|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through December 05, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Kosminski, Aaron:
Archive through December 05, 2000
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 11:39 pm |        | Hi Martin:
Thank you so much for your detailed posting about your conjectures on the probable Kosminsky/Cohen mixup. This reaffirms my belief that the police "jottings" that are the basis of so much modern-day speculation are hopelessly mixed up. Thus Montague John Druitt was not a "doctor" but a barrister, the Central News Agency reporter was "Bulling" and not "Bullen" -- and so on. We are left to study in magnified detail memos and jottings that were not meant to be seen by the public let alone analyzed. These memos which constitute almost floor sweepings from the investigation are not meant to be these men's final words on the Ripper, and the parameters to begin with are faulty if anyone thinks they are, i.e., Macnaghten intended only to mention several men who were more likely suspects than Cutbush, and Littlechild was anectodally naming one more suspect -- a Dr. Tumblety whom he considered a likely suspect.... but who may not have been the Ripper either. Each one of these police floor sweepings are unsourced and suffer from misinformation, thus the Druitt doctor/barrister goof, the Bullen/Bulling blunder, and, as you theorize, the possible Kosminsky/Cohen gaff. I think your reasoning on this is quite plausible.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 12:16 pm | | An excellent essay, Martin, and one that I've printed out to keep inside my copy of "Crimes, Detection and Death of JTR."
As a personal aside, I would recommend Martin's tape "The Truth About Jack the Ripper" to anyone with an interest both in the case and in the "Cohen" theory. It is, of course, fascinating reading when coming from the author, but to hear it explained in his own mellifluous tone is quite an experience.
CMD |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 05:16 pm | | Dear Friends,
Thank you for the kind remarks. Individual
responses follow:
David. I'm taking on board your suggestion. I've
always felt there was a crescendo of violence, but
will mull over the alternative, probably keeping
it in the background of my mind as a possibility
to keep my preferred interpretation relatively
low-key. The following responses to certain
specifics, therefore, should not be seen as the
sort of instant, "You're wrong! I'm right!" which
vitiates so much Ripper related dialogue. These
are simple reservations you might like to mull
over yourself:
1. Polly Nichols. Yes, it's perfectly POSSIBLE
that the Ripper feared interruption and so left
his work unfinished. But on the evidence known to
me, why raise the stakes to PROBABLE?
2. Liz Stride. She's a 'grey area' for me. The
cases for and against her being a Ripper victim
are each so plausible that I never allow any
argument based on her murder to have determining
weight in my own theorizing.
3. Katherine Eddowes. Aren't you rather trying to
have it both ways, now? I mean, you suggest that
fear of interruption led the Ripper to leave Polly
Nichols relatively unmutilated. And now fear of
interruption leads to frenzied mutilation in
Mitre Square. Of course you may reasonably
argue that the frustration in Buck's Row could
have prompted the fury in Mitre Square when it
looked as if it might be repeated. But you're then
building one hypothesis upon another. We all do it
from time to time, but it's always a weak link in
a chain of argument.
4. Interpretation of the medical evidence in
Chapman and Kelly cases: Most medical
interpretation becomes another grey area for me.
Those with medical training and experience
disagreed at the time, and they disagree today
(Nick Warren and Richard Whittington-Egan). Nick's
arguments are often brilliant and extremely
persuasive as one hears them delivered. E.g., his
argument for the murderer's skill, based on a
deliberate extraction of the intended kidney
(brilliantly outlined in an illustrated lecture
which was a highlight of the Norwich conference),
or the use of an axe to split Mary Kelly's thigh.
But not beng an expert myself, I can never keep
the technical details in my mind, which may be why
I never feel finally convinced that they should
determine my historical thinking. So.... grey
area.
But I'll certainly go on meditating on the
possibility of a slowly considered fetishistic
obsession, and maybe the 'crescendo' will join my
ever-expanding list of grey areas.
Chris G., Of course you're right that these
things didn't come down on tablets of stone from
Mt Sinai. But Macnaghten's memoranda were signed
and filed, possibly for the use of the Home Office
if ministers faced parliamentary questions. So I
always assume that they are as accurate as his
bluff, hail-fellow-well-met personality allowed.
And in all cases, practically anything from the
senior police who saw all the documentation, or
their close associates, outweighs the speculations
of journalists and armchair detectives, the
alleged inside knowledge of contemporaries as
reported secondhand, the attempts of
self-aggrandising nutters to make themselves look
spookily important with claims of firsthand
knowledge, or the sudden emergence of alleged
diaries kept by policemen or perpetrators which
are produced 100 years later by people with a
track record for lying.
Christopher-Michael, Many thanks for your kind
words, though I fear both tapes may now be
unobtainable.
I hope this miracle of modern science decides to
let my whole signature through for a change. I
feel like a young lady whose knicker-elastic has
snapped when it keeps breaking off - (it's trying
to do it again now!) - while I'm editing, and
leaving me called 'Fid' or 'Ma' instead of
Martin Fido - (It tried yet again to cut me to F!) |
Author: David Anderson
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 06:53 pm | | | Hello Martin. So good to know that you are well. David Anderson here. (remember me)Back in the fray & hoping to stir up some passion for MJD before long. Paul & Don have my e-mail no. Please contact. |
Author: Ron Taylor
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 07:20 pm | | Certainly not inserting myself into debate (I know far too little !!)but a couple of questions.
Why was Kosminski committed as a lunatic for such a short period on the first occasion. Was it so he could be taken to Seaside Home in Brighton. It was certainly unusual for admissions to be for such a short period? If he was a suspect why was he listed as not being dangerous?
Did an Inspector Hay have any involvement with the case. I ask because in 1891 Census (see below) he was resident in the Seaside Home. BTW Anderson was Chairman of Organising Cttee which ran this home.
Marg M Griffin Head 33 Lives by own means Born Hants, Portsea.
