Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[jason_c]

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

Thank you. I was about to make a similar point. Kosminski must have come to the attention of the police before the identification. Unless the police were rounding up random East End men for identification attempts Kosminski must have been at the very least a POI before the event. I think it plausible that he went from a POI to a suspect at the identification, but we really don't know what evidence the police had before the ID. It's fair to say some form of evidence, or suspicion, did exist.

[Abby Normal]

Thank you. I was about to make a similar point. Kosminski must have come to the attention of the police before the identification. Unless the police were rounding up random East End men for identification attempts Kosminski must have been at the very least a POI before the event. I think it plausible that he went from a POI to a suspect at the identification, but we really don't know what evidence the police had before the ID. It's fair to say some form of evidence, or suspicion, did exist.

I would suggest that it was his threatening the sister with a knife was what got him noticed in the first place.

Its one thing to be a pain in the ass, but with that action he becomes a threat and danger to the family. so they contacted police or doctors-probably both.

[Elamarna]

I would suggest that it was his threatening the sister with a knife was what got him noticed in the first place.

Its one thing to be a pain in the ass, but with that action he becomes a threat and danger to the family. so they contacted police or doctors-probably both.

Hi Abby

Of course Anderson suggests he comes to attention much earlier.
It depends on one's view on Anderson, which of course is very divided.

My take is that the threat to his sister is what made the family have him committed and not that it brought him to police attention.

But like so much who knows?

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Of course Anderson suggests he comes to attention much earlier.
It depends on one's view on Anderson, which of course is very divided.

My take is that the threat to his sister is what made the family have him committed and not that it brought him to police attention.

But like so much who knows?

Steve

Hi el
I'm wondering if the family notified the police, or doctors-who then notified the police. And then the police check his name against the lists they compiled and he was on there. Would explain andersons actions, and his arrogant confidence. As in oh look how smart we were to compile these lists as my suspect is on there.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

When Kłosowski was arrested almost precisely 14 years after the Ripper murders, Abberline is said to have praised George Godley for having caught "Jack the Ripper at last", and went on to say as much in subsequent newspaper interviews. Like Swanson, Abberline was a distinguished detective minutely involved in the case, and - like Swanson - he is widely admired and respected by ripperologists. However, that doesn't mean that his indictment of Kłosowski was anything other than a post hoc exercise in supposition, and it certainly doesn't mean that Kłosowski was a Ripper suspect until sometime after his arrest in 1902 (indeed, it very much appears that he wasn't). By extension, it is equally possible that Kosminski's "career" as a Ripper suspect proceeded along very similar lines, started by a similar process of speculation on Macnaghten's (or even Swanson's) part.

[Phil Carter]

When Kłosowski was arrested almost precisely 14 years after the Ripper murders, Abberline is said to have praised George Godley for having caught "Jack the Ripper at last", and went on to say as much in subsequent newspaper interviews. Like Swanson, Abberline was a distinguished detective minutely involved in the case, and - like Swanson - we all greatly admire and respect him. However, that doesn't mean that his indictment of Kłosowski was anything other than a post hoc exercise in supposition, and it certainly doesn't mean that Kłosowski was a Ripper suspect until after his arrest in 1902; indeed, it very much appears that he wasn't. By extension, it is equally possible that Kosminski's "career" as a Ripper suspect might have started and proceeded along very similar lines, and by a similar process of speculation on Swanson's part.

The voice of intelligent reason.
Thank you.


Phol

[John Wheat]

When Kłosowski was arrested almost precisely 14 years after the Ripper murders, Abberline is said to have praised George Godley for having caught "Jack the Ripper at last", and went on to say as much in subsequent newspaper interviews. Like Swanson, Abberline was a distinguished detective minutely involved in the case, and - like Swanson - he is widely admired and respected by ripperologists. However, that doesn't mean that his indictment of Kłosowski was anything other than a post hoc exercise in supposition, and it certainly doesn't mean that Kłosowski was a Ripper suspect until sometime after his arrest in 1902 (indeed, it very much appears that he wasn't). By extension, it is equally possible that Kosminski's "career" as a Ripper suspect proceeded along very similar lines, started by a similar process of speculation on Macnaghten's (or even Swanson's) part.

And this is one of the reason's why Kosminski is not the best Ripper suspect or even a good Ripper suspect.

[jason_c]

When Kłosowski was arrested almost precisely 14 years after the Ripper murders, Abberline is said to have praised George Godley for having caught "Jack the Ripper at last", and went on to say as much in subsequent newspaper interviews. Like Swanson, Abberline was a distinguished detective minutely involved in the case, and - like Swanson - he is widely admired and respected by ripperologists. However, that doesn't mean that his indictment of Kłosowski was anything other than a post hoc exercise in supposition, and it certainly doesn't mean that Kłosowski was a Ripper suspect until sometime after his arrest in 1902 (indeed, it very much appears that he wasn't). By extension, it is equally possible that Kosminski's "career" as a Ripper suspect proceeded along very similar lines, started by a similar process of speculation on Macnaghten's (or even Swanson's) part.

Most of which is already known, and doesn't take away from Kosminski being the best suspect. The case against Kosminski had some meat on it's bones, it is not purely speculative. We have a witness who states Kosminski was there; that is a contemporary piece of evidence. We know for a fact that a police investigation against someone believed to be called Kosminski took place, we don't know that about Klosowski.

I still find it hard to believe that im having to argue against respected posters who believe that a witness stating Kosminski was at a murder scene does not constitute the best evidence we have against any individual. I fully admit that this information passed down to us is flawed, but it is still the single greatest piece of evidence we have against anyone.

