Archive through November 14, 1998

** 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 November 14, 1998

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Kosminski, Aaron: Archive through November 14, 1998

Author: Mr. William G. Clark Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:40 pm
I know who Jack the Ripper REALLY IS!! His name is Aaron Kosminski. Aaron was a poor polish immigrant who had been in and out of the victim's graveyards. He fits the available profile far better than any other possibility. His probable motive is more accurate. And check this out: the victim who died in the hospital had a description that matched Kosminski perfectly. Plus, FBI special agent John Douglas can confirm his identity being Aaron Kosminski.
Author: Koji Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:40 pm
For a long time, I was totally convinced that Kosminski was the killer, especially after reading Paul Begg's excellent book on the subject. I still believe him to be a prominent suspect, but there are holes in this theory. The Ripper would have had to have looked respectable enough to gain the trust of his victims, since I believe we can safely assume he spoke to them before killing them. It is well known that Kosminski was an insane scavenger who never washed and only ate scraps from the gutters. Does this sound like the kind of person who could approach a prostitute when it was known that a serial killer was on the loose? Remember, in those days they did believe that serial killers looked evil, and you couldn't get much worse than Kosminski! It is this one fact alone that tends to make me believe we have to look elsewhere for the Ripper (maybe towards Maybrick?!).
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:41 pm
Mr Clark seems to have some unique information! I don't know that Aaron Kosminski was 'in and out of the victim's graveyards' and it would be fascinating if it is true that he was. Could M. Clark perhaps expand on this. Also, which victim who died in hospital had a description fitting Kosminski No certain Ripper victim died in a hospital. Surely Mr Clark in fact means a witness at an identificaton which took place in a convalescent home? And I think FBI agent John Douglas only appeared on a tv show on which he was asked to choose the most likely suspect from those with which he was provided. I don't think he can confirm anything regarding Kosminski. This said, Robert Anderson, the head of the CID at Scotland Yard at the time of the murders, said the identity of Jack the Ripper was "a definitely ascertained fact" and Chief Inspector Swanson, who had overall charge of the Ripper investigation, said Anderson's suspect was "Kosminski" and didn't contradict or disagree with Anderson's statement. It is maybe worth observing that Aaron Kosminski was indeed described as scavenging food from the gutters, being unwashed and so on, but that description pertained to his physical and mental condition in and about 1891. We don't know his appearance or his behaviour in 1888, so Koji's objection isn't really valid. And against it, too, must be set Anderson's statement that the Polish Jew's guilt was "a definitely ascertained fact". Overall, despite the problems Aaron Kosminski presents, I think we should pay very close attention to the opinion of the two most senior policemen at Scotland Yard at the time of the murders - they apparently thought "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper.
Author: Koji Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:41 pm
I have heard from numerous sources that Kosminsky was insane, and part of his insanity meant that he was not permitted by God to eat anything but scraps and not allowed to wash either. Of course it is possible that these are yet more rumours and suspicions, but it has been stated to be a fact by many. As far as the police believing Kosminsky to be the Ripper, this also cannot be looked upon as evidence. It seems every policeman at the time had their own pet theory- Abberline said when Chapman was arrested "youve found Jack the Ripper at last!" and McNaughten believed him to be Montague John Druitt. It is my belief that all these were mere opinions by the police. Informed opinions yes, and of considerably more weight than most, but opinions nonetheless.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:41 pm
While it is true that other policemen voiced their ideas about the identity of Jack the Ripper, Anderson and Swanson are distinguished by (a) being the most senior and arguably overall the best informed officers involved in the investigation, and (b) by categorically stating that the identity of the Ripper was "a definitely ascertained fact", whereas Abberline, Littlechild and Macnaghten only ventured personal opinion. It has often been said that there is no evidence against "Kosminski", but we should heed the maxim: 'absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence'. In other words, we should assume that there was evidence against "Kosminski" even though we don't know what that evidence was. In the case of "Kosminski" some of the evidence against him was an eye-witness