Fanny March, Matron Widow 57 Born Sssx Biddlecombe
James H ? Vistor Scholar 10 Born SSX, Brighton
James H ? Visitor Scholar Born Leics
Lahitia (?) Roper Servant 41 Ryde IoW
Eliza Inman Serv London, Bow
James Hay M 42 Police Inspector, Kent
Henry Hahl(?) M 47 PC Mdx Southall
Fredk Child s 28 PC Bucks, Beaconsfield
Fanny March Visitor Scholar 10 born SSX , Brighton |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 09:39 am | | Kosminski was just three days in the Mile End Old
Town Workhouse Infirmary in 1890 because the
workhouse infirmaries - local government run
hospitals for the poor and destitute - handled
cases as quickly and expeditiously as they could,
rather than keep patients as a burden on the
rates (property taxes supporting local
government). Since his family brought him in and
he was released back into their care, the
workhouse authorities were evidently satisfied
that he could be adequately cared for by his
people (unlike David Cohen, who was raving,
dangerous, and as far as they knew, without any
relatives).
On his second admission in 1891 they
transferred him pretty quickly to the asylum. This
might be because there was now evidence that he
could possibly become dangerous (the alleged
picking up a knife and threatening his sister
once), or because his delusions and aural
hallucinations were now florid. One would be
tempted to postulate a three-day observation
period before they decided what to do with
possible lunatics, were it not that the far more
obviously mad and dangerous Cohen spent nine days
in Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary before his
transfer to Colney Hatch Asylum. This might, of
course, represent different observation periods
determined by Whitechapel and Mile End Boards of
Guardians.
There is one other interesting oddity about
Kosminski, however. Pauper lunatics sent on from
workhouse infirmaries by the parish authorities
were a charge on the rates, and every quarter
returns of their names were made (and are now
preserved in the Greater London Archives).
Kosminski doesn't appear on these lists. Since we
know he went from a workhouse infirmary to the
public asylum at Colney Hatch, this must mean he
was not a pauper: i.e., his family never let him
become a charge on the rates (which would, I
suppose, have meant they lost custodial rights
over him, and which they might have felt to be
shameful. Jews hardly ever show up as destitute
paupers in the workhouses. The Jewish community
provided its own eleemosynary support for its own
destitute, as did nonconformists. But Jews show up
getting free treatment in the workhouse
infirmaries alongside the Catholics and Anglicans:
medical expenses must have been beyond the power
of the religious and ethnic communities to
guarantee).
Those who wish to make a case for Kosminski as
Anderson's suspect will, no doubt, have observed
that in the Victorian sense he really had 'his
people' (a family household) who would seem
predisposed to refuse to give him up. I note the
point (I've just devised it!) without concurring.
Happy hunting,
Martin Fido |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 01:00 pm | | SOME MISSING DATA
I am not in the least interested in debating Martin Fido's claims for his candidate Cohen for the very good reason that the Kosminsky/Cohen conflict is simply one between himself and Paul Begg. They have both considered the same material for over ten years but still fail to agree. Thus it is a sheer waste of time to intervene in what is really a private dispute.
But for those still determined to spend time on the affair let me acquaint them with some of the data that is missing from Fido's exposition.
His theory is at base an unpleasant one. It involves conspiracies by three people to deceive their respective police forces; the Home Secretary; the Press and the public. On the City Police side he has accused Major Smith of pressuring one of his constables to lie. Why? As Fido puts it "Smith wanted his force to have the glory of catching the Ripper. He did not want the Jews implicated...He did not want Anderson to win the credit of solving the mystery. He could easily have put pressure on a humble constable to retract his identification of a poor Jewish lunatic suspected by the Metropolitan CID.
This too, would explain the curious frenzy of his attack on Anderson in his memoirs...The Major protests just a little too much. His vehemence has, for too long, succeeded in covering what amounts to his own slightly guilty knowledge." (p209)
This malarky springs from the fact that, in an attempt to identify Anderson's "unnamed witness", Fido has turned to "Macnaghten's memoranda for the hint that this was a City policeman..." Fido then adds, "...in Major Smith's memoirs we find surprising implicit confirmation of this." The reasoning behind these remarks is specious indeed, and the most obvious reason for the fallacy about a City Policeman as a witness lies in a simple misreading of scrappy notes referring to a City Police witness. (We have all made similar errors when rereading hasty jottings. But not all of us let them creep through to publication stage)
On the Met side Fido is claiming that Anderson and Swanson kept their vital knowledge to themselves. These two, alone in the world, knew the name and fate of the Ripper. But no one saw the Ripper in action; all the so-called 'sightings' were at best just remote possibilities and nothing else. No certainties were ever possible.
Contrast the known 19th century facts with Anderson's and Swanson's 20th century 'certainties' and dogmatic guff. In 1895 Anderson's views on the fate of the Ripper were made known to his friend Major Griffiths who published them as a plausible theory, and no more. When he later wrote his three-volume work he relied on his privileged reading of Macnaghten's memoranda and gave no weight to Anderson's theory. And Macnaghten himself did not at any time accept the view that the case had been settled by an asylum incarceration. So the idea that the Ripper was a confined lunatic was well-aired in 1895, but only as a theory. But it was so well-aired that even Forbes Winslow changed his mind and gave it support by stating: "...that the Whitechapel murders were committed by a medical student of good family, whose mind was wrecked by study. His insanity took the form of religious fervour and homicidal impulses. He was found and incarcerated in a penal asylum. No anatomical murder occurred after his arrest." (New-York Times Sept 1st 1895)
Yes, 1895 was a good year for asylum theories. From Chicago we had the Lees hoax with the claim that the Ripper was a mad doctor clapped into a private insane asylum in Islington. And still circulating was the story from 'The Sun' that the killer was the man held in Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. Then there was Anderson's theory printed in the 'Windsor Magazine', closely followed by Forbes Winslow's version, which was run by the NY Times at least twice.
Swanson apart, no one ever came forward to back Anderson's view. And, in 1895, no one in the Met of any stature endorsed his ideas. The policemen, who of necessity had to be present at the alleged identification, never added their testimony. No one in the City Police accepted that the case had been solved. And the records show that the Frances Coles murder was first viewed as a Ripper case long after the imagined killer had been taken out of circulation.
