Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Of course, under the McNaughton Rules insanity would be a complete defence to a charge of murder,i.e because the defendant would lack the necessary mens rea. Of course, that doesn't mean he would necessarily have been insane at the time of the offences. However, if Kosminski was certified insane presumably he would have subsequently been declared unfit to plead and stand trial, i.e. if charges were brought against him.

[Abby Normal]

Well, first of all a 'definitely ascertained fact' doesn't mean there was sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction. The police may have wanted to firm up their case, ormaybe they wanted to persuade the witness to give testimony willingly, not force him to testify and have a hostile witness.

I would't say they 'kept it a secret'; they weren't allowed to say they'd caught the Ripper until the suspect was tried and convicted. I'd also like to see how the evidence of Anderson's supposed 'boastful nature' stacks up against the boastfulness in other police memoirs of the time. One might argue that Anderson wasn't boastful at all, but was a man who participated in some historic moments, saw no reason for secrecy when the need for it had passed, and wrote of those events cadidly. But however one might view Anderson, he spilled the beans as soon as he was retired and sort of free to speak.

Hi Paul
Thanks!

Well, first of all a 'definitely ascertained fact' doesn't mean there was sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction

This has never been a requirement to charge someone with a crime.
"sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction" is a subjective idea anyway and can never be confirmed unless put before a judge and jury.

The police may have wanted to firm up their case

But then that falls far short of the claim by Anderson, does it not?

ormaybe they wanted to persuade the witness to give testimony willingly, not force him to testify and have a hostile witness.

but if they couldn't persuade, then subpoena-and lay it on the witness to admit what he said.

I would't say they 'kept it a secret'; they weren't allowed to say they'd caught the Ripper until the suspect was tried and convicted.

But they could say it if the suspect "was safely locked away in an asylum" or "dead" ?

Ive heard police many times say they have there man for a crime without the suspect being tried and convicted. Happens all the time. Convicted for something else, committed suicide, never apprehended, dies before etc.

I'd also like to see how the evidence of Anderson's supposed 'boastful nature' stacks up against the boastfulness in other police memoirs of the time. One might argue that Anderson wasn't boastful at all, but was a man who participated in some historic moments, saw no reason for secrecy when the need for it had passed, and wrote of those events cadidly. But however one might view Anderson, he spilled the beans as soon as he was retired and sort of free to speak.[/QUOTE

]

Didn't Churchill basically call him a braggert?
Ill go with Churchill, then.


I actually think Kosminisky is a viable candidate for the ripper:he is the only suspect with any actual possible evidence against him-the possible positive ID, 3 top police mention him as a suspect, the threat with the knife on his sister, (and Rob's book). However, I go with Sugden on his views on the Anderson claim, when/how it came about, and how seriously it should be taken.

[Batman]

Case closed? Perhaps not.

Let's say it is too improbable to be true that different women were assaulted in the same place within minutes of 0ne another and that Stride was therefore killed by the man Schwartz saw. Let's suppose Schwartz was the witness and Kosminski was the man he saw. He makes a positive ID, the police believe Stride was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women. But she wasn't.

Here is the thing. Stride wasn't mutilated because the killer was disturbed. So whoever killed Stride was disturbed. So not only do we need the coincidence of Stride being attacked twice by two different people, but both also get disturbed.

That's coincidence upon coincidence even before discussing the GSG and the Lipski remark that same evening.

I say its much more parsimonious to say Schwartz's man is JtR, whom Schwartz disturbed and exhibits the characteristics of an antisemitic gentile.

I honestly quite like Chapman these days as he was a gentile who looked like a foreign Jew to some and even faked being one just to get along with life in Whitechapel. Despite new books on Chapman it seems trying to have him away from George yard or cable street isn't fully persuasive. Didn't a Pinchin Street torso also turn up near here?... On the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death too.

