When did Aaron Koz come to Police attention?

[John G]

But how do you know the men seen by the various witnesses were in fact the killer ? As I keep saying the witness testimony was never tested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't consider any witness testimony to be particularly reliable. Take Lawende, for example. Here's a witness who was apparently paying so little attention that he was widely reported as saying that he wouldn't recognize the suspect again. Strange then that, despite the appalling lighting conditions and his apparent lack of interest, he was able to estimate both his height and age. Additionally, he recalled further details about his complexion and moustache. He was also able to describe his clothing, the colour of his cap and the fact that he had a handkerchief, even noticing that it was red in colour and knotted! I mean, for a casual observer who wasn't paying too much attention he seemed to remember an awful lot- one might say almost as much as George Hutchinson, who at least claimed to have the assistance of a lamp.

And then we have Harry Harris' statement, quoted in the Evening News, that he only saw the back of the man and that Levy and Lawende saw no more than he did. Interestingly Levy, who attended the same interview, is reported as remaining silent, refusing to disclose anything.

Now I find Harris' statement extraordinary, considering that it is surely inconceivable that the three friends hadn't discussed matters between them prior to this time. And might Levy's silence indicate that perhaps the whole story may have been a fabrication, or at least exaggerated, and he was having regrets, fearful of getting caught out, whilst Harris was attempting to dig them out of a very big hole?

Of course, ultimately even Lawende, despite all the attention the police lavished on him as their prime witness, wouldn't be stupid enough to give testimony against someone he had probably never seen, always supposing he saw anyone at all.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
If the search revealed Kosminski, his name and a bloody clue in Oct 1988 and the ID took place in June 1890, again I ask-Why did it take so long-over a year!!! to set up an ID?

`Because the case went cold in March 1889…end of survey lance, suspect placed in an asylum out of harms way…

It was the family who had the problem when they couldn't keep him in any longer…

So one day Anderson gets a knock on his door, and a letter of introduction from the Earl of Crawford…

Please Sir, I think my brother might be the whitechapel Murderer and we are in fear of our lives should he kill again"

Anderson talks to Swanson 'You know anything about a Kozminski?' Swanson says 'well actually sir we did have a suspect by that name'

Anderson makes a deal with the family but the ID goes wrong and the compromise is Colney Hatch.

I'm saying we are looking at two completely separate events…Martin Fido was right all along..March 1889.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely if Kosminski was successfully identified by a witness then it would have to be accepted across the police forces that they had their man plain and simple.

Ah..but the story told by Swanson is quiet clear…the ID went wrong, the witness refused to testify..

The suspect had originally been placed out of harms way in a private asylum but by there nature they only allowed for short term stays. Koz was back out and the family were having trouble. They also feared a backlash against their community if it was revealed the suspect was a Jew.

Hence Monroes Political Hot potato.

The aim at best was to get the Supect in Broadmoor and a police tick.

However the fallout might have created riots so a deal was struck. Keep it quiet.. Put the suspect where he can't get out. We know Anderson was in contact with the head of Colney hatch..

Monroe wanted it kept quiet… Anderson had a bee in his bonnet about police procedures, which he felt inadequate..Hence how his story develops from 1892..

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Wick
which means he would have had an accent.
None of the witnesses describe a man who had an accent.

Which means Kosminiski probably wasn't the ripper.

But how do you know the men seen by the various witnesses were in fact the killer ? As I keep saying the witness testimony was never tested.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi pinkmoon

The simple answer to that is based on the information in front of him..and given the private info he was probably correct to do so. The file he had only contained information up to March 1889.

So nothing but circumstantial evidence existed on Kozminski. Even as late as November 1889 Anderson was saying the exact same thing…

The ID happens in June 1890. And that is kept quiet by Anderson and Monroe and the file not updated…

Kozminski went in and out of the Asylum on several occasion (A private Asylum in Surrey) before Feb 1891

So MacNaughten didn't know about the ID, thus he plums for Druitt

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
If the search revealed Kosminski, his name and a bloody clue in Oct 1988 and the ID took place in June 1890, again I ask-Why did it take so long-over a year!!! to set up an ID?

[Abby Normal]

Koz was 16 when he arrived in England, about 1881?

Thanks Wick
which means he would have had an accent.
None of the witnesses describe a man who had an accent.

Which means Kosminiski probably wasn't the ripper.

[pinkmoon]

Surely if Kosminski was successfully identified by a witness then it would have to be accepted across the police forces that they had their man plain and simple.

[Jeff Leahy]

the old argument again and its quite a simple one if Kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville choose Druitt over him.

Hi pinkmoon

The simple answer to that is based on the information in front of him..and given the private info he was probably correct to do so. The file he had only contained information up to March 1889.