But look at the earlier exchanges involving Stewart Evans, myself, Paul Begg and others for more factual information. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 03:40 pm | | To anybody mystified by Mr Harris's splenetic
outburst, I'd better point out that his page
reference is to an appendix in the original
hardback edition of my 'Crimes, Detection and
Death of Jack the Ripper', which was completely
replaced by a new final chapter in the more
familiar paperback editions and has never
reappeared since 1988. I had to go and hunt for
what on earth he was talking about myself! When
new discoveries and other people's arguments
disprove or improve upon my own positions, I
usually make some attempt to withdraw them or make
public the fact that I have changed my mind.
My belief in 1987 (and, indeed, until
recently) was that the alterations between the
serial and volume forms of Anderson's memoirs
reflected his awareness of Smith's attack on
him. Stewart Evans and Nick Connell have now shown
very convincingly that he was in fact responding
to criticism in the Jewish Chronicle ('The Man
Who Hunted Jack the Ripper', pp.129 et seq). I
have
never bothered to withdraw the suggestion about
Smith's memoirs and the the City PC in
Macnaghten's notes because my erroneous
speculation about Major Smith has long passed out
of print, and I have said on many occasions that I
think Macnaghten was garbling 'a City police
witness'. I'm happy to see that Mr Harris agrees
with me (though I doubt whether he would have
mentioned it if he knew he was expressing
concurrence and not superiority). It was
challenged for some years by people who wanted
the City PC near Mitre Court to be a mistake for
Metropolitan PC Smith in Berner Street, just as
there have alway been those who wanted to say that
Schwartz rather than Lawende was the more likely
Jewish witness.
As for the alleged 'unpleasant' theory based
on three men's 'conspiracy to deceive', not to
mention '20th century guff', 'malarkey', and
you-name-it, this I fear is a typical piece of Mr
Harris's attempts to belittle other people's work
by distortion and misrepresentation (cf his
sneering and false innuendo above that I am
withholding 'missing data').
When I first met him, Mr Harris said that he
had read the last chapter of my book three times
and still couldn't understand it. I am sure his
primary purpose was to undermine its appeal to the
radio audience we were both addressing at the
time, and to which he was rather crudely touting
his own book. But I fear what he said may have
been true. (He does, after all, insist that he
genuinely believes the dotty Donston theory, which
casts real doubt on what would otherwise seem to
be his excellent intelligence). He once asked me
over the telephone for a precise explanation to
make sure he did not misrepresent me in his
further writing, and proceeded to misrepresent.
Since his misrepresentations are, curiously,
always to the detriment of the victims, and never
evince misplaced generosity, one regretfully
suspects that, having nailed his colours to the
fatuous mast of 'Donstonism', Mr Harris has no
alternative but to try and destroy other peple's
work by jeering and obfuscation. I devoutly hope
that the unprovoked malevolence with which he
vitiated his generally excellent arguments against
acceptance of the Maybrick Diary is not now used
to poison other areas of Ripper research.
Martin Fido |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 05:24 pm | | HAVE I UPSET A SAINT?
Dear, dear, Martin Fido detects belittlement, distortion, misrepresentation and sneering. How strange! Perhaps he should re-read his sneering review of my last book. Then re-read his wildly faulty piece on D'Onston (p184) which he never corrected. After that, let him re-read page 94 of Feldman's hardback. What he says there (if quoted correctly) distorts, belittles, misrepresents and is quite dishonest. And I have the letters to prove this.
Finally, I may be outspoken, but I never foul-mouth anyone, and I don't drink and lash out at people. I stick to civilised behaviour, but I don't suffer fools gladly and I never withold a blow at error for the sake of making a friend!
So if Fido is eager to see a list of his gross misrepresentations of me, I'm quite prepared to put them on screen when I'm ready. |
Author: Ron Taylor
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 05:40 pm | | Take it easy fellas !!!!
Both Martin Fido and Melvin Harris are serious researchers. Many of us have learned from both of them.
They disagree. A spirited, take no prisoners, debate based on facts and interpretation of facts is healthy.
The personal nature of the exchange adds nothing to the case of either participant.
Worse, I suspect it discourages others who may have something to contribute from participation. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 05:45 pm | | I'm sure it will come as a relief to all serious
users of these boards that, beyond inviting Melvin
Harris to post what he likes, I propose to respond
no further to his 'discussion'. Uniquely among
Ripper researchers I have encountered, his primary
aim is self-aggrandisement through the denigration
of others. Those familiar with the Harris-Feldman
wars will be as astonished as I to see that Harris
wilingly cites the notoriously inaccurate Feldy in
the hope of injuring me! (As I've said elsewhere I
haven't my books with me; so I don't know to what
he refers .But Keith Skinner apologised for having
overlooked some of the obviously distorted remarks
about me that Feldman passed when thebook was
going through editing. Keith and I, however, both
know that Feldy's enthusiastic battling for what I
believe to be a lost cause is without malice).
Since the same cannot be said for Mr Harris,
and I know from experience that any attempt to
hold him down to scholarly argument only results
in his skipping away from the point to try and
cover his errors or incomprehension with new
attacks or obfuscation, I leave him a clear field
to prance about and dohis damnedest to blacken my
name.
In the meanwhile, all good fellows and true who
come into my vicinity will, I'm sure, enjoy a
Falstaffian evening with me, drinking, swearing,
and behaving abominably as we venture to let our
hair down.
Goodbye, Melvin,
Martin Fido |
Author: Ron Taylor
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 09:40 pm | | To both Martin Fido and Melvin Harris.
GROW UP.
Any contribution you might make to this discussion is lost in your juvenile histrionics. |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 01:48 pm | | I think, Ron, you do have a point. The problem is, we're looking at a relationship or rather set of relationships which are pretty well matured outside this medium. Hence the personal sideswipes.
It certainly adds colour to the proceedings, but maybe some constraint should be shown. However a chap should be able to defend his honour where it was besmirched. It just depends on the tone used.
Just my opinion.
