Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Chris]

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".

It's not quite the same thing, but I always think this is an interesting case:

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/loughans-harold.htm

Harold Loughans, who was acquitted of murder in 1944, brought a libel action nearly 20 years later against the newspaper that published the memoirs of the prosecuting counsel at his trial. He lost the libel case, as the jury decided he had been guilty of the murder. He then confessed and sold his story to the same newspaper he had just sued.

[Monty]

Very interesting Chris,

Thanks for sharing.

Did it for the money huh?

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

...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."

Abberline and Issenschmid. It probably happened all the time.

[RivkahChaya]

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

I'm coming in late to this discussion, and I have just read through this very long thread in two sittings, so I may have missed some details. However, on the libel point, it's a matter of law in the US, and I'm pretty sure in English law as well, that you cannot libel, or slander, the dead. Relatives of dead people who have had nasty things said them in unauthorized biographies have attempted to sue under invasion of privacy laws, or claimed indirect damage, or even intention infliction of emotional harm on the part of the supposed libeler, but the lawsuits have never been successful.

About the only thing I can think of that might be successful would be loss of income. If someone wrote a book claiming that Elvis Presley molested children, and someone else then organized a boycott of Graceland, which resulted in the business facing bankruptcy, AND, the claim was demonstrably false, there might be a case. But I don't know that anything like that has ever happened.

To put in another "However," I don't know what the laws were at the time that Kosminski died. Maybe you could libel the dead, or at any rate, the law wasn't clear. What you get down to, is, though, that by 1910, it's been 22 years. Other than satisfying people's curiosity, there is no good reason for issuing a public statement. If it had been 22 months, and people were still feeling alarmed, there was public interest in letting people know they could rest easy. Assuming the evidence was incontrovertible.

Which is another thing. If the evidence were that good, a slam-dunk case, and the only thing between Kosminski and the noose was a technicality, then several people were being deliberately silent about it. Like a lot of conspiracy theories, this one fails, for me personally, on the fact that people just don't keep secrets that well. I think someone would have slipped up, at some point, and said something.

[robhouse]

If it had been 22 months, and people were still feeling alarmed, there was public interest in letting people know they could rest easy. Assuming the evidence was incontrovertible.

This is a very interesting observation... indeed, I have been ruminating on this possibility for some time now. I personally think that just such a thing may have happened. In other words, if we look at some of the various statements the police did release over the years, they seem to have said, to the press for example, that the Ripper's identity was known and he died.

This was going to be a subject of an article (perhaps), but I never got around to writing it.

RH

[Errata]

This is a very interesting observation... indeed, I have been ruminating on this possibility for some time now. I personally think that just such a thing may have happened. In other words, if we look at some of the various statements the police did release over the years, they seem to have said, to the press for example, that the Ripper's identity was known and he died.

This was going to be a subject of an article (perhaps), but I never got around to writing it.

RH

See this is what I'm talking about. Also libel implies a lie, and there was no need to lie. "Aaron Kosminski was identified by a witness, but we were unable to prosecute. We kept him under observation during which time there were no murders, until he was institutionalized, and he will remain in an asylum for the rest of his life. We are not pursuing other leads." It's all factual information, and if you disclose a lack of evidence, you confirm that it is an opinion, but one that was felt strongly enough that no one felt the need to investigate further. I mean, it's not a nice thing to do. But I think it would be technically legal, and probably kinder to the populace as a whole.

I think my favorite example was some civil rights activist threw himself on his sword and named a bunch of violent white supremacists they couldn't nail to the wall. He got fired, but the response by his organization was "It is not our policy to disclose the names of men possibly facing prosecution for such crimes. He said something he should not have said" Not that it was wrong, or that what he said was untrue. Essentially they said "Yes that's true, but he shouldn't have told you people". Which I love.

[robhouse]

My point was that I think the police may have released false information—that the Ripper was dead—specifically to "let people know they could rest easy," while at the same time keeping the identity of their top suspect under wraps.

RH

[RivkahChaya]

See this is what I'm talking about. Also libel implies a lie, and there was no need to lie.

This is true. Truth is always a defense against libel. When you sue someone for libel, you have to prove what they said was false, and also that it was damaging. The latter is the reason most celebrities don't pursue libel suits against every tabloid that prints rumors, misleading headlines, and wholly invented stories.

There would not have been any need for the police to name a suspect, at any rate, I don't think. If they had said "We have evidence we believe would lead to a conviction, but due to special circumstances, we cannot go to trial. However, the suspect is no longer a threat to anyone." That could mean he's dead. That could mean he's incapacitated by illness. That could mean he is in prison in another country. And you can see why Scotland Yard would want to be vague, so there would be attempts at vigilantism, or retaliation against his family.

However, as soon as the police issued a statement like that, you can bet that reporters would be combing through past dockets in neighboring jurisdictions, to find out if someone recently sentenced to death, or a very long term, had been in London during the Ripper murders; looking as commitments to asylums, looking through death records of people living in London, trying to figure out who the police no longer considered a threat.