So nothing but circumstantial evidence existed on Kozminski. Even as late as November 1889 Anderson was saying the exact same thing…

The ID happens in June 1890. And that is kept quiet by Anderson and Monroe and the file not updated…

Kozminski went in and out of the Asylum on several occasion (A private Asylum in Surrey) before Feb 1891

So MacNaughten didn't know about the ID, thus he plums for Druitt

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

Ah!! but so does Griffiths in 1895

"But the police after, the last murder, had bought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very pausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them, the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who having afterwards developed homocidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murder by the one person who got a glimpse of him- the police constable in Mitre Court."

This is clearly what is said in the Abberconway version of MacNaughtens Memoranda and suggests that MacNaughten NOT Anderson was the source for this..

Griffiths doesn't know anything about a Seaside Home ID by a fellow Jew…not a jot because MacNaughten only saw the file dated up to March 1889.

Once you understand that everything slips neatly into place, MacNaughten claiming Druitt and Abberiline who moves in March 1889 claiming Chapman

Indeed Anderson is still saying the same up until November 1889 so the ID took place after this…I suggest June 1890 when there is disagreement between him and Monroe.

Yours Jeff

the old argument again and its quite a simple one if Kosminski was such a good suspect why did sir Melville choose Druitt over him.

[Jeff Leahy]

Macnaghten opppss

Ah!! but so does Griffiths in 1895

"But the police after, the last murder, had bought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very pausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them, the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who having afterwards developed homocidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murder by the one person who got a glimpse of him- the police constable in Mitre Court."

This is clearly what is said in the Abberconway version of MacNaughtens Memoranda and suggests that MacNaughten NOT Anderson was the source for this..

Griffiths doesn't know anything about a Seaside Home ID by a fellow Jew…not a jot because MacNaughten only saw the file dated up to March 1889.

Once you understand that everything slips neatly into place, MacNaughten claiming Druitt and Abberiline who moves in March 1889 claiming Chapman

Indeed Anderson is still saying the same up until November 1889 so the ID took place after this…I suggest June 1890 when there is disagreement between him and Monroe.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Macnaghten opppss

[AdamNeilWood]

However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew.

Hi Batman,

Where does Swanson say anything about a City PC witness?

Best wishes
Adam

[Jeff Leahy]

The post humorous journalist story about White's alleged encounter I think needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. There is too much wrong about the story to conclude a city PC witnessed anything. However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew. I have yet to see someone make sense of that without dropping the PC or Jewish part. Coexistence seems a problem.

It makes perfect sense if there was a City PC witness connected to the case up to March 1889. And the Jewish witness ID takes place in June 1890.

The translation of the margin looks pretty much the sort of thing one would expect Swanson to say. He stayed neutral on the issue of suspects I think and for good reason. He was man about the evidence even if he did as much ground work as Abberline.

The thing is, could the MET have really put away JtR without the City police knowing about it, if said suspect was under their surveillance?

If he was on their surveylence up to March 1889 when the suspect was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey, it surely makes perfect sense?

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

The post humorous journalist story about White's alleged encounter I think needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. There is too much wrong about the story to conclude a city PC witnessed anything. However Swanson does allude to a city PC witness... but then he would have to be Jewish PC because he refused to testify against a fellow Jew. I have yet to see someone make sense of that without dropping the PC or Jewish part. Coexistence seems a problem.

The translation of the margin looks pretty much the sort of thing one would expect Swanson to say. He stayed neutral on the issue of suspects I think and for good reason. He was man about the evidence even if he did as much ground work as Abberline.

The thing is, could the MET have really put away JtR without the City police knowing about it, if said suspect was under their surveillance?

[Jeff Leahy]

Cox was a CID officer. That makes him city police.
Cox did a post-MJK investigation watching someone who has not been identified.

The speculation goes like this...

The City Police and the Met both watched the same man at different times and didn't collaborate together on it.

Did the city police go into met grounds and the met police go into city ground, without telling each other. Likely they did, but told each other well in advance. If they did, then they collaborated. If not, then we would have a clash of forces over the matter, no?

Well we know the City and MET did do meetings. However its quite possible that they came across the same man at different times for different reasons.

I'm simply saying that the MET came across Kozminski on the 14th Oct following the 'Blood Stained Shirt' incident.

Also there's the possibility that a City Policeman witnessed a man leaving Mitre Sq and thus they had there own means of enquiry.

My understanding is that they worked together..

I do however believe that Sir Robert Anderson had a be in his bonnet about police powers… It was this that drove him to speak out, when everyone else kept quiet. Andersons sense of duty rather than the charge usually laid at his door of boastfulness or Fairy Tales… And this opinion was supported by Swanson: SUCH WAS EVERY CASE OF MURDER WHERE THE MURDERER wAS NOT CHARGED BECAUSE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OBTAINABLE.


I attach a photo not previously released from the Definitive Story of Swanson's own words..

Yours Jeff