Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Sam Flynn]

And Kosminski is virtually the only suspect there is contemporary evidence against. We have his "identification".

The Swanson Marginalia, in which the information about the "identification" appears, aren't exactly contemporary with the crimes.

[jason_c]

The Swanson Marginalia, in which the information about the "identification" appears, aren't exactly contemporary with the crimes.

Perhaps, but it was written by a contemporary, which imo is just as important. Strictly speaking the identification wasn't contemporary with the crimes so we are always having to work back. There is a direct line(im not getting into a debate on the marginalia's authenticity) between the marginalia and Anderson. Therefore a direct line between the marginalia and the on the ground contemporary police investigation. Swanson simply puts some meat on the bones to Anderson's suspect. Plus, we have McNaghten pointing a finger at Kosminski as far back as 1894.

These three officials may have been talking of different suspects, and the details we are told have become mangled. However, we are not lacking accounts from contemporary police officials that a local Jew(probably named Kosminski) was at the very least a solid suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

Plus, we have McNaghten pointing a finger at Kosminski as far back as 1894.

True, but he simultaneously pointed the finger at Ostrog and Druitt, saying that all three would make better suspects than Thomas Cutbush. There's no suggestion that Kos was somehow the prime suspect at any time; at best, he seems to have been one of many.

[jason_c]

True, but he simultaneously pointed the finger at Ostrog and Druitt, saying that all three would make better suspects than Thomas Cutbush. There's no suggestion that Kos was somehow the prime suspect at any time; at best, he seems to have been one of many.

I think you are cherrypicking police opinions on Kosminski to reduce the case against him. I have fully admitted to police officials having differing views as to the major suspects. However, one of these officials went as far as to say Kosminski was definitely their man. This official appears to have been supported at face value by a second police official. It's impossible to square the differing police opinions on the likely killer. I could be wrong but nowhere else do contemporary officials working on the case definitively say their suspect was the killer apart from the suspect named Kosminski. This alone makes him a prime suspect if not the prime suspect imo.

I think we are debating over trifles here though. From the information handed down to us Kosminski is hardly a great suspect, but I believe he is the best one we have imo. Im certainly struggling to think of a candidate with stronger evidence against him.

[Sam Flynn]

I think you are cherrypicking police opinions on Kosminski to reduce the case against him.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm using the earliest known police report on Kosminski to point out that it names Kosminski as one of three people who Macnaghten thought might be better Ripper suspects than Cutbush.

All that is fact.

[jason_c]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm using the earliest known police report on Kosminski to point out that it names Kosminski as one of three people who Macnaghten thought might be better Ripper suspects than Cutbush.

All that is fact.

You can cite all the facts you wish. You failed to cite a police official who stated categorically they had got their man. Your reasons for failing to cite this police official only you know, but it certainly didn't hinder your argument by failing to cite Anderson. Such a statement by Anderson suggests Kosminski as a suspect was more than one of many by certain elements within the investigative team.

edit: I don't wish to get into a disagreement here. You are one of the posters I most admire on these boards. But I really cant understand why what I am saying is in any way controversial or wrong.

[Dr. John Watson]

Question on Kosminski

The question is, aside from a reference to "Kosminski" in a private memo by Macnaghten in 1895, and Swanson's penciled "Kosminski" in the margin of a book ca. 1910, does the name "Aaron Kosminski" or merely "Kosminski" appear in any known police circular, report, record or any other official document dated 1888 to 1898, relating to the Ripper murders or any other police matter?

Dr. John

[jason_c]

The question is, aside from a reference to "Kosminski" in a private memo by Macnaghten in 1895, and Swanson's penciled "Kosminski" in the margin of a book ca. 1910, does the name "Aaron Kosminski" or merely "Kosminski" appear in any known police circular, report, record or any other official document dated 1888 to 1898, relating to the Ripper murders or any other police matter?

Dr. John

The answer is, it's complicated. As far as I know no other official document still exists. However, it's almost certain an official file/document did exist at some stage.

[Sam Flynn]

I really cant understand why what I am saying is in any way controversial or wrong.

I'm not suggesting you're either, Jason. It's just that I don't personally attach much weight to either the Macnaghten Memorandum or the Swanson Marginalia, at least not in terms of Kosminski's credibility as a suspect. He may have been a suspect, but then again so might Ostrog, Druitt and countless others.

[Dr. John Watson]

The answer is, it's complicated. As far as I know no other official document still exists. However, it's almost certain an official file/document did exist at some stage.

Jason, you state " no other official document still exists." If you're referring here to the Macnaughten memo or Swanson's penciled marginalia, I don't believe either could be called an "official document" even using the most liberal interpretation. And while we cannot rule out the possibility that such a document did exist at one time, until it's found or it's existence proven, Kosminski's status as a "official" Ripper suspect remains unsubstantiated. Mind you, I do believe Swanson's claim that a witness (probably Schwartz) identified someone (probably Kosminski) at the Sea Side Home, but without contemporary documentation we have no way of ascertaining for certain either who the suspect was, who the witness was, or what the witness witnessed.