Now, on with the show... |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 03:22 pm | | Sorry, Ron. The 'You've got mail' of your first
message sounded just as I was completing the final
edit of my last posting, so my dirty deed was done
before I could open yours. I promise to post
nothing more except relevant historical commentary
for the future.
Martin Fido |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 06:08 pm | | Mr. Fido,
Thank you for your considered response to my earlier question concerning the increase of violence in the crimes.
I'd like to venture a new question, if I may. Do you think the murderer ever changed his plans, or did anything differently at a crime scene than he would have otherwise, because of the public reaction to his murder series? Do you think he "played to the crowd" at any point? In what sense? Do you think he may have thought of Miller's Court as his finale beforehand, and therefore the mass carnage there? Do you think the actions of the double event originate from anti-Semitic street fights following the Hanbury Street crime?
What part is the murderer doing what he wants, and what part is his reaction to the people's reaction?
Thanks very much for your comments!
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 07:19 pm | | You used the right verb - do I THINK! These aren't
questions about which I can KNOW, and I don't
really have detailed psychological expertise. I'm
assessing from other cases.
First off, I'm reasonably sure that the Mary
Kelly murder was not a calculated Grand Guignol
exit. I've never heard of a sexual serial killer
whose last victim was his last by his own choice.
Even Ed Kemper, at a guess, would probably have
picked his mother as the defining final homicide
which enabled/compelled him to give himself up.
Yet as long as he was free the drive persisted,
and so Sara Hallett died. I don't think men as
driven as serial killers have the sort of
self-command required to make a grand gesture and
sign off; I'm virtually certain that none we know
of ever has done.
As for the night of the double murder, since
I don't think it's been definitively established
whether Elizabeth Stride was or was not a Ripper
victim, I wouldn't be prepared to rest any
argument about the murderer's character or
intentions on the duality of the homicide that
night. Ever since I considered the Goulston Street
graffitto carefully, I have been convinced that it
was not the work of the Ripper and made no
reference to the case. So I don't think that was
playing to the gallery, either.
Now I become more tentative. It's my feeling
that serial killers who make some sort of decisive
gesture to the public, showing their awareness of
the publicity surrounding their case, are
consciously, semi-consciously or unconsciously
seeking to be caught to win the real publicity
accruing to them. 'Son of Sam' is the obvious case
(whether or not he had an accomplice in a yellow
VW). Neill Cream is another: the extreme
smartypants nature of his interventions into the
investigation suggest a man who wanted the eyes of
the world to look with wonder at hs achievements.
Colin Ireland admitted he wanted to have the
stature of 'serial killer', and effectively gave
himself up in an unnecessary attempt to explain
away his unrecognized image on cctv. If De Salvo
was the Boston Strangler, he had his day in the
flashbulbs after he could have got away with being
the quite different 'measuring man'. If he wasn't,
then the real strangler couldn't resist telling
him all about it when they were both locked up.
Players to the gallery are so evidently keen for
the gallery's applause that they nearly always
'give themselves up' in some way or another,
though Zodiac seems to have got away with it - at
any rate he hasn't been identified.
Peter Sutcliffe is a most interesting example
of a killer who really did follow his own press
cuttings. And he used them to cover his tracks:
going back to Manchester to try and recover the
newly minted fiver he'd given Jean Jordan while he
knew her body hadn't been discovered, and
completely changing, first his typical pick-up
points on hookers' beat streets, and then his MO,
so that two assaults and a murder passed without
being ascribed to him. He didn't play to the
gallery: he used his knowledge of its presence to
keep the curtain between him and it.
The Ripper, a decidedly 'disorganised' killer
enjoyed a period of being thought of as organised
(because he got away) and publicity seeking
(because the letters were ascribed to him). I
don't think he wrote the letters. And since I
think his dementia led to a complete crack-up, I
don't think he ever had enough self-restraint to
stand back, admire the effect he was having on the
public, and let that mould his behaviour, whether
for his own actual advantage or to hasten the
publicity of his arrest. Sorry to be so negative
about the idea, but that's the way my thoughts
tend.
Martin Fido |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 03:16 am | | Hello Martin,
Are you still out there? A question about Workhouses: Have you or any researcher done reviews of the St. Leanords Infirmary in Bromley? This workhouse handled (or recruited)sick inmates, as opposed to Whitechapel, Mile End or Poplar. As Swanson described the Kosminski suspect as dying shortly after his confinement in Colney Hatch, what are the possible chances of his being sent to this Workhouse "in Stepney". Did you or any other researchers search the Bow/Bromley records?
Was the Stepney district really referred to by east-enders at the time as anything east of the Gas Works? Has any further info. come to light indicating that the Mile End Infirmary was incorporated into a Stepney Borough (Bow?) after about 1901?
Is Leather Apron still untraced? There seems to be no shortage of jewish boot and shoe makers in the records (common trade for poor male immigrants). Has Mickeldy Joe ever been identified?
With regard to Kosminski's brother in Whitechapel, from whose house he was taken for identification at the Seaside Home, returned, watched and taken under restraint back to the Workhouse: could the brother be Wolf Kosminski, the 86 year-old tailor of 30 Baker St., Stepney in 1930, aged 45 in 1890-1, and possibly living in "Stepney", not the brother (in-law) Woolf Abrahams of Aaron, living in Whitechapel? (Isaac in 1891, aged 43). I thought that if the Kosminski suspect was brought to the workhouse from a Stepney address, and was physically sick enough, it would likely have been to the Bromley location. (I acknowledge Swanson said the brother's house was in Whitechapel).
Let me throw this last question out to any linguists. How common a name was Kosminsky, or Kozminsky in 1880's London? I ask this because I've encountered two "Betsy Kosminski's" in the researches of others in the 1891 census. Was/is there a polish, yiddish sector in eastern Europe where a common female name would be angelicized "Betsy" Both of these persons, I believe, have significant topographical or genelogical links to Anderson's "polish jewish suspect". That name in Victorian London seems rather uncommon to me, and some agency like an investigating police force would immediately suspect a connection if the two names arose in separate incidents with a common theme. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 03:31 am | | | A correction to the above post, 1st paragraph, Of course all Workhouse Infirmaries handled sick persons to some degree. I meant that the Bromely Infirmary took in paupers in worse physical condition that did most other Infirmaries in the East End. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 09:00 am | | Goodness, Scott, what a lot of questions!
