Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

I would suggest it was on or after 6th October, but not as late as 8th October.

Why? What do you base that suggestion on?

Please carry on believing Anderson travelled to Switzerland and then Paris.

Actually, I did no more than repeat what Anderson said in his book but why should I not believe it? What is it about such a mundane journey that makes you doubt it?

There is a story somewhere that Anderson was in Paris at around the same time as the forger Richard Pigott [around 4th October, I believe, if memory serves]. Trouble is, Pigott was back in Ireland at this time.

So you've heard of a story "somewhere" that turns out to be false? So why mention it? And, even if it was true, what significance would there be of two individuals happening to be in Paris – which I understand was a large city – at the same time?

[Scott Nelson]

The implication that Kosminski was encountered during the October 1888 house to house search was explored by myself (in posts and essays) and by Stewart Evans in his fine article here:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

The postulation is that the police may have encountered a family member who they perceived to know something (possibly recorded in their notebooks) during the house to house search, but the family member was reluctant to provide further information. Thus, when McWilliam and Anderson wrote in their reports shortly afterwards that there was nothing in the way of clues as to the murderer's identity, they were stating what was known at that time to Scotland Yard and City of London Police -- that they didn't know who the murderer was.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scott,

Anderson had seen Macnaghten's memorandum. He had sixteen years to think about it.

I never really thought about that Simon. Yes, Macnaghten (whatever his source on Kosminki was) could have been Anderson's source. Fascinating to contemplate, really.

[David Orsam]

The implication that Kosminski was encountered during the October 1888 house to house search was explored by myself (in posts and essays) and by Stewart Evans in his fine article here:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

The postulation is that the police may have encountered a family member who they perceived to know something (possibly recorded in their notebooks) during the house to house search, but the family member was reluctant to provide further information.

That is not the postulation in Stewart Evans' article, Scott.

What Evans says about the house to house search is this:

"It is recorded that the officers engaged in these house to house inquiries were given books, expressly for the purpose, to make notes in. There must have been a list compiled of ‘every man in the district’ who fitted this criteria.
Kosminski would have been on this list which, given the nature of the area, would have contained many similar Jews."

But he says that the "first real suspicion" against Kosminski "must date from c. 12 July 1890". He speculates that the police "most likely" received information about Kosminiski to warrant his arrest or charge (and inclusion in an identification procedure) from either a family member OR someone who knew him.

[Scott Nelson]

That is not the postulation in Stewart Evans' article, Scott.

What Evans says about the house to house search is this:

"It is recorded that the officers engaged in these house to house inquiries were given books, expressly for the purpose, to make notes in. There must have been a list compiled of ‘every man in the district’ who fitted this criteria.
Kosminski would have been on this list which, given the nature of the area, would have contained many similar Jews."

But he says that the "first real suspicion" against Kosminski "must date from c. 12 July 1890". He speculates that the police "most likely" received information about Kosminiski to warrant his arrest or charge (and inclusion in an identification procedure) from either a family member OR someone who knew him.

What I wrote is that there was possibly suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888 -- and that there may have been later testimony by a family member or friend against him -- not conclusive by any means.

Why do you continually try to reinvent the wheel on everything?

[David Orsam]

What I wrote is that there was possibly suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888 -- and that there may have been later testimony by a family member or friend against him -- not conclusive by any means.

That's not what you wrote Scott. You said very clearly:

"The postulation [by Stewart Evans] is that the police may have encountered a family member who they perceived to know something (possibly recorded in their notebooks) during the house to house search, but the family member was reluctant to provide further information."

But Stewart Evans was not postulating that the police may have encountered a family member during the house to house search who they perceived to know something. Further, he was not even postulating that there was any suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888. So Evans' article does not support whatever point you are now trying to make.

That is why I have corrected you. Any attempt by you to say that your post #722 is consistent with Stewart Evans' article is an attempt to rewrite history.

[Michael W Richards]

Pierre, are you now saying that the Police knew the identity of the killer and tried to stop him using a method other than prosecution?

I hate to put any ammunition in the hands of a madman,...(not you of course Ms W ), but its an interesting idea that the Police might have quietly restrained a man they believed committed at least some of these so called Canonical Murders by institutionalizing him, rather than by prosecution. It would obviously fit with the Seaside Home references. It could also explain the large amount of historic observational differences made by the most senior investigators, all whom presumably must have had some clear accurate picture of the investigation status at the time of the murders.

Is this episode in the criminal history of London possibly more about the misuse of privilege by some key figures within the National Security hierarchy than it is about some phantom menace that seems to have killed all the women in the Canonical Group, and for some, probably many within in the Unsolved Murder Cases file?

For example....hypothetically, lets say they suspected Francis Millen of some of these crimes. The same Francis Millen who sought to, by arms, free Ireland from its perceived incarceration, while at the same time provided paid for intelligence information on the operations of such ventures directly to Englands National Security elite?

