, although he obviously knew that he was lacking sufficient legal proof.

Indeed, one might assume that if Anderson had been 100% certain, he would presumably have had sufficient evidence to convict. This suggests that the type of evidence they had was probably quite convincing, but circumstantial.

Rob

[Errata]

Indeed, one might assume that if Anderson had been 100% certain, he would presumably have had sufficient evidence to convict. This suggests that the type of evidence they had was probably quite convincing, but circumstantial.

Rob

or inadmissable?

[Errata]

So this has been bothering me.

The Seaside Home identification. I am familiar with how modern identifications work, and am reasonable informed on how identification occurred in 1890. What I don't understand is how it works in a convalescent home. Basically wasn't the only option to have the witness and a couple of cops hanging out in a room, and having the escorted suspect brought into the same room? And they referred to the suspect "knowing that he was identified". Which sort of implies he didn't know he was being brought in for a line up, because if he did certainly he would suspect that could possibly be identified. And if he didn't know, that puts "brought with great difficulty" in a whole new light, since I don't know how you convince a guy to go to a convalescent home with some cops. Tell him it's a candy store?

But if it's the suspect walking into a room with the witness, that's awkward. He could have walked in and said "Hey Joe! What are you doing here?" and Joe says "Hi Bob! I was brought here to identify a suspect, I guess they meant you." At which point, yeah the suspect knows he's been identified. The witness said "Hi Bob!". It just seems so... unscientific I guess. So I'm wondering how this works.

[Stephen Thomas]

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?

Hello Errata

Lots could be gained by it. The Lipski case a year before which exercised the minds of the highest people in the British government was a Jew on Jew murder. Imagine if it had been stated that a Jewish man had been ripping up Gentile ladies. The surprise is that Anderson spilled the beans only 20 years before Hitler came to power.

[robhouse]

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?

It is quite obvious to me that the MET releasing a statement to the effect that the Ripper's identity was known would be colossally stupid. This would cause endless problems. Certainly it would have been impossible for the MET to release the name of a person who was legally, not proven guilty of any crime.

RH

[Bridewell]

Confrontation

Hi Errata,

This scenario is what's known as a 'confrontation' ID. I don't know exactly how it worked in the 19th century but, more recently, whilst such an identification was permissible in certain circumstances, it was avoided where possible because it was of such limited evidential value; this because, with only one person to look at, the witness gives a yes or no answer to a choice of only one suspect. A confrontation ID was admissible in evidence if, and only if, a suspect had been given the option of standing on a formal ID Parade and had refused to do so. If the suspect was seen as being so mentally deranged that there was no possibility of a prosecution being brought, the situation moves from being one of securing evidence to one of establishing fact:
This, I acknowledge, is pure hypothesis:
'We know we can't prosecute him, but we still need to know if it was him or not. We'll just discreetly arrange a confrontation away from prying eyes. It won't be useable in evidence, but at least we'll be able to confirm if we've got the right man or not".

Why at the Seaside Home? (Assuming that what is meant is the Police Convalescent Home at Brighton). We wouldn't expect an ID Procedure to be done there so - perhaps - that's why it was chosen. Either that, or the witness was there or close by and it was easier to bring the suspect to the witness than the witness to the suspect. If it was feared that the personnel involved might be observed en route, there was always the alternative of conveying a suspect down the Thames and around the coast to Brighton, which might explain the cryptic reference to 'sent by us with difficulty'.

I reiterate - pure hypothesis, but, for me, the fact that Swanson alludes to an identification at the Seaside Home almost adds to the authenticity of the claim. Why claim that it took place at such an improbable venue unless it actually did so?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

It is quite obvious to me that the MET releasing a statement to the effect that the Ripper's identity was known would be colossally stupid. This would cause endless problems.

