Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 60 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 1 hour and 29 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by c.d. 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:05 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
This is a question which has been addressed many times over the years and the point made is that no great interval seems to have separated the identification and the committal of Kosminski by his family. The police may have put extreme pressure on the witness, they may even have got him to agree to give evidence, but the game play was completely changed when Kosminski was certified insane and, presumably, deemed unfit to plead.

Whether or not this is possibly what happened depends on the interval. My take on that is that it was very short, not more than a couple of days and perhaps not even that.
For someone to be deemed unfit to plead they first have to be charged, that involves the use of evidence to first bring a charge. Evidence to charge or evidence to show Kosminski was ever charged seems to be a bit thin on the ground would you not say?

Your take is nothing more than speculative, but I am sure your followers will hang on your every word and readily accept it as being gospel.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:25 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
For someone to be deemed unfit to plead they first have to be charged, that involves the use of evidence to first bring a charge. Evidence to charge or evidence to show Kosminski was ever charged seems to be a bit thin on the ground would you not say?

Your take is nothing more than speculative, but I am sure your followers will hang on your every word and readily accept it as being gospel.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
There's no need for that Trevor.

Surely, if a suspect is deemed insane, the police cannot charge him. An insane person, not being of sound mind cannot be allowed to plead.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 05-09-2015 at 03:31 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:08 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default Anderson's Fairy Tales?

I think Paul put forward a perfectly plausible theory to try and make all the contradictory bits fit together, and he may well be right.

On the other hand such ambiguous and fragmentary--not to mention self-serving--sources allow for alternate interpretations, the veracity of which is in the eye of the beholder.

If Swanson is merely repeating Anderson's take on the matter then he is not a separate, confirmatory source (but then again perhaps he isn't?)

Allagedly a witness, likely Lawende, did identity Grant as the suspect he saw with Eddowes. That's a 'yes' by a Jewish witness to a very promising Ripper suspect that comes to nothing.

Sound familiar?

Anderson's capacity to sincerely mix up data--and to also do so in a mean-spirited, partisan way--is shown by his 1908 interview, in which he, a conservative Tory and Protestant fundamentalist, has the despised Liberal William Harcourt putting him under undue political pressure (it was the Tory, Henry Matthews) and he mixes up the Kelly and McKenzie murders over broken pipes (and again blames the blameless).

Moreover, what we also see is that his deteriorating memory is blithely capable of compressing people and events between 1886 and 1889.
It is not much of a leap to see that Anderson is also doing the same thing about events between 1891 (Coles, Sadler & Lawende) and 1895 (Graham, Grant & Lawende). Somewhere in there he learned about 'Kosminski' and also learned that he was deceased--which he wasn't. That error alone is not one that Donald Swanson is likely to have made is it? Such a mistake further points to his annotations being a record of what Swanson was informed, verbally, by Anderson in 1910 (hence being written in Anderson's book).

Further textual indications that the above is likely to be the case is that Mentor, the Jewish writer, had severely--and astutely--criticized Anderson for relying on a single witness. The Adolf Beck miscarriage of justice of a few years previous--which an outraged Mentor witheringly deploys--had spectacularly shown the unreliability of a veritable harem of eyewitnesses (some of the defrauded women had even slept with the suspect and yet still picked the wrong man). In the Marginalia, as if to desperately rebut the Beck comparison, the suspect confesses to being the Ripper (by deed, not word), suggesting the encounter between Anderson and Swanson, if it happened, post-dates the Mentor bollocking.

Evans and Rumbelow in their excellent "Scotland Yard Investigates" (2006) argued the theory of memory confusion and conflation, having found that a witness, likely Lawende, had [allegedly] 'confronted' Sadler and failed to identify him. This was just a few days after an Aaron Kosminski was permanently sectioned. Furthermore Sadler had also been identified by a man, Duncan Campbell, as the latter claimed that the suspect had sold him a knife at the Seamen's Home (a.k.a Sailor's Home). This could account for the strange location of the "Seaside Home". I would add, for what it is worth, that I think the memory malfunction is by Anderson, not Swanson, and that the suspects who were actually subject to one-on-one identifications, Sadler and Grant, albeit Gentiles, were both themselves Seamen.