The reporters will probably come up with Kosminski's name, among others, and it would not be libel to say that he fit the parameters laid out by the police, even if he is still alive. I don't think commitments to asylums were confidential like they are now, and at any rate, they are public record even now, if the commitment is ordered by a judge.

The fact that nothing like that ever did happen, make me think that the idea that the police knew beyond a reasonable doubt who JTR was, is unlikely.

At best, the police may have had reason to believe he had moved on, and some may have had a strong gut feeling that he was dead or confined some place, but I don't think the police really had the kind of information that would have allowed them, to go to trial, except for some technicality.

[Garry Wroe]

''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".

Kosminski was at liberty at the time, Colin, so was not legally insane. Hence he could have been charged with one or more of the murders.

[Errata]

I'm still stuck on this Brighton thing, which I'm trying to convince myself is because I was in Brighton Beach Memoirs an age ago...

But it did prompt a question. Swanson said that the suspect was sent there "by us with great difficulty". Do we know he was sent from London? I think everyone agrees Seaside Home is an odd choice, even for a bit of privacy. But what if the suspect was elsewhere? So when they were setting this up they said "Our guy is in Hampshire (or some such), so we need to bring our witness to place where the cops in Hampshire are willing to travel to. Brighton seems a neutral place, and we have a Seaside Home there so our boys won't have to stay in a hotel" An arrangement which I think would be pretty difficult, but would still make more sense than two sets of London cops and two London citizens going to Brighton for an ID that could have taken place in a park somewhere, or some pensioner's living room. Is that possible?

[Wickerman]

Howsabout "Kosminski was our suspect." ?

I trust if Swanson truly believed that, he would have wrote that..


...

[Errata]

Kosminski was at liberty at the time, Colin, so was not legally insane. Hence he could have been charged with one or more of the murders.

Was that the rule? Because if it was Kosminski, he had been institutionalized previously, which might at least cause some doubts. And I've always been a little fuzzy on the regaining competency part. He is certified insane to get put into an asylum, but I've never heard of some process that reverses the certification. I know the modern US system, but it's different. So does a doctor go before a judge and have him sign a paper saying the guy is sane again? And do you get that piece of paper if you are released into the custody of family, as opposed to having been "cured"?

[harry]

There is and was a defence against defamation,and it was/is if the person making the libel or slander,could prove his/her case.Obviously Anderson,in refraining from naming anyone because of a fear of being sued,did so because there was no proof.To add to my remarks yesterday of the uselessness of a surveilance,one may ask what such a surveilance could achieve.Kosminski was already considered to be the Ripper,so collecting information on that score was negative.The surveilance could not curtail his movements,he was free to roam the streets at will.It would be impossible to stop him killing,because there was nothing preventing him being in the company of a woman.The police did not need to collect information as to where he lived,they already knew.I could go on but I believe posters get the picture.As to the manpower required,well being as it was a day and night operation,quite a number, if it was to be done properly,and all these personnel would be briefed on the neccessity of the surveilance,the reasons for it.And none of these officers ever confided to anyone else?A blanket of silence,a conspiracy perhaps?What of the amount of reporting that would have ensued.The paperwork.Gone I suppose ,like all the other documentary
information,that one would expect to be filed.Lost or stolen,we shall be assured.Maybe,but maybe it never existed,because like all the other claims,the claim of being watched night and day has no foundation in fact.
This will be my last post.I resent being labled as having an axe to grind,as was stated yesterday.As i see no evidence presented by the person that made that accusation,and nothing from admin that diminishe s that accusation,I must accept that they agree with it.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Swanson + Berkin = Kosminski

I trust if Swanson truly believed that, he would have wrote that..

For all intents and purposes, he did.

I am curious as to what weight you give Mary Berkin's comments.

"It was general knowledge that my grandfather knew the name of the killer, and that there was no evidence except from a Jewish man who would not give evidence for ethical reasons."

How does one spin the Marginalia and her comments into Swanson merely stating Anderson's suspect??

As as aside, I find her comment about "ethical reasons" interesting, as at first glance it appears somewhat sympathetic.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

This will be my last post.I resent being labled as having an axe to grind,as was stated yesterday.As i see no evidence presented by the person that made that accusation,and nothing from admin that diminishe s that accusation,I must accept that they agree with it.

I have never read a post by you that didn't have a strong anti-police brass bias. You are - by your own words - one of the "conspiracy' buffs. The evidence is your posts.

A blanket of silence,a conspiracy perhaps?What of the amount of reporting that would have ensued.The paperwork.Gone I suppose ,like all the other documentary information,that one would expect to be filed.Lost or stolen,we shall be assured.Maybe,but maybe it never existed,because like all the other claims,the claim of being watched night and day has no foundation in fact.

Sure. Absolutely. Thanks for explaining this all to us. The paperwork never existed. Why did we not realize this earlier? I mean, it's not like bureaucracies to generate paperwork.

Files got tossed, "harry" (sic). Pulped. Thrown away. Rumbelow has described the process. How much stuff did he singlehandedly rescue??

To add to my remarks yesterday of the uselessness of a surveilance,one may ask what such a surveilance could achieve

I reject completely the idea that police 'surveilance' (sic) of a suspect would have been useless.