That's why they they didn't do it, Rob.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

This scenario is what's known as a 'confrontation' ID. I don't know exactly how it worked in the 19th century but, more recently, whilst such an identification was permissible in certain circumstances, it was avoided where possible because it was of such limited evidential value; this because, with only one person to look at, the witness gives a yes or no answer to a choice of only one suspect. A confrontation ID was admissible in evidence if, and only if, a suspect had been given the option of standing on a formal ID Parade and had refused to do so. If the suspect was seen as being so mentally deranged that there was no possibility of a prosecution being brought, the situation moves from being one of securing evidence to one of establishing fact:
This, I acknowledge, is pure hypothesis:
'We know we can't prosecute him, but we still need to know if it was him or not. We'll just discreetly arrange a confrontation away from prying eyes. It won't be useable in evidence, but at least we'll be able to confirm if we've got the right man or not".

Why at the Seaside Home? (Assuming that what is meant is the Police Convalescent Home at Brighton). We wouldn't expect an ID Procedure to be done there so - perhaps - that's why it was chosen. Either that, or the witness was there or close by and it was easier to bring the suspect to the witness than the witness to the suspect. If it was feared that the personnel involved might be observed en route, there was always the alternative of conveying a suspect down the Thames and around the coast to Brighton, which might explain the cryptic reference to 'sent by us with difficulty'.

I reiterate - pure hypothesis, but, for me, the fact that Swanson alludes to an identification at the Seaside Home almost adds to the authenticity of the claim. Why claim that it took place at such an improbable venue unless it actually did so?

Regards, Bridewell.

But was it like, the witness is sitting in some little parlor drinking tea, and the cops bring in Jack the Ripper and they are standing about five feet apart while the witness testifies to the man's guilt? That seems... stressful.

Brighton is going to bother me. It made me say "Aha!" and a map sprang up in my head, but then I lost it. So Now I'm just going to have to sit around trying to figure that out.

[Errata]

It is quite obvious to me that the MET releasing a statement to the effect that the Ripper's identity was known would be colossally stupid. This would cause endless problems. Certainly it would have been impossible for the MET to release the name of a person who was legally, not proven guilty of any crime.

RH

And I understand that. This is not a challenging kind of question, it's an understanding kind of question. I would have thought that at some point, the MET could say "We had this man as a suspect, we believe he is the ripper, we have evidence, we cannot prosecute, but in the end it doesn't matter because he's in an asylum and can't get out." Not before say, 1910, But I would have thought after the war focuses would have shifted enough for them to redeem themselves to a certain extent. Certainly after the death of the suspect, since I don't think any remaining family members shared his last name.

Also, could an insane person be put on trial? Here we have a process for someone to be institutionalized until they are deemed competent to stand trial. Which could be never I suppose. But if their suspect was insane, and so insane that he couldn't stand trial, it would make sense that they didn't pursue it after he was put in an asylum. They could afford to wait for him to be released before trying to legally nail him, since he couldn't stand trial anyway. But I don't know if that was the case.

[robhouse]

And I understand that. This is not a challenging kind of question, it's an understanding kind of question. I would have thought that at some point, the MET could say "We had this man as a suspect, we believe he is the ripper, we have evidence, we cannot prosecute, but in the end it doesn't matter because he's in an asylum and can't get out." Not before say, 1910, But I would have thought after the war focuses would have shifted enough for them to redeem themselves to a certain extent. Certainly after the death of the suspect, since I don't think any remaining family members shared his last name.

Also, could an insane person be put on trial? Here we have a process for someone to be institutionalized until they are deemed competent to stand trial. Which could be never I suppose. But if their suspect was insane, and so insane that he couldn't stand trial, it would make sense that they didn't pursue it after he was put in an asylum. They could afford to wait for him to be released before trying to legally nail him, since he couldn't stand trial anyway. But I don't know if that was the case.

I could be wrong here, but I think it would be illegal for the MET to have declared a person to be guilty of a crime that they were not convicted of. I mean, is this not libel? Or something along those lines?

RH

[Monty]

Absolutely Rob,

It is why cases came under the 75 year ruling.

To state a suspect was the murderer opens them up to a lawsuit. The most common way the police got around that was to use the statement that they "are not looking for anyone else in connection to the crime".

Monty

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Absolutely Rob,

It is why cases came under the 75 year ruling.

To state a suspect was the murderer opens them up to a lawsuit. The most common way the police got around that was to use the statement that they "are not looking for anyone else in connection to the crime".

Over here the favored language is "there is no longer an active investigation".