Paul Begg has done the real work on Kosminsky
relatives: I'm pretty sure he knows about Wolf of
Baker St. I remember being interested in one or
more Betsy Kosminskys myself, and I think calling
up a birth or death certificate. I can't remember
why. The ofrficial records are quite clear that
brother Wolf of Sion Square is the next of kin.
Its position is south of but close to Whitechapel
Rd: I suspect from its closeness to St Mary
Matfellon's church (the original 'white chapel')
that it wd be in Whitechapel parish, but it might
just have been in Stepney or St George's in the
East. We certainly looked hard at the Bromley
Infirmary for the sick, because John Stride ended
p there. As far as I recall it served several
parishes. Keith had the data on that: I used his
files extensively back when we were putting
together the A-Z. And round about 1907 Stepney
Borough certainy became very big and its local
administration area swallowed up chunks of the
former parish vestries.
Leather Apron has never been positively
identified, though there are still those
(reputable) commentators who think he was John
Pizer. They rest their case on the facts that at
the inquest when Pizer was asked if he was Leather
Apron he said, "Yes", and Sgt Thick said that
whenever anyone in the East End said 'Leather
Apron' they meant John Pizer. They discount the
facts that Pizer was cut off from developing a
protest that began 'Sergeant Thick who arrested me
has known me 18 years...'; that he said to the
press that he had never known he was called
Leather Apron until Thick arrested him and told
him; that at the time of the arrest Thick only
said he was 'almost positive' Pizer was Leather
Apron; that Pizer's friends and neighbours all
said he wasn't known as Leather Apron; and (most
important) he hadn't worn his apron for two years
while he had been out of work.
My own belief is that both streetwalkers and
journalists were probably lumping together several
men who bullied the girls on the pavement. They
may have included Pizer, since a charge was
brought aganst him and dropped for assaulting a
woman two months before the murders began. After
Pizer had been cleared, and up to the point when
the Ripper letters were publicised, there is ample
evidence in the press (especially in letters to
the papers) that many of the public thought
Leather Apron was not pizer; was the murderer;
need not have been Jewish; and was still at large.
Prostitutes, including One-Armed Liz, were still
saying they suspected a man who went about
threatening them. (Of course we have no evidence
that they were all talking about the same man).
Mickeldy Joe, alas, remaiins a completely
unknown quantity.
I personally think Nathan Kaminsky was very
possibly the 'real' leather Apron. This rests
entirely on the circumstantial coincidences that
he was a bootmaker, he lived in exactly the right
place to perpetrate the murders, and his name fell
into the K-soething-sky range in which there was a
known police suspect. When you add the fourth
coincidence that his age was identical with Cohen
and Kosminski, and he never appear in the records
again, even to die, I suspect that he may have
been the 'real' David Cohen and the Ripper.
Obviously this is a long way from being proved!
Martin Fido |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 05:22 pm | | | Thanks for all the great info Martin. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 07:32 pm | | CONFUSION INCARNATE
My sole aim in supplying the data missing from Martin Fido's first presentation was simply to set the record straight. His piece was frozen in time; it could well have been written in 1988. It failed to mention any of the new material on Anderson found by Stewart Evans, Nick Connell and myself. And it failed to mention Fido's vile attack on Major Smith's reputation. An attack that was designed to enhance Anderson's stature and thus make Fido's reliance on that man seem more secure. More on this later. But instead of addressing the FACTS set out in my piece, Fido chose to go into personal overdrive and tell the world what a cad and rotter I am. Well, well! But this is just evasion delivered with prima-donna pique that diminishes him. And it was quite uncalled for. The malarkey in question was well in evidence, and it was NOT tacked on in an appendix to his book, as he now claims, but forms part of his last chapter. I seem to know his book better than he does!
And, as he admits, he has never bothered to withdraw his attack on Major Smith. He excuses this by saying that his hardback is out of print. So what? Copies still circulate and are lodged in many libraries. And all authors have a duty to make their repentance in public. Because, in the end, it is the public that is deceived.
But, unfortunately Martin Fido has such a poor memory that he is not able to face the facts that are there on record. The piece I referred to in Feldman's book is NOT an item of conversation, that could well be distorted in transmission, but is described as an extract from a report WRITTEN by Fido and paid for by Feldman. If it is quoted correctly (and I did make this proviso) then it is dishonest and shows Fido in an extremely bad light. It misrepresents my work, my actions and my conversations. I have Fido's letters to me and my replies, to prove this. Let him start by consulting his letter to me of 25th Feb 1995 and my reply to him of 10th March 1995.
Sadly, there is a touch of paranoia in his dragging in a warped account of a radio event of twelve years ago! I am described as "crudely touting" my own book. I have some news for Fido. The air-time that day was originally meant for the promotion of my book AND NOTHING ELSE. It was arranged as such by my publishers after a request from LBC. It was only when I arrived at the LBC station that a rather shame-faced producer told me that he wanted to bring Fido into the studio as well. No other radio station in the country had ever behaved in such a discourteous manner, and I made my objections plain. But to spare extra embarrassment, I agreed to let Fido come in. So Fido was an intruder on MY allotted time and I certainly had no intention of being drawn into a discussion of his book. I will always accept a regular debate, if arranged beforehand, but this broadcast was never planned as an exchange. It was promotion pure and simple. And I had no interest in influencing Fido's sales, one way or the other. And no interest, THEN, in enlarging on my honest statement that I did not understand his last chapter.
Enlarging would just have eaten up too much of my time. I would have had to explain that I found the presentation muddled; that I failed to see why Leather Apron had to be introduced; that I found it grotesque to imagine that the name 'Nathan Kaminsky' could be misheard as 'David Cohen'; that I found the attempt to join Kaminsky and Cohen together, as one, involved leaps of faith not logic; and that I saw the smearing of Major Smith as an unsavoury twisting of the facts of the case, which simply compounded the already existing confusion. I was not alone in thinking this.