The secondary source, "Scotland Yard Investigates", and it's sublime Sailor's Home sub-theory received amazing (if sadly unheralded) support from a previously unknown primary source found by Chris Phillips a few years ago. In 1910 George Sims, arguably the public mouthpiece for Sir Melville Macnaghten who was by then Assistant Commissioner (CID), debunked Anderson in exactly the same terms as Evans and Rumbelow; that the aging braggart was talking out of his hat regarding the Polish Ripper suspect in his specific and incendiary sectarian charges of Jews letting down so-called "Gentile Justice".

This is Dagonet from "The Referee" of April 17th 1910, in his "Mustard and Cress" column that very rudely trashes Anderson as an exaggerator (e.g. a liar) who was unfair to Hebrews (e.g. an anti-Semite):

“It was only the other day that the late esteemed head of the C.I.D. caused a storm of indignation among the King’s Jewish subjects by stating that JACK THE RIPPER was a Jew, and that the Jews knew who he was and assisted him to evade capture. The statement went beyond ascertained facts.[/b] The mad Polish Jew, to whom Sir Robert refers, was only one of three persons who were each strongly suspected of being the genuine Jack. The final official record, which is in the archives of the Home Office, leaves the matter in doubt between the Polish Jew, who was afterwards put in a lunatic asylum, a Russian doctor of vile character, and an English homicidal maniac, one Dr.-----, who had been in a lunatic asylum. In these circumstances it was certainly indiscreet of Sir Robert to plump for the Polish Jew, and to imply that many of the Jewish community in the East End were accessories after the fact.ANDERSON’S FAIRY TALES. There is no truth to the rumour that in the course of further romantic revelations to be expected from Sir Robert we shall learn … The name of the eminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest.’
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:38 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default

And we know Swansons claim of a deceased Kosminski is an error how?

All we know with regards this suspect is that his name was Kosminski. Everything else is based on the assumption that Aaron Kosminski is indeed the same Kosminski of the identity parade.

We do not know this for certain, so to state Anderson or Swanson is in error is a tad premature.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

Last edited by Monty : 05-09-2015 at 04:44 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:39 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

Anderson's son claimed in his biography of his parents that his father also believed that the local madman was deceased.

No other Kosminski has been found in asylum records. The 'suspect' in Mac's Aberconway version--who lived in the heart of the kill-zone, was locked away for self-abuse and was not deceased--is also a match for Aaron.

On the other hand, perhaps Martin Fido was correct. That 'Kosminski' was a mangled version of David Cohen, who was deceased and had been known to be violent.

Scott Nelson argues this theory very well too.

I personally think that Anderson--and by extension Swanson--were deliberately misled by Macnaghten about 'Kosminski' being deceased. They only ever knew of a fictitious variant of Aaron Kosminski, and this was not their fault.

Does anybody see this as a viable possibility. No, not here, not at all.

Those who advocate Aaron Kosminski as Anderson and Swanson's suspect need Macnaghten to be ignorant about the Polish suspect. Perhaps he was. But if he was not, then the "Seaside Home" identification never happened as Sims, a Mac source at one remove, dismissed it in 1910, Macnaghten, by implication, dismissed it in 1913, and arguably he did so specifically in 1914.

But the identification is not needed for Aaron Kosminski to be the likeliest Jack if that is what his family really believed.

Sir Robert Anderson was pro-Semitic, a dedicated public servant and incorruptible, albeit on his own terms, and thus may have sincerely mis-recalled the family's belief and conflated it with a Jewish witness (Lawende, Sadler & Grant) and then, hystrionically, with a whole ethnic subgroup.