Dr. John

[jason_c]

Jason, you state " no other official document still exists." If you're referring here to the Macnaughten memo or Swanson's penciled marginalia, I don't believe either could be called an "official document" even using the most liberal interpretation. And while we cannot rule out the possibility that such a document did exist at one time, until it's found or it's existence proven, Kosminski's status as a "official" Ripper suspect remains unsubstantiated. Mind you, I do believe Swanson's claim that a witness (probably Schwartz) identified someone (probably Kosminski) at the Sea Side Home, but without contemporary documentation we have no way of ascertaining for certain either who the suspect was, who the witness was, or what the witness witnessed.

Dr. John

I took my wording rather too loosely from your previous post. I thought you meant documents naming Kosminski from policemen who were involved in the original investigation; which is why is used the terms "official file/document". I should have used or instead of a forward slash. The MacNaghten is an official file imo, the marginalia a document. However, my wording wasn't as clear as it should have been in my previous post.

I do think the MacNaghten memorandum is an official document; it was written by McNaghten in his official capacity, even if the document was never part of the official police file on Kosminski. I think the memorandum is at least suggestive that a further document existed.

I do think im on an necessary uphill struggle in convincing you a file almost certainly existed on Kosminski. If we are to take the existing official police files as indicating who the police officially suspected then we can only surmise that they suspected almost no-one. Whilst it's true that we cannot ascertain who the suspect was we can ascertain that two contemporary policemen named someone called Kosminski as the suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the memorandum is at least suggestive that a further document existed.

Possibly, but no more suggestive than to suppose that documents on Druitt and Ostrog also existed... or was Macnaghten acting with the benefit of hindsight? The possibility remains that neither of the "canonical three" suspects were considered to be potential Ripper candidates until some years after the event. Unlike, say, Ludwig, Isenschmidt, Pizer, or even Bury.

[jason_c]

Possibly, but no more suggestive than to suppose that documents on Druitt and Ostrog also existed... or was Macnaghten acting with the benefit of hindsight? The possibility remains that neither of the "canonical three" suspects were considered to be potential Ripper candidates until some years after the event. Unlike, say, Ludwig, Isenschmidt, Pizer, or even Bury.

With regards to the existence of files against Druitt, Ostrog etc; this isn't too far from my original point that Kosminski is the best suspect because of the existence of the file/document AND Kosminski's location. I think my original post in this thread contained the term location, location, location!.

I believe that the possibility that Kosminski was only considered a suspect until some years after the event can be worked in his favour as a strong suspect. We don't know when Kosminski was originally considered a suspect, but the fact that he was still a suspect a few years afterwards points to an investigation that had still not cleared him; unlike Pizer and Bury(I don't know enough on Isenschmidt) who had been investigated and presumably cleared. Again, this is not to say the police were infallible with their conclusions, but the fact that these suspects had been cleared is notable.

I believe arguing who was a suspect during the crime spree and who was a suspect soon-ish after the crime spree is largely irrelevant.

[Dr. John Watson]

Don't mean to belabor the point, but strictly speaking both the Swanson marginalia and the Macnaughton memorandum must be viewed as personal papers. That said, Swanson's reference to Kosminski, although not supported by police or hospital records, carries considerable weight since he was on the Ripper case from the beginning and had first-hand knowledge of police efforts to capture him. The same can't be said for Macnaughton. Although he refers to the existence of many police circulars naming Kosminski, his statements can't be trusted for many reasons. In the end, the absence of contemporary police records on Kosminski isn't all that surprising considering he did not become a suspect in the Ripper murders until Schwartz identified him as the man who assaulted Stride in the street. From what I could figure out, that was some time after the last Ripper murder.

Dr. John

[Elamarna]

Don't mean to belabor the point, but strictly speaking both the Swanson marginalia and the Macnaughton memorandum must be viewed as personal papers. That said, Swanson's reference to Kosminski, although not supported by police or hospital records, carries considerable weight since he was on the Ripper case from the beginning and had first-hand knowledge of police efforts to capture him. The same can't be said for Macnaughton. Although he refers to the existence of many police circulars naming Kosminski, his statements can't be trusted for many reasons. In the end, the absence of contemporary police records on Kosminski isn't all that surprising considering he did not become a suspect in the Ripper murders until Schwartz identified him as the man who assaulted Stride in the street. From what I could figure out, that was some time after the last Ripper murder.

Dr. John

Good evening,

I don' t mean to labour the point either.

But we do not know that he was not suspected of involvement before any possible identification took place.

Without any paperwork such a position is really not supportable .

Neither do we know that the witness was Schwartz, it is a good probability; but in all honesty it is not cetrain.

Both points are certainly viable but they are not certain facts.



Steve