Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Tom_Wescott]

agree to some extant. but you cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. their WAS a possible ID, and Anderson isn't the only senior police who mentions him. And since the major piece of evidence against Koz is a possible ID-that has nothing to do with misguided assumptions per se-eventhough I think Anderson had plenty.

The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
I don't believe this ever took place in the way it has been suggested.

Under what grounds would Kosminski have been taken to the seaside home?

The police couldn't simply drag him off the streets and say your coming with us.

Under arrest? If that had been the case his arrest would have been recorded and with regards to such an important case many would have known about it, and so would we today.

As a volunteer, well I doubt that. Can you see the police knocking on his door and saying "Would you mind coming with us we think you are the Ripper and we want to put you on an ID parade"

There is also the question of consent that a person suffering from a mental illness is incapable of giving consent by reason of their illness, and would certainly not be capable of understanding the events leading up to and surrounding such an important identification procedure.

The above applies should it be suggested he was taken from and asylum which is highly unlikely as the authorities would not have permitted it

So if you or anyone else knows how all of this is suppose to have unfolded feel free to enlighten us

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;316890]In all honesty, Paul - where´s the evidence that the 1888 Victorian police had a fair picture of what a serial killer is about...? And if they didn´t know, what did they have to go on, other than guesswork?

You know how Kos, Os and Dru are described in the memoranda, and you also know that the descriptions are very wrong, going by the collected evidence we have. Homicidal maniacs, sexually insane etcetera.

You will know that a search of the asylums was ordered. I think it was Williamson who bluntly stated that it was done since the public believed a maniac to be at large!

The press created a monster, half beast, half human - and although the press are not equivalent with the police, they still mirror what was thought and reasoned generally. Today, not even the tabloids would invent that crude type of a killer portrait.

I think it is slightly disingenious not to admit that the police were faced with something they did not know how to perceive. In an era where people were thought to go mad as a result of masturbation, we should not expect the police to be able to be aquainted with the finer points of psychology and diagnoze a man like the Ripper correctly. To them, a deranged killer was to be expected, a Kosminski, an Issenschmid.

I actually think that my own suspect bears witness to what the police were NOT looking for - an ordinary, seemingly sane, British working man. They had a guy who was found by a freshly killed victim, they only had his own words to go on when it came to how long time he had spent with that victim - and they apparently bought his story without checking it out thoroughly, as per the fact that they never found out who he really was!

We have no instruction manuals to go by, telling us that the police specifically targetted special types of people, but we have a lot of indicators hidden all over the case. And that case was played out in an era when many people still believed that poverty was something you had deserved and that long fingers pointed to pick-pocket vices. Yes, Bertillon was the name of the day, and his ideas were intended to identify criminals by physical traits - but it was contemporarily thought that Bertillons pictures would also serve eminently to identify criminal TYPES.

If we are to honour historical facts, then let´s do it properly and weigh it all in. The Victorian society of 1888 was an extremely prejudiced one in many respects, and to think that the police would not be affected in any shape or form will be doing history a disservice.

I think we must promote double approaches on the search for Ripper candidates - it´s fine and dandy to look at the "police suspects", as they are called (they don´t look much like traditional police suspects to me), but trying to find the kind of man that conforms to our own knowledge about what a serial killer is about can do absolutely no harm - on the contrary.

The best,
Fishermanc

1. There is ample evidence that the senior policemen, medical men, and legal practitioners knew what a serial killer was, but they didn't use the same terminology that we do. As for what they had to go on, they had little or nothing. They still managed to solve crimes thought.

2. It has always been recognised that Macnaghten got details wrong, but the question is what the "evidence" was that they had against those named (or anyone else for that matter).

3. Yes, they searched the asylums but as far as we know "Kosminski" wasn't in an asylum when they were searched.

4. I admire your confidence in the British press.

5. Like I said, there was an awareness of serial killers, I think we found reports of lectures on the subject going back to the 1850s, but obviously the terminology was different and the whole subject was couched in a refined language.