To me it is telling that Anderson had the witness identification as just a footnote/afterthought in the magazine version.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-09-2015, 06:38 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
For someone to be deemed unfit to plead they first have to be charged, that involves the use of evidence to first bring a charge. Evidence to charge or evidence to show Kosminski was ever charged seems to be a bit thin on the ground would you not say?

Your take is nothing more than speculative, but I am sure your followers will hang on your every word and readily accept it as being gospel.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Legally Trevor is right, but would any policeman in his right mind, let alone officer from the Prosecutor's office. bring charges if it was patently obvious that the suspect was as mad as a hatter.

The answer is self evidently and resoundingly, NO unless they were out to waste public money and that's not generally a good career move.

I suspect that even if Kos was charged the prosecutions dept would have said "Lets not waste time and money hear the fact that this Charle ain't fit to plead is as plain as the nose on your face."
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-10-2015, 12:02 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default

Again, you are guessing the two are one in the same. We have no certainty on this on this seaside home Kosminski other than a name which, if the same Kosminski who appeared at court due to a muzzleless dog, did use at least one alias.

It often humors me that we assume we are in a better position of knowledge that those who experienced the situation.

We are not, however it doesn't stop muddying waters.

The dark art of non existent suspectology.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-10-2015, 12:04 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Legally Trevor is right, but would any policeman in his right mind, let alone officer from the Prosecutor's office. bring charges if it was patently obvious that the suspect was as mad as a hatter.

The answer is self evidently and resoundingly, NO unless they were out to waste public money and that's not generally a good career move.

I suspect that even if Kos was charged the prosecutions dept would have said "Lets not waste time and money hear the fact that this Charle ain't fit to plead is as plain as the nose on your face."
And there's another assumption, the purpose of the parade was to proceed with prosecution.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-10-2015, 12:44 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Again, you are guessing the two are one in the same. We have no certainty on this on this seaside home Kosminski other than a name which, if the same Kosminski who appeared at court due to a muzzleless dog, did use at least one alias.
We may not have absolute certainty, but it's far more than just a guess.

There were only a handful of men called Kozminski in London at the time, and only one was committed to an asylum. He was committed to Colney Hatch, as Swanson wrote, and lived in his brother's house, as Swanson wrote.

Certainly, people can suggest he went by another name and was never recorded in this country as Kozminski. But I think if they suggest that they also need to explain why two police sources should have referred to him as "Kosminski," rather than using the only name he was ever officially known by.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-10-2015, 01:26 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
We may not have absolute certainty, but it's far more than just a guess.

There were only a handful of men called Kozminski in London at the time, and only one was committed to an asylum. He was committed to Colney Hatch, as Swanson wrote, and lived in his brother's house, as Swanson wrote.

Certainly, people can suggest he went by another name and was never recorded in this country as Kozminski. But I think if they suggest that they also need to explain why two police sources should have referred to him as "Kosminski," rather than using the only name he was ever officially known by.
And while on the subject of police sources i.e Anderson Swanson and Mcnaghten, who if all are to be believed refer to a Kosminski being regarded as a prime suspect based on the ID issue, then we must not forget the other police sources i.e Monro, Smith, Abberline, Reid who strangely enough mention nothing about this momentus breakthrough in the Ripper enquiry.

Reid actually going on record as firmly rebutting what Anderson had written.

Abberline inferring much the same

Mcnaghten also backing down on the Kosminksi he originally named.

A question mark over who wrote the last sentence in the Swanson marginalia naming a man named Kosminski.

This in another case like Tumblety, where another person of interest has been made into a prime suspect by modern day researchers desperate to identify the killer, with no supporting evidence to corroborate this, and again we see the reluctance of researchers to accept this.

In fact is there is no evidence which would suggest that there is anyone who should be regarded as a prime suspect.

But of course to remove prime suspects from this ripper mystery would not be in keeping with what the Ripper mystery has been all about these past 100 years or so.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.