Regrettably, his tendency to paranoia and his bad memory has led to a refusal to cite dates and documents when he lashes out with false accusations. Coupled to these faults is his conceited illusion that he has presented me with scholarly arguments that have been side-stepped by me. I have the evidence here which brands this a lie.
For good measure, here is one example of his alleged scholarly approach. Long before I published my complete exposure of McCormick, Fido wrote to me concerning my early analysis of the Dutton hoax and claimed that my remarks about the distinctly different systems of photomicrography and microphotography displayed: "linguistic ignorance" and he cited the Oxford English Dictionary in an effort to support that smear. But he was far too eager to find fault and in his haste made a fool of himself, since he failed to read the whole of the OED multiple entries and missed the major references which proved that my texts were faultless. Here is the reply I gave him:
"The volumes of the OED are on my shelves. I know their value; I know their limitations. If you now re-inspect the entries under (1) 'Photomicrograph' and (2) 'Microphotography' you will see that the initial confusion of the very early years was replaced by the logical stand insisted on by Shadbolt in 1857-8 (1.) "The word microphotograph originated, I believe, with myself and is applied I think correctly, to very small photographs, not to photographs of small objects, which would more correctly be photomicrographs."
But the entry directly following, headed: 'Photomicroscopic' demonstrates how confusion was later created by inaccurate journalists. The OED definition "Produced on a microscopic scale by photography" rests on a 'Daily News' article of 7 Dec 1870 on the Paris pigeon post. This refers to "The thousands of private photo-microscopic telegrams..." Here the writer of that piece has misrepresented the official wording on the telegrams, which reads (in part) "...service des DEPECHES PAR PIGEONS VOYAGERS organise par LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL DES TELEGRAPHES ET DES POSTES...DEPECHES PRIVEES ET DES SERVICE PHOTOGRAPHIES MICROSCOPIQUES." Correctly, the French text speaks of microscopic photographs; that is:- microphotographs. The false construction is an English blunder.
Then under 'Microphotography' note that the early ambiguity shown in Sutton's dictionary of 1858 (when both systems were a mere FIVE years old) was replaced in Sutton's 1867 edition by the firm statement: "Micro-photography. This term is now used to designate the reduction of negatives to a very minute size and serves to distinguish it from the process denominated 'Photo-micrography'". Most later confusions in print can be traced to translation errors, mainly from the French, but also from a few German publications (usually medical papers). Practitioners of the system knew better!"
So much for self-proclaimed scholarship! As for malice, this paragon of indignation actually wrote to Heather Holden-Brown of 'Headline Books' accusing me of "...making unsolicited private approaches to publishers, writers, journalists and other interested parties with the apparent aim of getting other people's work disparaged or suppressed..." (23. 7. 1997) This obnoxious accusation was just a parade of lies. As viewers will know, I have invited Paul Begg (as Fido's accomplice) to produce the names of the "publishers, writers, journalists and other interested parties" on the Internet. He has failed to produce one name. Why? Because there is nothing around to justify Fido's malicious attack. For the record, the only publisher I have written to prior to a book's appearance, was 'Virgin Books', Feldman's publishers. It was not an attempt to prevent publication; it was to warn them against including some pretty vicious libels being circulated by Feldman. My letters were not unsolicited, far from it, they were written at THE REQUEST of Virgin's editor Rod Green. And that request came after I had spoken to Rod Green about Feldman's threats made to Alex Chisholm. (Feldman had threatened an action against Alex backed by "Virgin's Legal Department". This claim was instantly repudiated by Rod Green)
The real problem here is twofold. First, we have Fido's known overweening vanity. This leads him to imagine that other people have the same need for self-aggrandisement, hence his attempt to sneer at my revelations and see them as a bid for glory. Next, we have his religious convictions which prevent him from appreciating that people without religion (like myself) can have very different standards of values and are not prepared to compromise those values for the sake of an easy life or for the acquisition of boon companions.
As a secular humanist I value this life as the only one ever. Anything that clouds the minds of men spoils the only chance they have. The creation of lies and false history stands in the way of clear thought and leads to prejudice, antagonisms and the downgrading of the quality of life. This understanding, of necessity, guides my relationships with other people. Thus, when I write my privately commissioned technical reports I make them as accurate as humanly possible. I never fudge an issue in order to please. And I never pad out my language in order to impress. Since I abhor duplicity, I apply the same standards to my public writings, regardless of the subject involved. No doubt this antagonises some people, even so this does not excuse the deliberate manufacture of false charges against me.
Which brings me direct to Fido's claims that I try to denigrate the work of others in order to enhance my stature. My three Ripper books prove that to be malicious nonsense. They hit the obvious fakers, certainly, but other authors, even if misguided, are treated with fairness. That includes Melvyn Fairclough, whose Sickert-inspired monstrosity used forged documents, including bogus 'Abberline diaries'. Of that I wrote: "As for the fake Abberline diaries quoted, the least said about them the better"
In my RIPPER FILE I spoke of both the Howells/Skinner book and Fido's book as (despite their defects) meriting some "well-earned applause". In my last book I wrote "Now it is not my intenetion to be disparaging, but I contend that the efforts put into looking for Jack the Ripper among the main police suspects have been sadly misdirected. The police were never looking for a serial sexual murderer, they were hunting for their imaginary homicidal lunatic" (Page 39). In none of my books will you find attacks on Begg (he's not even mentioned) and attacks on Fido. In fact in two books I even speak of Martin Fido's "diligent search" for his suspect, and I would have imagined that any fair-minded person would have seen that as praise, so what was Fido looking for? Flattery perhaps?
Finally, many of us who know of Feldman and his doings are amazed to read that his actions are "without malice"! Perhaps Fido should now come down off his cloud and read some of the evidence placed on this site. My wife has experienced the malice. My Union's solicitors have testimony on file from journalists which provide a clear record of Feldman's malice. And Alex Chisholm can testify first-hand to the threats and malice aimed at him by Feldman.