Could these newly minted National Security figures really reveal that they were handsomely paying Fenian Agents to spy on their own when one year earlier such factions almost succeeded in blowing up the Queen?

Obviously this is hypothetical, and not intended to cast suspicion upon Millen himself, its just to illustrate a point.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;392372]

I hate to put any ammunition in the hands of a madman,...(not you of course Ms W ), but its an interesting idea that the Police might have quietly restrained a man they believed committed at least some of these so called Canonical Murders by institutionalizing him, rather than by prosecution.

Hi,

Why institutionalization? Why not by other means?

It would obviously fit with the Seaside Home references.

That source is very problematic. But it may be part of a history where the police have been trying to explain away some events.

It could also explain the large amount of historic observational differences made by the most senior investigators, all whom presumably must have had some clear accurate picture of the investigation status at the time of the murders.

Could you elaborate a bit on this?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I hate to put any ammunition in the hands of a madman,...(not you of course Ms W ), but its an interesting idea that the Police might have quietly restrained a man they believed committed at least some of these so called Canonical Murders by institutionalizing him, rather than by prosecution. It would obviously fit with the Seaside Home references. It could also explain the large amount of historic observational differences made by the most senior investigators, all whom presumably must have had some clear accurate picture of the investigation status at the time of the murders.

Is this episode in the criminal history of London possibly more about the misuse of privilege by some key figures within the National Security hierarchy than it is about some phantom menace that seems to have killed all the women in the Canonical Group, and for some, probably many within in the Unsolved Murder Cases file?

For example....hypothetically, lets say they suspected Francis Millen of some of these crimes. The same Francis Millen who sought to, by arms, free Ireland from its perceived incarceration, while at the same time provided paid for intelligence information on the operations of such ventures directly to Englands National Security elite?

Could these newly minted National Security figures really reveal that they were handsomely paying Fenian Agents to spy on their own when one year earlier such factions almost succeeded in blowing up the Queen?

Obviously this is hypothetical, and not intended to cast suspicion upon Millen himself, its just to illustrate a point.

Michael

much of what you say is perfectly valid.

Pierre has not however suggested that the killer was institutionalized, rather he has hinted he was sent off on some mission, one assumes Government backed in late 1888, and then allowed to return and resume killing in 1889.

Steve

[Scott Nelson]

That's not what you wrote Scott. You said very clearly:

"The postulation [by Stewart Evans] is that the police may have encountered a family member who they perceived to know something (possibly recorded in their notebooks) during the house to house search, but the family member was reluctant to provide further information."

But Stewart Evans was not postulating that the police may have encountered a family member during the house to house search who they perceived to know something. Further, he was not even postulating that there was any suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888. So Evans' article does not support whatever point you are now trying to make.

That is why I have corrected you. Any attempt by you to say that your post #722 is consistent with Stewart Evans' article is an attempt to rewrite history.

Far me it for me to rewrite history.

Stewart wrote:

"What probably swayed Anderson, and made him ‘morally’ certain of Kosminski’s guilt was the probable inclusion of Kosminski’s name in the list of names of persons with ‘opportunity’ in 1888, after the house-to house search, and the identification and the Jewish witness’s refusal to give evidence against the suspect."

and:

"In October 1888 the police inquiries resulted in a long list of ‘possible suspects’ fitting the requirements described by Anderson. Aaron Kosminski was on that list, but with no other suspicion attaching to him he would be indistinguishable from hundreds of others. There would have been many Polish Jews on this list and this may have convinced the police that he was such a man."

"In July 1890 Aaron Kosminski suffered "an attack of insanity" which resulted in his being sent to the workhouse. The police were probably involved in his removal or someone communicated with them that he had '‘become insane,'’ and that they had suspicions that he was the ‘Whitechapel murderer.’ The police would then have found his name on their 1888 house-to-house list of possible suspects."

(emphasis mine)

Although Stewart does not say specifically that a family member may have been involved at the house to house search, I believe they may have been. Clearly, at least to me, the implication is that there was initial suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888.

[David Orsam]

Far me it for me to rewrite history.

Stewart wrote:

"What probably swayed Anderson, and made him ‘morally’ certain of Kosminski’s guilt was the probable inclusion of Kosminski’s name in the list of names of persons with ‘opportunity’ in 1888, after the house-to house search, and the identification and the Jewish witness’s refusal to give evidence against the suspect."

and:

"In October 1888 the police inquiries resulted in a long list of ‘possible suspects’ fitting the requirements described by Anderson. Aaron Kosminski was on that list, but with no other suspicion attaching to him he would be indistinguishable from hundreds of others. There would have been many Polish Jews on this list and this may have convinced the police that he was such a man."