identification. It shouldn't be assumed that this was the only evidence against "Kosminski". After all, the authorities must have had a reason for suspecting "Kosminski" in the first place, let alone for sending him "with difficulty" (as Swanson acknowledges) for identification. Indeed, we should be wary even about assuming that the eye-witness testimony was the most important evidence against the suspect. It may merely have been the evidence on which the police would have held the suspect; without it they had to let him go, thus giving his family time to have him committed to an asylum - and once committed, "Kosminski" would have been deemed unfit to plead and could never have been brought to trial. Anderson may therefore have been angry with the eye-witness, but we should not take it that the eye-witness was the only or the primary evidence against "Kosminski". One often asked question is that If "Kosminski's" guilt was that certain, why wasn't it known by other senior officers. Well, of course, we can't answer that question, but it is noticeable that although Macnaghten knew about "Kosminski", he doesn't mention the eye-witness identification. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have mentioned it if he'd known about it, especially when his immediate superior (through whose hands Macnaghten's memoranda would presumably have had to pass and by whom it would have had to be sanctioned) regarded the eye-witness identification as significant. So how widely was the identification known? I'd suggest that it wasn't widely known at all. How widely were the beliefs of Anderson and Swanson known? Again, I would suggest that they were not widely known; would Macnaghten have been so dumb as to profer his own suspect, Druitt, as the Ripper if he'd known that his boss believed on the basis of an eye-witness identification that the Ripper was "Kosminski"? So if the beliefs of Anderson and Swanson were not widely known, we must ask why they weren't. Again we can't answer that question. But there are three curious elements of the story: (1) why was the suspect taken to "the Seaside Home" for identification? (2) Donald Rumbelow has stated that in a case like the Ripper case the police would have had no difficulty in taking a suspect for identification, so why did Swanson say the suspect was taken "with difficulty". (3) Subsequent to the identification the suspect returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, where he was kept under twenty-four hour surveillance by the City CID. Whitechapel was firmly within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police. The City CID would have had no reason to keep a Met suspect under surveillance in Met territory, nor would the Met have asked them to do so. I don't know, but I suspect that the Met did something a little underhand when they whisked "Kosminski" away for identification. I think "Kosminski" was suspected by the City CID, who then maintained surveillance; that the Met wrongly whisked the suspect out from under the nose of the City (hence Swanson's "with difficulty"); that the refusal of the witness to testify led to the release of the suspect and his committal by his family, thus denying to all the possibility of at least charging "Kosminski" with the crimes. In other words, I think Anderson and Swanson - with or without the sanction of the Met Commissioner - ballsed it up. That's why they never let it be known down the ranks. But this is only my guess. If nothing else, the Anderson/Swanson statements give us something to debate!
Author: Koji Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:42 pm
It must be understood that Anderson and Swanson were still expressing opinions! Just because they stated Kosminskis guilt as a definately ascertained fact proves nothing. I could say that about any suspect, would it make me right? Also, as far as I am aware, Swanson NEVER ONCE mentioned Kosminski by name in the statement to which you are referring. Many books go as far as to say that Kosminski may never have existed, but was an alias for Chapman, as was Pedachenko and Ostrog. I dont necessarily agree with this, but what Swanson said holds little weight as EVIDENCE IMHO. Abberline said when Chapman was arrested "Youve found Jack the ripper at last!". This appears to me to be equally as strong as what Swanson said about Kosminski. They were BOTH opinions. Macnaghten had alot more than opinion to base his view that Druitt was the ripper on. I found it unbelieveable that you should say "we should assume evidence against Kosminski even though we dont know what it was". That is an incredible statement! Does that mean we could suspect EVERYBODY without any evidence since there may be some that we dont know about? I thought people knew it was obvious that EVIDENCE must be provided for an ounce of suspicion. In case you are misunderstanding me, I am not saying Kosminski is a ridiculous suspect. I believe him to be quite prominent as a suspect. I am simply saying that there is little proof to transfer my belief into reality. Swansons report and the assumption of evidence even though we have none dont hold any weight with me!