Again antisemiticism isn't the driving factor but there is nothing stopping an SK from being a racist is there? Charles Manson believed black people where taking over the world and used this as part of his mass murder campaign.

I used to be a supporter of the Kozminski hypothesis since Fido wrote about him and Cohen. Even up until reading House. Now I think one has to be very selective in what they accept and reject with respect to some of the facts above to make it work. I'm actually quite liking R. Michaels Gorden's take on things, despite the errors in his work, it remains quite compelling.

[Harry D]

That's coincidence upon coincidence even before discussing the GSG and the Lipski remark that same evening.

I say its much more parsimonious to say Schwartz's man is JtR, whom Schwartz disturbed and exhibits the characteristics of an antisemitic gentile.

That doesn't make sense. Schwartz didn't disturb a murder, he disturbed an assault. If BS Man was the killer, that would have to mean that someone else interrupted him again after he knifed Stride.

[Batman]

There has to be a knife on JtR.

That doesn't make sense. Schwartz didn't disturb a murder, he disturbed an assault. If BS Man was the killer, that would have to mean that someone else interrupted him again after he knifed Stride.

Even if it wasn't disturbing a murder, its a disturbance. All one needs add is murder and motive. JtR has a knife on him. If she makes enough noise he might have the club down on him shouting JtR, something which she had been warned about jokingly before according to witness testimony. Any suspect found with a knife, a prostitute screaming and a dark alley is game for JtR in my books. Imagine the craze on here if someone found a new suspect like that in the files/news somewhere.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
Thanks!

This has never been a requirement to charge someone with a crime.
"sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction" is a subjective idea anyway and can never be confirmed unless put before a judge and jury.

The police do not generally proceed with a charge unless they have a reasonable expectation of securing a conviction.

Of course a guilty verdict cannot be guaranteed. I never suggested otherwise. But people don't normally proceed to court with a case they know they can't win.

But then that falls far short of the claim by Anderson, does it not?

(I've edited this to make it clearer.) No it doesn't. Anderson was satisfied the suspect's gult was 'a definitely ascertained fact', but that doesn't mean he possessed sufficient evidence to convince a jury. That he was of the opinion it was 'a deinitely ascertained fact' is evidenced by the fact that he said so. That they lacked sfficient evidence to bring charges is indicated by the fact that they didn't bring them. The one doesn't devalue the other.

but if they couldn't persuade, then subpoena-and lay it on the witness to admit what he said.

It changes nothing. For whatever reason, the police did not bring charges against the suspect and intentionally or otherwise this gave the family the opportunity to have Kosminski certified and committed. We don't know why the police didn't proceed with charges, but one suggestion is that they were hoping to change the witness's mind. They could have saved themselves the trouble and simply subpoened him, but then they'd have a hostile witness, which maybethey didn't want.

But they could say it if the suspect "was safely locked away in an asylum" or "dead" ?

Strictly speaking they can't. Not without a conviction. They can say that they know who committed a murder - as was said in the Commissioner's report in the case of Miss Camp.

Ive heard police many times say they have there man for a crime without the suspect being tried and convicted. Happens all the time. Convicted for something else, committed suicide, never apprehended, dies before etc.

I'm sure you have and I actually gave an example of them doing it, but I'm sure there are as many instances of them not doing it when they could have done. This is a case when they didn't.

Didn't Churchill basically call him a braggert?
Ill go with Churchill, then.

I'm very well aware of what Churchill said and no he didn't. He said that he thought Anderson's book was boastful. Big difference. And Churchill may be correct about the book, but other police memoirs of the time are equally boastful, including Major Smith's (even his title claims something for himself which is untrue!) However, you were saying that you doubted that the police kept their knowledge of the Ripper's identity a secret because, among other things, keeping things secret was inconsistant with Anderson's boastfulness.
I'd like to see the evidence that Anderson was boastful to the point where he couldn't be relied upon to keep a secret. The evidence that he could keep a secret, even if he be inherently boastful, is out there, not the least being Le Caron's utter faith in his discretion. Le Caron put his life in Anderson's silence, Churchill had a political agenda. I think I mightbe inclined to put my money with Le Caron.