"In July 1890 Aaron Kosminski suffered "an attack of insanity" which resulted in his being sent to the workhouse. The police were probably involved in his removal or someone communicated with them that he had '‘become insane,'’ and that they had suspicions that he was the ‘Whitechapel murderer.’ The police would then have found his name on their 1888 house-to-house list of possible suspects."

(emphasis mine)

Although Stewart does not say specifically that a family member may have been involved at the house to house search, I believe they may have been. Clearly, at least to me, the implication is that there was initial suspicion against Kosminski in October 1888.

When you are in a hole Scott it really is best to stop digging.

The first quote you have reproduced from Stewart Evans' article says no more than that Kosminski was probably on a list of persons with opportunity but that "There would have been many Polish Jews on this list" and that (as appears in the second quote you have reproduced) he would have been on a "long list of possible suspects" (emphasis mine). The third quote you have reproduced simply repeats what appears in the second quote.

In other words, there was no actual suspicion against Kosminski at this time, he was just one out of many Jewish men with opportunity. As I have already pointed out, Evans expressly says that there was no "real suspicion" against Kosminski until 1890.

You can speculate as much as you like about a family member having been involved in providing information to the police about Kosminski in 1888 but what you can't do is refer to Stewart Evans' article as providing support for this speculation, because it does no such thing and actually says the very opposite to that.

And the reason Stewart Evans does not say anything about a family member providing information during the house to house search in 1888 is almost certainly because he had in mind the contemporary report of Anderson that, as of 23 October 1888, i.e. after the completion of the search, the police had not "the slightest clue" about the killer's identity, something which would be inconsistent with information having been provided by a family member.

[Scott Nelson]

When you are in a hole Scott it really is best to stop digging.

Yes, he who digs a pit may someday lie in it.

The first quote you have reproduced from Stewart Evans' article says no more than that Kosminski was probably on a list of persons with opportunity but that "There would have been many Polish Jews on this list" and that (as appears in the second quote you have reproduced) he would have been on a "long list of possible suspects" (emphasis mine). The third quote you have reproduced simply repeats what appears in the second quote.

It says that Kosminski, amongst many others in the district, may have aroused suspicion among the police in October 1888.

In other words, there was no actual suspicion against Kosminski at this time, he was just one out of many Jewish men with opportunity.

Those are your words. His name may have been recorded in notebooks for actual suspicion, suspicion supplied by a family member.

You can speculate as much as you like about a family member having been involved in providing information to the police about Kosminski in 1888 but what you can't do is refer to Stewart Evans' article as providing support for this speculation, because it does no such thing and actually says the very opposite to that.

No it doesn't.

And the reason Stewart Evans does not say anything about a family member providing information during the house to house search in 1888 is almost certainly because he had in mind the contemporary report of Anderson that, as of 23 October 1888, i.e. after the completion of the search, the police had not "the slightest clue" about the killer's identity, something which would be inconsistent with information having been provided by a family member.

But you don't know if the information a the family member may have provided the police would have been enough to convince Anderson by 23 October. Or if a family member, providing testimony, did so to police, who may not have had enough time to influence Anderson before he made his October 23 report.

[David Orsam]

Scott,

Although you seem to be trying to turn this (now off-topic) discussion into one on the subject of whether a family member could hypothetically have provided information about Kosminski to the police in October 1888, it is not about that. We are discussing what Stewart Evans said in his article. The reason for this is that in #722 you stated:

"The implication that Kosminski was encountered during the October 1888 house to house search was explored by myself (in posts and essays) and by Stewart Evans in his fine article here".

After giving the link you continued:

"The postulation is that the police may have encountered a family member who they perceived to know something (possibly recorded in their notebooks) during the house to house search, but the family member was reluctant to provide further information".

The simple fact is that this was wrong. As you admitted yesterday in #730, "Stewart does not say specifically that a family member may have been involved in a house to house search". It's only your opinion, not supported by anything Stewart says.

You continue to misrepresent Stewart's article in your latest post when you claim that his article "says that Kosminski, amongst many others in the district, may have aroused suspicion among the police in October 1888". But Evans' article does not say that Kosminski "may have aroused suspicion among the police".

Then in responding to my point that Evans said there was no actual suspicion against Kosminski at the time, your response that "His name may have been recorded in notebooks for actual suspicion, suspicion supplied by a family member" is once again your own opinion, not supported by anything in Stewart Evans' article, as you have admitted.

The short point – and the only point I have been making – is that Stewart Evans never postulated that the police may have encountered a family member who was perceived to know something during the 1888 house to house search. You can argue that the police might, in fact, have done so until you are blue in the face but it's not what Stewart Evans said in his article.

Your post #722 was thus inaccurate and required correction, which is what happened. What you are now hoping to achieve in continuing the discussion I have no idea.

[John G]

Coming late to this thread may I ask: is there a shred of evidence that Lawende's suspect was dressed like a police officer, or is that just a wild hypothesis?

[John Wheat]

Who would silence Lawende and why?