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:42 pm
I don't accept that Anderson and Swanson were the best informed officers involved in the investigation. The fact that they were senior officers meant their duties were largely administrative, and thus they relied on reports from field officers such as Abberline for their information. There is also at least one documented incident where a request from the Home Office for information on the case was forwarded by Swanson to Abberline. The eyewitness identification of Kosminski was tenuous at best. The eyewitness, in all likelihood, was Joseph Lawende. Lawende saw a man who could have been the Ripper only fleetingly, from a distance of 15-16 feet, in poor lighting, and made this identification early in 1891, over two years after the fact. The conditions of the sighting and the amount of time that elapsed certainly diminish the weight of this evidence. We not only shouldn't assume they had other evidence linking Kosminski to the killings, there are strong indications otherwise. If they had such evidence, and the Ripper's identity was a "definitely ascertained fact", then the investigation should have stopped once Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch asylum in February 1891. However, this was not the case. In February 1891, after Kosminski had been committed, Lawende was asked to pick Thomas Sadler, the suspect in the Frances Coles case, out of a lineup. He could not. As late as 1895, an unidentified witness (again, probably Lawende) was asked to identify another suspect, one William Grainger. According to the Pall Mall Gazette's report, this witness positively identified Grainger. If the Gazette's report was accurate, then Lawende identified two different people at two different times, further weakening his evidence. More importantly, the fact that the police continued to pursue the investigation for at least four years after Kosminski was committed strongly indicates they had no evidence other than Lawende's questionable identification.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:44 pm
Both Koji and Mr DiPalma make some interesting observations, but there are alternative viewpoints. Koji writes "It must be understood that Anderson and Swanson were still expressing opinions! Just because they stated Kosminski's guilt as a definitely ascertained fact proves nothing. I could say that about any suspect, would it make me right?" Koji could indeed say it and of course it wouldn't make him right, but Koji is not the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time of the murders. Robert Anderson was. That gives authority to anything Anderson might say, unless it can be shown that he habitually lied, exaggerated or was prone to wishful thinking. I suppose it could be argued that Anderson's statement was an opinion, in the same respect as almost any personal observation will be an opinion, but the distinction Koji doesn't seem to make is that Anderson was stating a fact as he believed it to be, whereas people like Macnaghten offered conjecture. There is a world of difference. When Koji writes: "...as far as I am aware, Swanson NEVER ONCE mentioned Kosminski by name in the statement to which you are referring," I think Koji has made a slip of the keys. Swanson did name "Kosminski" as Anderson's suspect. It was Anderson who never named his suspect, but few people doubt it was Kosminski. As for Koji's remark that "Many books go as far as to say that Kosminski may never have existed, but was an alias for Chapman, as was Pedachenko and Ostrog" I can't recall any book post-1987 which make this suggestion. We have loads fo documentation about Kosminski and Ostrog and know that neither was an alias for Chapman. I am frankly taken aback by Koji's statement that "...what Swanson said holds little weight as EVIDENCE IMHO. Abberline said when Chapman was arrested "Youve found Jack the ripper at last!". This appears to me to be equally as strong as what Swanson said about Kosminski. They were BOTH opinions. Macnaghten had a lot more than opinion to base his view that Druitt was the ripper on." If a statement by the man who had overall charge of the Ripper investigation 'holds little weight', what does? I think any pronouncement by such a well-informed officer carries considerable weight. As for Abberline, his views about Chapman were based on reading a newspaper account of the trial of Chapman and Macnaughten based his conclusions about Druitt on unspecified private information. And finally, Koji seems to have misunderstood what I meant when I said that "we should assume evidence against Kosminski even though we don't know what it was". The Police didn't take Kosminski off for identification at 'the Seaside Home' because it had been a slow day at the Yard and they thought it would be nice to have a breath of the briny. They obviously suspected him of being Jack the Ripper. But why? On what were those suspicions based? Whatever it was, it constitutes evidence. Therefore we must assume that evidence existed, even though we don't know what it was. Whether it, supported by the eye-witness identification, would in reality have been sufficient to send the suspect to the gallows, as Swanson said, remains to be seen - which is why we are trying to find out more - but it is reasonable to assume the evidence existed. Turning to Mr. DiPalma, while it is true that the role played by Anderson and Swanson would have been largely administrative and that they would have been reliant on reports from "field officers" like Abberline, it is also true that unlike field officers (or anyone else) they (and Swanson in particular) received information from the Metropolitan Divisions, the City Police, the provincial forces, foreign forces, specialist branches like Monro's Secret Department, and information sent via the Foreign and Home Office. As no officers below Anderson and Swanson would have had such a wide ranging knowledge of the case, I submit that Anderson and Swanson were the best informed officers involved in the investigation. Furthermore, they would have known about all the most serious Ripper suspects. This is important because