Could the Police Really Have Kept Kosminski's Incarceration a Secret?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Perhaps it's all just part of a philosophical argument about the existence of Kozminski

Haha.
Good one.

[robhouse]

I should have used the term Moral certainty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_certainty

RH

[Mr Lucky]

Or Robert anderson

Hi Abby

Perhaps it's all just part of a philosophical argument about the existence of Kozminski

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Actually, I think it's an idea from the enlightenment, moral proof is some sort of philosophical argument about the existence of God, perhaps ask Prof. Cates

Or Robert anderson

[Mr Lucky]

And by the way-what the heck is moral proof anyway? sounds like something out of the middle ages.

Hi Abby

Actually, I think it's an idea from the enlightenment, moral proof is some sort of philosophical argument about the existence of God, perhaps ask Prof. Cates

[GUT]

G'day MrLucky

No I am not familiar with Isaac Marks, so I'll have a look.

However as said before a difference between "unsound mind" and legally insane. It is very hard to accept that anyone who tries to avoid detection meets McNaughten.

I personally have no doubt that many people who were legally insane have been executed because the Jury decided that the world was a better place without them.

[Mr Lucky]

I doubt you would get away with an insanity defence, TODAY, for the same reason it failed in the case I mentioned, he did too much to escape detection to not have known that what he did was wrong, and that is the very guts of the M'Naughton rules.

In 1888 I think that there would be a good chance of a jury accepting that anyone who did what he did was N.U.T.S.

Hi GUT,

The killers behaviour is something that may be difficult to rationalise, but I would suggest that there is evidence of him avoiding culpability.

are you familiar with the Isaac Marks case? another Whitechapel murder, from 1876, clearly of unsound mind but found guilty and sentenced to death.

[GUT]

Personally I have no doubt that the police would have charged him, if they had evidence, being mentally ill is a long way from being legally insane,.

[Abby Normal]

Proof is walking in on your kids taking swings at each other. Moral proof is when your two kids sit there silently each with a black eye.

I think the problem with the ID is that we don't what he was ID'ed for. Was he identified as being in the area? As being the killer? As being a guy covered in blood running from the scene? As a guy who really scared the crap out of the identifier? We know the identifier's answer was yes. We don't know what the question was.

Moral proof is when your two kids sit there silently each with a black eye.

in which case it could be anything other than the fact that your assuming they did it to each other. like the neighborhood bully did it. they got in an accident etc.

Moral proof. give me a break. its the same as saying Its what I think, or better yet Moral proof =no proof. if you have proof you have proof.

[Errata]

Hi Rob
Thanks for the response! Im glad that you agree with me that it wasn't because of the insanity issue that was the reason the police did not move forward. Its good to see an expert finally come out and admit that!

However, when you say "There is no way to know what evidence the police had against Kozminski, " I disagree. Anderson himself(and swanson) tells us what they had-an initial positive ID (that changed) that led to his "moral proof".

And by the way-what the heck is moral proof anyway? sounds like something out of the middle ages. either that or I would equate Andersons moral proof to, as one of his contemporary police officials put it-"Anderson only thinks he knows". there is a good reason courts don't take "moral proof"-its nonsense.

Proof is walking in on your kids taking swings at each other. Moral proof is when your two kids sit there silently each with a black eye.

I think the problem with the ID is that we don't what he was ID'ed for. Was he identified as being in the area? As being the killer? As being a guy covered in blood running from the scene? As a guy who really scared the crap out of the identifier? We know the identifier's answer was yes. We don't know what the question was.

[Abby Normal]

There is no way to know what evidence the police had against Kozminski, but I think it is fair to say that the reason the police chose to not pursue a case against him had nothing to do with his insanity. According to what Anderson said, it was a case of "moral proof versus legal proof." In other words, Anderson was personally convinced, for some reason, that Kozminski was guilty, but knew that he did not have sufficient legal proof to bring him to trial. This is often glossed over or completely ignored by people who claim that the police were simply boasting about a suspect that they had no proof against whatsoever. As I have pointed out numerous times (apparently to deaf ears)... the same exact thing happened in the case of Gary Ridgeway. It was a situation of moral proof... the police strongly suspected Ridgeway was the killer, but lacked the evidence to prove it in court. Hence, Ridgeway remained free until the DNA evidence proved he was the Green River killer. If the police had started blabbing to the press that Ridgeway was the killer, they would have had a lawsuit on their hands, among other problems, like security issues for instance.

RH

Hi Rob
Thanks for the response! Im glad that you agree with me that it wasn't because of the insanity issue that was the reason the police did not move forward. Its good to see an expert finally come out and admit that!

However, when you say "There is no way to know what evidence the police had against Kozminski, " I disagree. Anderson himself(and swanson) tells us what they had-an initial positive ID (that changed) that led to his "moral proof".

And by the way-what the heck is moral proof anyway? sounds like something out of the middle ages. either that or I would equate Andersons moral proof to, as one of his contemporary police officials put it-"Anderson only thinks he knows". there is a good reason courts don't take "moral proof"-its nonsense.

[GUT]

G'day Mr Lucky

Teach away old son.

I doubt you would get away with an insanity defence, TODAY, for the same reason it failed in the case I mentioned, he did too much to escape detection to not have known that what he did was wrong, and that is the very guts of the M'Naughton rules.

In 1888 I think that there would be a good chance of a jury accepting that anyone who did what he did was N.U.T.S.

[Lechmere]

Rob
I wasn't 'the police' that were boasting, it was Anderson. A policeman.
It can be fairly said that Ridgway was the lead suspect in the eyes of 'the police'.
Anderson could have blabbed about Kosminski as he thought he was dead and so couldn't sue.

[robhouse]

The police did not move forward because they had nothing on him, but a failed ID attempt , not because he was crazy.

There is no way to know what evidence the police had against Kozminski, but I think it is fair to say that the reason the police chose to not pursue a case against him had nothing to do with his insanity. According to what Anderson said, it was a case of "moral proof versus legal proof." In other words, Anderson was personally convinced, for some reason, that Kozminski was guilty, but knew that he did not have sufficient legal proof to bring him to trial. This is often glossed over or completely ignored by people who claim that the police were simply boasting about a suspect that they had no proof against whatsoever. As I have pointed out numerous times (apparently to deaf ears)... the same exact thing happened in the case of Gary Ridgeway. It was a situation of moral proof... the police strongly suspected Ridgeway was the killer, but lacked the evidence to prove it in court. Hence, Ridgeway remained free until the DNA evidence proved he was the Green River killer. If the police had started blabbing to the press that Ridgeway was the killer, they would have had a lawsuit on their hands, among other problems, like security issues for instance.

RH

[Mr Lucky]

Hi GUT

I was involved in a case where the killer dd some horrendous things and a plea of insanity was looking good till we found that she had taken steps to hide certain things and that was enough to show that she knew what she had done was illegal.

Oops, I didn't know you were a lawyer!, I wasn't trying to 'teach you to suck eggs'.

Just out of interest, what's your opinion of the likelihood of success in presenting a defence case, partially based around insanity, for any of the C5 murders ?