I actually think Kosminisky is a viable candidate for the ripper:he is the only suspect with any actual possible evidence against him-the possible positive ID, 3 top police mention him as a suspect, the threat with the knife on his sister, (and Rob's book). However, I go with Sugden on his views on the Anderson claim, when/how it came about, and how seriously it should be taken.

By all means go with Sugden, but I want a lot more evidence than H.L. Adam's remarks before I dismiss such an important statement by a senior and probably involved officer as geriatric wishful thinking. I also think Kosminski's threat with a knife is wholly irrelevant. Domestics involving a knife were so commonplace that I doubt even the local bobby would have attached any greater significance to it than that.

But I do not believe that Anderson was right or than his suspect was the Ripper. And I never have. What I want to know is why Anderson believed he was the Ripper. I don't think it was geriatric wishful thinking, or geriatric confusion, or the Machiavellian machinations of Macnaghten.

[Harry D]

Even if it wasn't disturbing a murder, its a disturbance. All one needs add is murder and motive. JtR has a knife on him. If she makes enough noise he might have the club down on him shouting JtR, something which she had been warned about jokingly before according to witness testimony. Any suspect found with a knife, a prostitute screaming and a dark alley is game for JtR in my books. Imagine the craze on here if someone found a new suspect like that in the files/news somewhere.

William Grant Grainger?

[John G]

William Grant Grainger?

Wasn't he also supposedly "Unhessitatingly" identified by Lawende?

[Harry D]

Wasn't he also supposedly "Unhessitatingly" identified by Lawende?

Probably Lawende but I don't think it was ever confirmed.

[Scott Nelson]

Sorry, but I don't follow. If this hypothetical suspect always went by the name Cohen in England, why should the police ever have referred to him as "Kosminski"?

Because Swanson and Macnaghten may have wanted to emphasize that Anderson's Polish Jew suspect was an immigrant from the continent-- thus they referred to him by his non-anglicised name, rather than his anglicised name, which the suspect would have been confined under.

[Jonathan H]

To Scott Nelson

What a diabolical point, especially as Macnaghten is a source who reshaped data depending on his audience.

To PaulB

Let me see if I have this straight, because it has always puzzled me.

Anderson and Swanson are, on the whole, the most reliable primary sources on the Ripper. But Anderson was not advocating Aaron Kosminski and not David Cohen, but somebody yet to be identified by us. Is that right?

[jason_c]

I have not read the entire thread but im of the opinion that a seaside home ID did take place with one of the main Jewish suspects. Some of the details or assumptions we have may be wrong, but one Jewish witness was asked to ID a Jewish suspect. This took place in the police seaside home or an establishment used by convalescing policemen.

[harry]

Whoever,and for whatever reason it may have been decided not to charge Kosminski,does not alter the fact,that the officers who took that person to the seaside home,only needed reasonable cause to arrest him.Historically,it has been claimed, there was reasonable cause.Why did not an arrest take place?

[PaulB]

To Scott Nelson

What a diabolical point, especially as Macnaghten is a source who reshaped data depending on his audience.

To PaulB

Let me see if I have this straight, because it has always puzzled me.

Anderson and Swanson are, on the whole, the most reliable primary sources on the Ripper. But Anderson was not advocating Aaron Kosminski and not David Cohen, but somebody yet to be identified by us. Is that right?

Is it right? I don't know what you are talking about, Jonathan.

[Monty]

The police do not generally proceed with a charge unless they have a reasonable expectation of securing a conviction.

There would be a prosecution file created by the police, and passed on to their solicitors, who would review the evidence and decide if the case is sound enough to go to court. They make that call.

If a charge is withdrawn, there would be an entry in the withrawn charges book. However, he may not have been charged at all.

Monty