whatever the merits of the Polish Jew/"Kosminski", Anderson and (tacitly) Swanson thought him more likely to be the Ripper than any other suspect. This has profound effects on how we should consider suspects like Tumblety and Ostrog. Since we know nothing about the eye-witness testimony, I don't see how it can confidently be asserted that the testimony was tenuous. I agree that an eye-witness identification some two years after the event would be of doubtful value, but I think it likely that Anderson and Swanson must have been as aware of that as we are and as the Pall Mall Gazette journalist was when he wrote about Grainger in 1895. The use of Lawende in one and possibly two later identifications is interesting and does throw doubt on the "Kosminski" argument, though I think the case of Sadler happened so close to the committal of Kosminski that it may not be all that significant. As far as the Grainger is concerned, we must ask who authorised the identification? Was it authorised by Anderson or Swanson? I briefly outlined the argument that the identification of Kosminski was not widely known and if this was indeed the case then it might well explain why subsequent identifications took place. But I would observe that the case papers seem to have been closed in or about 1892, from which you may make what you will. Finally, I remain unconvinced that the witness was Lawende. Among several reasons is that Anderson said the witness was the only person who ever got a good look at the murderer. But Lawende never got a good look. He stated that he only glanced at the couple. Schwartz did more than that. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Annie Chapman was killed by the man seen by Mrs Long, Eddowes killed by the man seen by Lawende or Kelly killed by the man seen by Hutchinson. It is reasonably certain, however, that Israel Schwartz saw the man who murdered Elizabeth Stride. Given the improbability of Stride being attacked by two different men in the same spot within fifteen minutes, it is almost certain that Stride was murdered by the man Schwartz saw assault her - ergo, Schwartz was the only man ever to have had a good view of the murderer. May I apologise for writing at such length and boring everyone absolutely witless, but it is good to see different opinions sparking off debate and causing us to reassess the evidence and our interpretations of it.
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:45 pm
Taking up the issue of whether of not Anderson and Swanson were the best informed officers involved in the investigation, it must be pointed out that as their duties were administrative in nature, it is unlikely that they interviewed any of the witnesses, or made any inquiries in person. Their lack of firsthand knowledge of the case was evinced by their handling of a request made on October 29, 1888 by Home Secretary Matthews for information on the Stride murder. Rather than responding personally, Swanson forwarded this request to Abberline, and Abberline's reply was sent back to the Home Office, nearly verbatim, as the official response. It should also be pointed out that Anderson was not even in the country when the first four canonical victims were killed. Shortly after assuming his duties at Scotland Yard in early September 1888, he went to Switzerland for a vacation, and did not return until one week after the double event. It is difficult to understand how he could have read the reports from all the cited sources and kept abreast of the progress of the investigation when he was not even in England at the time. As to whether or not the witness was Joseph Lawende, both Anderson and Swanson in describing the 1891 identification referred to the witness as "he", and both insisted the witness was Jewish. This immediately eliminates Mrs. Long, Hutchinson, PC Smith, in fact, leaves just Schwartz and Lawende as possibilities. However, it is extremely unlikely that the witness was Schwartz. Swanson wrote that after the identification, the suspect was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, which was being watched both night and day by City CID. Since the only one of the Ripper killings which occurred within City Police jurisdiction was that of Kate Eddowes,this points directly to Lawende as the witness. If the witness was Schwartz, then City CID would have had no business conducting surveillance in Metropolitan Police territory, watching a suspect in a crime that occurred in within Metropolitan jurisdiction. BTW, I believe the surveillance by City CID was the cause of Swanson's writing that the suspect was removed for identification "with difficulty" - they would have had to snatch him from under City CID noses. It may also explain the curious choice of Seaside home as the site for the identification, rather than a lineup at Leman or Commercial Street police stations. As to the second identification in 1895, here is what the Pall Mall Gazette reported: "there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable." Again, the witness is referred to as "he", eliminating both Mrs. Long and Mary Ann Cox. The victim having been found in the street eliminates Hutchinson, as Kelly's body was found indoors. That leaves PC Smith, Schwartz, and Lawende as the only possibilites. But the Gazette reported that the body was "dissected". This eliminates PC Smith and Schwartz - they were witnesses in the Liz Stride murder, and she was not mutilated. Once again, this leaves only Lawende. Once one accepts the extreme likelihood that Lawende was the witness, the qualification of his testimony as tenuous is easily understood, given the circumstances of the sighting. If Anderson and Swanson had any other evidence against Kosminski, evidence that would have established his guilt with a certainty, it is inconceivable that Abberline would not have been aware of it. Yet, in his famous interview given to the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline said 'that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was 15 years ago', and 'I know that it has been stated in several quarters that "Jack the Ripper" was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.'