6. Yes, your suspect does indcate what the police were NOT looking for.

7. Can ypu point me to some records where a TYPE was specified as being looked for.

8. I don't think anyone with any awareness of Victorian society in 1888 would suggest that it wasn't orejudiced, or that the police weren't prejudiced either, but the mere existance of prejudice doesn't mean that everyone is prejudiced to the same degree or that they would allow prejudice to influence their conclusions. But the outstanding question is where the evidence is that the men were seriously prejudiced. It was a chanrge (if it was a charge) that Anderson emphatically denied.

9. Sadly history is all about sources. It's about weighing and evaluating source material. If the head of the CID at the time of the crimes says that Jack the Ripper was "Kosminski" then it is only right and proper that all ourresources are brought to bear in an effort to assess whether he was right or not, or, at the very least, try to understand the evidence on which his conclusion was based. There is no, or should be no, acceptence that he is right and that his suspect was the Ripper. That does not mean that other people can't be looked at closely, and doing so has always been an accepted part of Ripper studies. But it is inevitable and only right that a suggestion by somebody who was there, who was in a position to know, and who was intelligent, should be given priotity to a suspect who was never suspected by anybody, no matter how good a candidate we think he looks. And if he looks that good he should be investogated. I don't see that this does a disservice to history.

10. What some people like Trevor seem to forget is that we're not saying, or shouldn't be saying, that "Kosminski" et al was Jack the Ripper. We're trying to find out why people said he was. And Ditto anyone else.

That's my pennyworth.

[PaulB]

Tom
I don't believe this ever took place in the way it has been suggested.

Under what grounds would Kosminski have been taken to the seaside home?

The police couldn't simply drag him off the streets and say your coming with us.

Under arrest? If that had been the case his arrest would have been recorded and with regards to such an important case many would have known about it, and so would we today.

As a volunteer, well I doubt that. Can you see the police knocking on his door and saying "Would you mind coming with us we think you are the Ripper and we want to put you on an ID parade"

There is also the question of consent that a person suffering from a mental illness is incapable of giving consent by reason of their illness, and would certainly not be capable of understanding the events leading up to and surrounding such an important identification procedure.

The above applies should it be suggested he was taken from and asylum which is highly unlikely as the authorities would not have permitted it

So if you or anyone else knows how all of this is suppose to have unfolded feel free to enlighten us

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

Trevor,
Why do you persist in asking how and why something took place when you are told by an authoritative voice of someone who was there that it did take place?

And as Donald Rumbelow once observed, the police would have had no trouble doing whatever they wanted in a case that high profiled. And you know that all the copper's would have to say is, "We think you might be able to help with our inquiries" and they'd have got him toddling off to the identification.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=PaulB;316904]

In all honesty, Paul - where´s the evidence that the 1888 Victorian police had a fair picture of what a serial killer is about...? And if they didn´t know, what did they have to go on, other than guesswork?

You know how Kos, Os and Dru are described in the memoranda, and you also know that the descriptions are very wrong, going by the collected evidence we have. Homicidal maniacs, sexually insane etcetera.

You will know that a search of the asylums was ordered. I think it was Williamson who bluntly stated that it was done since the public believed a maniac to be at large!

The press created a monster, half beast, half human - and although the press are not equivalent with the police, they still mirror what was thought and reasoned generally. Today, not even the tabloids would invent that crude type of a killer portrait.

I think it is slightly disingenious not to admit that the police were faced with something they did not know how to perceive. In an era where people were thought to go mad as a result of masturbation, we should not expect the police to be able to be aquainted with the finer points of psychology and diagnoze a man like the Ripper correctly. To them, a deranged killer was to be expected, a Kosminski, an Issenschmid.

I actually think that my own suspect bears witness to what the police were NOT looking for - an ordinary, seemingly sane, British working man. They had a guy who was found by a freshly killed victim, they only had his own words to go on when it came to how long time he had spent with that victim - and they apparently bought his story without checking it out thoroughly, as per the fact that they never found out who he really was!