To end, I must confess that I did once make a horrible attack on Fido. I told him I deplored his taste in hats! Sorry! |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 08:29 pm | | Hello All.
I have a suggestion to make. It comes in light of the latest rant which frankly, I can not see the point of and tends to discuss microphotographs ad nauseum to no purpose. How about we make a new message board titled "Public Rants and Character Assasinations". Then, whenever anyone has spleen to vent regarding an issue that is not germane to the board they can post a simple message saying See My Rant on Above Topic. Then those of us who don't care about the personal angst of Mr Harris do not have to waste their time scrolling through his lengthy diatribes to get to a more meaningful post that may follow. And Mr. Harris, don't bother attacking me. I don't really care. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 10:19 am | | Scott,
Posting rapidly from memory I forgot one
important point in favour of those who think Pizer
was definitely Leather Apron. Two days before
Annie Chapman's murder and three days before
Pizer's arrest, Inspector Helson, the head of J
Division CID, wrote in an official report that
they were searching for 'a man named Jack Pizer,
alias "Leather Apron"', although, as he went on to
say, there was 'only suspicion' against him.
It doesn't change my personal opinion, but
you'll want to have all the data to make up your
own mind.
Martin |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 05:31 pm | | To: Martin Fido
Just re-read your book and I am quite satisfied that Cohen/Kaminsky (etc.etc.) was the police suspect...but that does'nt prove he was the Ripper surely? Only that they thought he was!!
Steve s. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 10:19 pm | | Absolutely true, Stephen. But many accepted
historical 'facts' cannot be proven beyond a
peradventure. So we are looking at probabilities.
Before I was made by my publishers to go looking
for him, I had written that a search of the asylum
records following the senior police evidence
should find 'a more plausible suspect than has
ever been proposed.' When I remarked to Charles
Nevin of the Daily Telegraph - (now 'Captain
Moonlight' on the Independent) - that this was
true of Cohen he agreed without demur, adding
wryly that this is not a field known for plausible
suspects!
Many people have come to the case as I did
with an open mind. But I am content that, to cite
only names in the public domain, Paul Begg, the
only other person I know to have started his
search by a serious historical analysis of the
relative merits of all the different sources
(police and civilian, journalistic and
quasi-scholarly, contemporary and later) came to
exactly the same position I did: Anderson was
unique among those who put forward a serious
suspect in both being in a position to know and
being unquestionably a man who would have told the
truth as he saw it. Paul also saw, as I did, that
Anderson's claim would be best pursued by
following up the less reliable Macnaghten's data
on Kosminsky.
Nobody has ever shown either of us any reason to
alter that reliance on Anderson: our only
difference lies in the ways we interpret data that
emerged later, and Paul's disinclination to pursue
the David Cohen investigation until or unless
Aaron Kosminski is positively and conclusively
removed from suspicion.
I take still greater pleasure from the late
Bill Eckert's direct endorsement of Cohen as the
probable Ripper. As founder-director of the Milton
Halpern Institute for Forensic Sciences he had
great experience in weighing and assessing
problematic cases, and, most importantly, had no
axe of his own to grind in the form of either
previous work done on the Ripper case or any
intention of publishing some personal definitive
conclusion.
How probable is it that Anderson was right? I
think highly probable, given the persuasiveness of
his candidate and his very positive assertion
about the identification (itself apparently
supported by Swanson, for what that's worth). But
others, for a variety of reasons differ, noting,
for example, that not even Swanson wholeheartedly
agreed that the suspect was the Ripper, and
Littlechild (who may or may not have known exactly
what Anderson believed, and may or may not have
had good reasons for differing from him - we just
don't know -) quite definitely believed Anderson's
confidence was misplaced.
In any case, I'm delighetd that you don't find
the arguments pointing to Cohen/Kaminsky as
Anderson's suspect quite so tortuous as is
sometimes suggested. I urge you to refer to him as
either 'Anderson's' or 'the senior police'
suspect: my own initial assumption was that
ordinary coppers on the beat would be closest to
the case and prove the best historical sources.
Examining their various claims proved me wrong,
but if by 'the police' one meant the boys in blue
round Whitechapel, then one would have to say that
most of them were still falling for the 'must be a
doctor' line, which we know still influenced
Abberline's thinking over 10 years later since he
proposed Burking as the motive.
These ruminations are not trying to make a
convert. I'll end as I began. You are absolutely
right to say that identifying Cohen as Anderson's
suspect doesn't make him the Ripper. It all
depends on the weight you believe should be given
to Anderson.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 10:44 pm | | Well Mr. Fido, you've now done to me as Mr. Begg had done a few times in the past--you've squashed me Ripperlogically. Dusted on me right nicely and done with it. I've got to slink off to my study now to recover myself a bit--if I can. A little of the Glenlivet and I'll be all right.
Great to have you aboard.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 06:46 am | | David - I don't know what I've done, but I
certainly didn't intend to dishearten any honest
researcher.
Glenlivet is always a good dea, though I'm a
Talisker man, myself.
Martin |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 06:17 pm | | To: Martin Fido,
Don't really need converting...I regard Cohen as the most probable suspect yet mooted, and I find your arguments considerably less complex than certain 'Sickertisms' for example, but as you say it's all down to probabilities...
(sooner have a pint of Old Speckled Hen ,myself)
Steve s. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 01:30 pm | | We've just now placed Scott Nelson's article, "An Alternate Kosminski Suspect and Police Witness: Some Perspectives and Points to Ponder" on the Casebook under Dissertations. It may be accessed at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html
Stephen P Ryder
Administrator |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 02:44 pm | | I'm saving this to print and read tonight. Best wishes to my yaya buddy Scott on his dissertation!
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 03:56 pm | | Scott's dissertation is hugely useful in its rigorous compilation of the facts around his theory, and his disciplined distinction between definite data and his own suggestions, arguments, and 'maybes'.