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:45 pm
In response to Mr DiPalma's valued observations, I accepted that the duties of Anderson and Swanson would have been largely administrative and I also accept that they directed a Home Office request for information to Abberline and sent back his reply almost verbatim, and I am also aware that Abberline would almost certainly have been better informed within his own sphere of responsibility. But but this does not mean that Abberline or anyone else was better informed than Anderson and Swanson overall. Mr DiPalma has not addressed the fact that Anderson and Swanson received reports from the Divisions, Provincial Forces, Foreign Forces and so on, which Abberline did not. As for Mr DiPalma's claim that 'it is inconceivable that Abberline would not have been aware of' any other evidence against Kosminski, we note in the Jack the Ripper A to Z how Abberline told the press that he had not seen the medical report on Annie Chapman. We observe that this seems to be a 'remarkable example of under-information'. May I also draw attention to Chief Inspector Henry Moore's erroneous description to the journalist H. Harding Davis in 1889 of the scene in Kelly's room and the comments by Inspector Reid to the Morning Advertiser in 1903 in which he described the mutilations as mere slashes over the body and said no organs had been removed. Reid, of course, was Head of the local H Division CID. And finally there is Macnaghten, who didn't mention the eye-witness identification in his Memoranda, as surely he would have done if he'd known about it, and advanced Druitt, which surely he wouldn't have done if he'd known his immediate superior's beliefs about Kosminski. And if Macnaughten did not know about the identification, why is it supposed that a junior officer like Abberline would know? I would value clarification of why Mr DiPalma thinks Anderson's ability to assess an eye-witness identification in 1891 is influenced by his whereabouts in 1888. Turning to the knotty problem of the identity of the witness, I appreciate that the witness being Jewish immediately eliminates Mrs. Long, Hutchinson, and PC Smith, but I was trying to point out that of all the witnesses, Jewish or not, only Schwartz truly fits Anderson's statement that the witness was the only person ever to have had a good look at the murderer. This certainly cannot be said of Lawende, who merely glanced at a man who was talking with a women (who Lawende was only able to later identify as Eddowes by her clothing) and who could have walked away the moment Lawende passed by. Schwartz, though, saw a woman he identified as Stride assaulted. Given the improbability that Stride was attacked by two different people in the same spot within fifteen minutes, it is reasonable to conclude that she was killed by the man seen by Schwartz and that Schwartz is therefore the only known witness to have seen the 'murderer'. Mr DiPalma writes: "However, it is extremely unlikely that the witness was Schwartz. Swanson wrote that after the identification, the suspect was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, which was being watched both night and day by City CID. Since the only one of the Ripper killings which occurred within City Police jurisdiction was that of Kate Eddowes,this points directly to Lawende as the witness. If the witness was Schwartz, then City CID would have had no business conducting surveillance in Metropolitan Police territory, watching a suspect in a crime that occurred within Metropolitan jurisdiction." I'm afraid Mr DiPalma is completely wrong here. We don't know why the City CID were maintaining surveillance on Kosminski. That he was suspected of being the Ripper is an assumption and therefore it can readily be seen that the surveillance does not indicate the identity of the witness. But even if we assume that they did suspect Kosminski of being the Ripper, the City CID were investigating a crime which had occurred within their jurisdiction, namely the murder of Eddowes, and were at liberty to maintain surveillance on a suspect wherever they liked. That the suspect lived within Metropolitan Police jurisdiction would be irrelevant, though it was a common courtesy to let the Met know and perhaps in some cases ask if Met officers would undertake the surveillance. Again, it will be seen that this does not indicate the identity of the suspect. What Mr DiPalma seems to be confused about is that the Met would not have asked for the City CID to maintain surveillance on Kosminski. Therefore, we have concluded that the City CID were maintaining surveillance before the identification and this in turn leads to the supposition that the Met snatched Kosminski from under City CID surveillance. However, that City CID were maintaining surveillance actually makes it highly unlikely that the witness was Lawende. The suspect was taken for identification by the Metropolitan Police. Lawende was the witness to a crime in City Police jurisdiction. By taking the suspect to be identified by a City witness, the Met would have been solving a City crime - where would the kudos have been in doing that? And wouldn't the City CID have had their own suspect identified by their own witness? And if we accept the "snatched" theory favoured by Mr DiPalma and myself, identifying Lawende as the witness presents us with the bizarre situation of the Metropolitan Police snatching a City suspect in a crime committed in the City and having him identified by a City witness! As for the identification in 1895 reported by the Pall Mall Gazette, it is a very strong point against it being "a definitely ascertained fact" that Anderson's suspect was Jack the Ripper - as, indeed, does all the evidence of a continuing Ripper investigation post-1891. But is it sufficient reason for saying that Anderson and Swanson (tacitly) were wrong? I don't think so, especially given the argument suggesting that the identification was not extensively known.