We have no instruction manuals to go by, telling us that the police specifically targetted special types of people, but we have a lot of indicators hidden all over the case. And that case was played out in an era when many people still believed that poverty was something you had deserved and that long fingers pointed to pick-pocket vices. Yes, Bertillon was the name of the day, and his ideas were intended to identify criminals by physical traits - but it was contemporarily thought that Bertillons pictures would also serve eminently to identify criminal TYPES.

If we are to honour historical facts, then let´s do it properly and weigh it all in. The Victorian society of 1888 was an extremely prejudiced one in many respects, and to think that the police would not be affected in any shape or form will be doing history a disservice.

I think we must promote double approaches on the search for Ripper candidates - it´s fine and dandy to look at the "police suspects", as they are called (they don´t look much like traditional police suspects to me), but trying to find the kind of man that conforms to our own knowledge about what a serial killer is about can do absolutely no harm - on the contrary.

The best,
Fishermanc

1. There is ample evidence that the senior policemen, medical men, and legal practitioners knew what a serial killer was, but they didn't use the same terminology that we do. As for what they had to go on, they had little or nothing. They still managed to solve crimes thought.

2. It has always been recognised that Macnaghten got details wrong, but the question is what the "evidence" was that they had against those named (or anyone else for that matter).

3. Yes, they searched the asylums but as far as we know "Kosminski" wasn't in an asylum when they were searched.

4. I admire your confidence in the British press.

5. Like I said, there was an awareness of serial killers, I think we found reports of lectures on the subject going back to the 1850s, but obviously the terminology was different and the whole subject was couched in a refined language.

6. Yes, your suspect does indcate what the police were NOT looking for.

7. Can ypu point me to some records where a TYPE was specified as being looked for.

8. I don't think anyone with any awareness of Victorian society in 1888 would suggest that it wasn't orejudiced, or that the police weren't prejudiced either, but the mere existance of prejudice doesn't mean that everyone is prejudiced to the same degree or that they would allow prejudice to influence their conclusions. But the outstanding question is where the evidence is that the men were seriously prejudiced. It was a chanrge (if it was a charge) that Anderson emphatically denied.

9. Sadly history is all about sources. It's about weighing and evaluating source material. If the head of the CID at the time of the crimes says that Jack the Ripper was "Kosminski" then it is only right and proper that all ourresources are brought to bear in an effort to assess whether he was right or not, or, at the very least, try to understand the evidence on which his conclusion was based. There is no, or should be no, acceptence that he is right and that his suspect was the Ripper. That does not mean that other people can't be looked at closely, and doing so has always been an accepted part of Ripper studies. But it is inevitable and only right that a suggestion by somebody who was there, who was in a position to know, and who was intelligent, should be given priotity to a suspect who was never suspected by anybody, no matter how good a candidate we think he looks. And if he looks that good he should be investogated. I don't see that this does a disservice to history.

10. What some people like Trevor seem to forget is that we're not saying, or shouldn't be saying, that "Kosminski" et al was Jack the Ripper. We're trying to find out why people said he was. And Ditto anyone else.

That's my pennyworth.

And the answer to the last para could be that anyone involved in any type of knife offence involving a female was looked on as a suspect. Many were and many eliminated.

Its sad for those who for whatever reason couldn't give alibis or simply couldn't remember where there were, or what they were doing on the dates of the murders. Some of those were ultimately used to form opinions I suspect.

[PaulB]

I have just bought your DVD, by the way. I look forward to watching it. It's a great opportunity for everyone who hasn't seen your show.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Why do you persist in asking how and why something took place when you are told by an authoritative voice of someone who was there that it did take place?

And as Donald Rumbelow once observed, the police would have had no trouble doing whatever they wanted in a case that high profiled. And you know that all the copper's would have to say is, "We think you might be able to help with our inquiries" and they'd have got him toddling off to the identification.

You clearly need to read up on police procedures for 1888.