Just one addition, perhaps. In surveying the combing through workhouse infirmary, asylum and similar records, he omits the quarterly dockets of pauper lunatics in care which boroughs had to return to the Home Office. These are significant because they do not include the name of Kosminski, from which one must deduce that he was never a pauper in the care of the borough. (And in the light of Scott's argument, 'he' means 'either of them').
Also, Martin Kosminski the furrier flits in and out of Scott's piece as he flitted in and out of Paul Begg's early work. I think it's right to say that nobody has ever established a connection between him and the Kosminskis/Lubnowskis of Aaron's family. And I should add that one modern Kosminsky once told me that his name was an immigrant simplification of an even longer form in Polish, so London Kosminskys might represent several slightly differently named families in Poland.
And finally, naturally I rejoice to find Scott feeling that much of the evidence surrounding Kosminsky suggests that two people have become mixed up with each other, and in equal proportion I sorrow that he does not examine the circumstances under which this was first proposed, with David Cohen in the foreground.
Martin Fido |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 12:21 am | | Thank you Martin.
First let me say that the "Crimes, Detection and Death of JtR" is one of the finest Ripper books ever written. Your analysis of the crimes and the analysis of Kaminsky/Cohen as Anderson's suspect is excellent. It provided me with a lot of the ideas and approaches to the historical analysis of Anderson/Swanson (although for me it started with Rumbelow in 1975). Your detailed maps of the crime scenes are superb and were a precursor to the standards by which subsequent books followed.
Why would you possibly want me to venture into the Cohen/Kaminsky area when you've summed it up all so succinctly? There is nothing I could add; in all probability I would muddle it up with my absurd speculations. Then your wrath would descend upon me and I would be very embarrassed.
But aside, I have always thought that the true JtR was "Leather Apron", not Pizer, but the original, shadowy figure who terrorized prositutes up until the late Autumn of 1888. And he very well could have been Nathan Kaminsky. Your historical analysis of the Leather Apron suspect has always sort of gripped me as very logical, keeping within the police reports and newspapers of the time. But the motive you found for Kaminsky has always been the strongest point to Cohen/Kaminsky for me. Here you have a misogynist Jew from an (immigrant) society that represses women, he (Cohen) succumbs to lust with Gentile prostitutes, whom he probably already hates, and they steal his clothing in the midst of the "business transaction". He probably chases them out into the streets, naked, until arrested along with the women by a PC. Total embarrassment, and due to iniquitous Gentile women! This would have been enough to send any male psychopath over the edge. This is the best motive I've ever come across for JtR, and it sure beats the weak motive I proposed for Kosminski. And of course look how close the name Kaminsky is to Kosminsk(y).
I only concentrated on Kosminski because Swanson said he was the suspect. I think your hypothesis stands pretty much by itself, but I wanted concentrate on what Swanson said and try to reconcile the seemingly contradictory statements he made against Anderson. And I did recall your telling me on a previous post that the quarterly dockets for pauper lunatics were returned to the Home Office on a regular basis. But if they suspected one of them was a JtR suspect, what would they have done with the record(s)? We have to ask, if JtR was Anderson's Polish Jew, be he Cohen or Kosminsky, why aren't there any official records saying so? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 02:48 pm | | Wow! Thank you for the compliments, Scott. I feel a little overwhelmed.
My only point about the dockets is that the name of Kosminsky doesn't turn up on them at all. The asylum and workhouse files leave us maddeningly with no hint that ANY inmate was suspected of being J the ER (except by those who believed it of themselves), and it's really Sods' Law that the Men's Side Visitors' Book for Colney Hatch is missing for the period covering Cohen's and Kosminsky's incarcerations there.
Martin F |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 02:22 pm | | Notice how much time has passed after Scott has posted his excellent dissertion, and how few have posted comments. What Scott should have done, it seems, is to have included a few space aliens in his scenario to stimulate interest from those who frequent here. They never mind scholarly work actually designed to solve the mystery.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 05:24 pm | | I'm afraid missed the date on Scott's dissertation, and was quite unaware of its existence until Spryder announced he had placed it under Dissertations - a locus I'd never before looked up, but where I notice one or to things I will probably be looking back at in the future.
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 05:26 pm | | I'm afraid missed the date on Scott's dissertation, and was quite unaware of its existence until Spryder announced he had placed it under Dissertations - a locus I'd never before looked up, but where I notice one or to things I will probably be looking back at in the future.
Martin Fido |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 05:43 pm | | David
Why such a low opinion of your peers?
(thats a good one, coming from the urban spaceman)
;-)
Scott's dissertation is excellent, but dissertations rarely get the attention they deserve. A copy should be posted on the daily message board (here), that way it gets maximum coverage.
I dare say there's a few regulars who have never read anything on the dissertation board, sadly.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 05:59 am | | I thought Scott's work was brilliant too. I'm sorry, Scott, if you are reading, that I haven't commented before, but I only finished taking it all in the other day. Everyone likes a bit of praise and recognition for a job well done, so WELL DONE SCOTTY!
I am particularly interested in Levy, because it seems to me, if he actually recognised the man he saw with the woman thought to be Eddowes, but chose not to say anything initially, it makes sense that he would be able to identify this man again at any future time, either if he went voluntarily to the police or was sought out by them, possibly having been suspected of holding back information in 1888.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 06:07 am | | Oh, and BTW, Scotty, I have an elderly 'aunt' (a pretendy one - she was a great friend of my mum's)who lives in Montgomery Street! I wonder if she knows any of its history.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 10:21 am | | Hi All,
Scott, I'm still plowing through your dissertation, it contains a great deal of interesting speculation, about which I have some questions I will be posting shortly.
Caz raises an interesting point about Levy possibly having known or recognized the man he saw with Eddowes. I am intrigued by the possibility that perhaps Levy was Anderson's witness. Past commentators have always plumped for either Lawende or Schwartz. However, Lawende stated that he would not know the man again, and even if we opt for Schwartz, it's still the case that Schwartz had a brief look at a stranger's face, under less than optimal conditions. An identification made on that basis almost two years later would surely be of limited value, unless the witness knew the suspect either by name or by sight.
Cheers,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