Author: Mark Dooling Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:46 pm
Regarding the identity of the witness at the "Seaside Home" and the argument as to whether it was Schwartz or Lawende: In his message of 25th September to this Conference, Jim DiPalma raises the comment that "...after the identification, the suspect was returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel, which was being watched both night and day by City CID. Since the only one of the Ripper killings which occurred within City Police jurisdiction was that of Kate Eddowes..then City CID would have had no business conducting surveillance in Metropolitan Police territory, watching a suspect in a crime that occurred [in] within Metropolitan jurisdiction." This is a very interesting comment and quite compelling argument. However, it is an argument that I find to be flawed. Surely the police division that was employed for surveillance on a strong SUSPECT would not neccessarily be governed by the locality of a WITNESS or even of the precise offence with which the witness was originally associated, especially considering the nature of the investigation of this particular case which clearly crossed many boundaries? I am not presently in the vicinity of the facts regarding the exact address of Kosminsky himself at this time (or his family) though I will check them forthwith. I am no expert in police practice either at that time or now, but would it not be plausible for the surveillance of Kosminsky to be conducted by the police division in HIS locality regardless of which specific case his witness gave testimony for? Further, on the matter of the witness who identified Grainger. A lot seems to hinge (in Mr. DiPalma's argument) on the newspaper's fleeting mention of the witness's credentials being that he was believed "to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street". Considering that this was reported some years after those credentials were first formed and that, additionally, it is one of the main directives of newspapers to maximise the impact of any given message and that, all cynicism aside, they are not averse to stretching the truth, this is a very weak and certainly inconclusive argument (although clever and well developed) as regards the definite identification of this witness. This topic is one of great interest and I shall follow up my own arguments with direct evidence after further research.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:46 pm
Just for clarification, The City of London Police is a distinct and separate Force from the Metropolitan Police and has jurisdiction within the Square Mile of London - now the business centre. The Metropolitan Police, headquartered at Scotland Yard, have jurisdiction within the rest of London. Outside London the Forces are largely based on counties, .i.e. the West Yorkshire Police, Kent Police and so on. The Metropolitan Police were an area divided into geographical areas called Divisions. The Whitechapel murders largely took place within H Division, though one actually fell within the boundaries of J Division. Eddowes was murdered in the City of London. The point about the surveillance on "Kosminski" is that according to Swanson subsequent to the identification he was returned to his brother's house. If correctly identified as Aaron Kosminski, then the suspect was returned to Whitechapel, in the H Division of the Metropolitan Police. The City could have maintained a surveillance there, though, as said elsewhere, it would have been customary for permission to have been asked of the Met. That permission may have been requested and we certainly have no reason to suppose that it wasn't. However, the presence of City surveillance suggests that "Kosminski" was being watched before the identification. The Met would have maintained surveillance themselves after the ID and there would certainly have been no reason for them to request assistance from the considerably smaller City Force. There is also a possible confirmation of this surveillance from a City Police source: Detective Constable Robert Sagar - described by Major Smith as 'a better or more intelligent officer than Robert Sagar I never had under my command' - is reported as having said that "We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully...after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocoities." This seems to echo Swanson in several respects. Turning briefly to Abberline's reported statement that there was nothing of a tangible nature to support the theory that the Ripper died in an asylum a few years ago, we don't know that this was a reference to Kosminski. In 1898 a newspaper referred to the "asylum at Broadmoor, where Jack the Ripper so recently died." Who was this patient at Broadmoor? We don't know, but could he have been the person referred to by Abberline?