Some authoritative voices then were clearly descendants of the red indians, they spoke with forked tongues

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;316907]

And the answer to the last para could be that anyone involved in any type of knife offence involving a female was looked on as a suspect. Many were and many eliminated.

Its sad for those who for whatever reason couldn't give alibis or simply couldn't remember where there were, or what they were doing on the dates of the murders. Some of those were ultimately used to form opinions I suspect.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

[Monty]

Now you are having a laugh !

Clearly

Monty

[PaulB]

You clearly need to read up on police procedures for 1888.

Some authoritative voices then were clearly descendants of the red indians, they spoke with forked tongues

That's not an answer, Trevor. I cited the opinion of an experienced policeman and one of the polite ways in which the police encourage someone to assist their inquiries. I you think police proceedures in 1888 prove me wrong, cite those procedures. If you think Swanson was lying or didn't know what he was talking about, give your evidence. But please, your one line inanities cut no ice.

Oh, and you will of course appreciate that we're told that the suspect was "sent" not "taken", so whether or not the events could have happened as described rather depends on who was doing the sending.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=PaulB;316910]

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a knowledge of the East End in the late 19th century that a domestic involving a knife raise much of an eyebrow. They were extremely common.

Well it did with Aaron Kosminski did it not?

With regards to police procedures you might be interested in these facts

The police had a lawful right to question anyone at any time whilst gathering evidence following the commission of a crime. This may also include and involve speaking to a person who may later becomes a suspect, However the police guidelines state that as soon as that person becomes a suspect and is ‘Charged/arrested’ no more questions can be put to him.

The offence of murder was classed as a felony and the police had the power to arrest anyone without a warrant. That arrest however would have warranted reasonable suspicion or direct evidence.

A person so arrested would have been then taken to a police station and the facts together with any corroborating evidence relayed to a station Sgt or Inspector.

That officer would have to either accept that ‘charge’ against that person on the basis that there was a prima facie case and then that person would then be formally charged with the offence providing there was sufficient evidence, and then detained and taken before the next available court. If there was not sufficient evidence then the accused would be discharged (released). It should be noted that the police did not conduct formal interviews of persons arrested in 1888.

The second option open to the police having so arrested a person on suspicion would be for the arrested person to be detained at the police station without formal charge for up to twenty four hours for further enquiries to be carried out with a view to the police perhaps obtaining enough evidence to be able to subsequently prefer a ‘charge’.

At the expiration of that time or before if applicable, the arrested person would either be formally ‘charged’ and detained to appear at the next available court or released (discharged).

Any breach of these rules and guidelines would have jeopardized any subsequent prosecution

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4PH392

[Trevor Marriott]

That's not an answer, Trevor. I cited the opinion of an experienced policeman and one of the polite ways in which the police encourage someone to assist their inquiries. I you think police proceedures in 1888 prove me wrong, cite those procedures. If you think Swanson was lying or didn't know what he was talking about, give your evidence. But please, your one line inanities cut no ice.

Oh, and you will of course appreciate that we're told that the suspect was "sent" not "taken", so whether or not the events could have happened as described rather depends on who was doing the sending.

See my previous post Maybe you should stop trying to twist things around !

There weren't to many options as to who the sender was were there ?

[Monty]

Paul,

I suspect the 1824 Vagrancy Act, Incorrigible Rogues, came in to effect with Kosiminski.

Monty

[Monty]

As Paul states,

Care to cite those 1888 proedures Trevor?

Monty

[Abby Normal]

The alleged ID of Kosminski is useless. And let's not forget that the witness actually DID NOT identify Kos as the man he'd seen. But even if he had, it was too long after the fact to be of any use.

What intrigues me is what evidence led to the suspicious against Kos in the first place. What made the ID attempt necessary? Something did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I pretty much agree with you-but the fact remains he is the ONLY suspect that has any possible direct evidence against him. Eyewitness evidence.

I would imagine threatening his sister with a knife was the last straw for his family and they had him committed and maybe also contacted police.