Can I ask what evidence you feel is stronger against any other of the Ripper suspects?

[Abby Normal]

Most of which is already known, and doesn't take away from Kosminski being the best suspect. The case against Kosminski had some meat on it's bones, it is not purely speculative. We have a witness who states Kosminski was there; that is a contemporary piece of evidence. We know for a fact that a police investigation against someone believed to be called Kosminski took place, we don't know that about Klosowski.

I still find it hard to believe that im having to argue against respected posters who believe that a witness stating Kosminski was at a murder scene does not constitute the best evidence we have against any individual. I fully admit that this information passed down to us is flawed, but it is still the single greatest piece of evidence we have against anyone.

Can I ask what evidence you feel is stronger against any other of the Ripper suspects?

You are correct. Koz is the only suspect where there is any direct evidence against. The apparently positive ID by a witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Can I ask what evidence you feel is stronger against any other of the Ripper suspects?

Certainly, Jason: I don't feel that the evidence is strong against any of them. That's not a cop-out, by the way.

I'll expand on that a little. Stronger cases have been made for Bury, Klosowski and even George Hutchinson, in the first two instances because they were known misogynists who murdered women, and in the second for details of Hutchinson's whereabouts, movements and (arguably) suspicious behaviour at the time of Mary Kelly's death. I don't believe that either was Jack the Ripper, but they have stronger claims to infamy than Kosminski, whose "foreign madman" status might have been sufficient reason, perhaps the only reason, to have brought him to the attention of the police.

[Sam Flynn]

You are correct. Koz is the only suspect where there is any direct evidence against. The apparently positive ID by a witness.

That's anecdotal, as opposed to direct evidence, in a book written by a man who appeared to be disdainful of Jews. Not the best source one could hope for in this context.

[John Wheat]

You are correct. Koz is the only suspect where there is any direct evidence against. The apparently positive ID by a witness.

I have to disagree the evidence against Koz is not direct evidence.

Cheers John

[Damaso Marte]

I have to disagree the evidence against Koz is not direct evidence.

Cheers John

Can you agree that at the very least its reliability can be called into question, given that it is not an official record?

In my view we have at different tiers of suspect.

Tier 1a
People who were investigated by the police as a suspect, and where we do not have a compelling reason to dismiss them. I believe Kosminski falls into this category. I would not put Druitt into this category but some would. George Chapman may be in this category.

Tier 1b
People who were not investigated by the police as a suspect, but who can be placed at a murder scene. Hello, Hutchinson and Cross.

Tier 2
People who were investigated by the police as a suspect, but where we have a compelling reason to dismiss them. Ostrog, for example.

Tier 3
"They were in London at the time" - most suspects.

Tier 4
"We can't even prove they were in London at the time" - Vincent Van Gogh, James Maybrick, etc.

In this view, Kosminski is indeed one of the stronger suspects, but it's a tallest midget contest.

[Elamarna]

That's anecdotal, as opposed to direct evidence, in a book written by a man who appeared to be disdainful of Jews. Not the best source one could hope for in this context.

And this is the issue for many, they are judging what Anderson wrote based on their view of the man, a view that others would argue with.

However that does not explain away MM or Swanson, who at least it appears both considered him.

Yes there is no official records, although for all of its faults, of which there are many, the memorandum must have been intended as a briefing for someone surely?


Yes , The Swanson marginalia could be wholly or partially faked; although the evidence of providence and handwriting does not really support such a view.

Yes , Anderson may have been antisemitic, its an opinion all need to asses themselves and not rely on the words of others.

And yes the memorandum is full of mistakes and it is unclear why it was written.
The old theory that it was done to clear Cutbush because he was related to a VERY senior officer, has fallen has it now seems they were not related.

So why was it written? That is a real mystery, and who for?



And so we can call all 3 sources into question, one should not however forget the other half source, that of Littlechild, who derides Anderson's theory, so he must have known about it too, right?


And the truth remains we have no evidence, other than the disputed ID.

However we do know that he was probably not a babbling idiot at his court appearance in the dog incident, thus countering the often made claim that he would not have been able to commit the murders because of his mental state, a claim based on a report given when he was incarcerated, and which appears to be at odds with the court appearance.

We do know that he at one stage lived right next door to the Stride murder.
We know he was taken into "care" briefly 6 months before his final committal the reason for this is unclear.
We know that when incarcerated finally, to begin begin with at least, he could be violent.
We know that eventually he was incapable of anything.
We also know he was buried away from the rest of his family.

That is it, all we know.


While I personally do favour Koz, i also always make it clear that I am more than happy to accept that we have the wrong Koz, indeed I am happy to accept that it was someone like him whom Sagar and Cox followed.

Indeed I think on many counts Levy is a far better suspect.


I think the closest we can get at present is to say that by the mid 90's some officers had the opinion that the killer was called Kozminski.

Another small group, MM and Littlechild had heard of this but did not agree.

That suggests to me he was a "suspect" maybe for some a strong one, for others a weak one.




Steve

[Abby Normal]

That's anecdotal, as opposed to direct evidence, in a book written by a man who appeared to be disdainful of Jews. Not the best source one could hope for in this context.

well I agree about Anderson. nonethe less I'm not so sure you can write it off as "anectotal". they were there, police reports have been lost-which Koz might have been in. and MMs memorandum is in the files is it not?

But I do struggle with Koz as a suspect for many reasons, especially because of Anderson, but I cant throw the baby out with the bath water.