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:46 pm
My point regarding Anderson's whereabouts in 1888 was made in regard to Mr. Begg's assertion that Anderson was arguably one of the best informed officers involved in the investigation. To substantiate his point, Mr. Begg cited a number of different sources from which Anderson received reports that Abberline did not. In refutation of this point, I stated that Anderson was abroad on vacation when the first four canonical victims were killed, and did not return to London until one week after the double event. It is difficult to understand how Anderson could have read the reports from all the sources cited by Mr. Begg and been one of the best informed officers involved in the investigation when he was not even in England at the time. Anderson's whereabouts in 1888 are directly relevant to his ability to remain one of the best informed officers involved in the investigation. They are not relevant to his ability to assess an eyewitness identification in 1891, and I never claimed that they were. I hope this provides sufficient clarification for all concerned. Mr. Begg is correct in pointing out that we don't know why the City CID were maintaining surveillance on Kosminski, that he was suspected of being the Ripper is merely an assumption. However, it is hardly the case that I am "completely wrong here", as this is an assumption with strong foundation. Remember that after Kosminski was taken from under that surveillance and identified, Anderson wrote that as a result of this identification Kosminski's guilt as the Ripper had been "definitely ascertained" and pronounced the case solved. Therefore, it is not exactly groundless speculation that City CID were conducting the surveillance because they suspected Kosminski was the killer of Kate Eddowes, i.e., the Ripper. Mr. Begg wrote: "But even if we assume that they did suspect Kosminski of being the Ripper, the City CID were investigating a crime which had occurred within their jurisdiction, namely the murder of Eddowes, and were at liberty to maintain surveillance on a suspect wherever they liked. That the suspect lived within Metropolitan Police jurisdiction would be irrelevant" We seem to be in violent agreement here, this was exactly my original point. The only plausible reason for City CID to have been conducting surveillance in Met territory would be that they were investigating a crime that had been committed within their jurisdiction, to wit, the Eddowes murder. Having established that Kosminski was the suspect, and the Eddowes murder the crime that was being investigated, it strongly indicates that Lawende was the witness and not Schwartz. However fleeting his look at the suspect, Lawende was a witness to the Eddowes murder, Schwartz was not. Mr. Begg wrote: "By taking the suspect to be identified by a City witness, the Met would have been solving a City crime - where would the kudos have been in doing that?" I'm going to assume Mr. Begg is serious here, and is not joking. It is hardly accurate to refer to a Ripper killing as a "City crime." This series of murders caused substantial public uproar and received considerable attention in the press, both in England and abroad. To have solved these crimes, by whatever means, would have been a major accomplishment for either department, there would have been plenty of "kudos". Mr. Begg continues: "And if we accept the "snatched" theory favoured by Mr DiPalma and myself, identifying Lawende as the witness presents us with the bizarre situation of the Metropolitan Police snatching a City suspect in a crime committed in the City and having him identified by a City witness!" This scenario is only bizarre when viewed within the context of two police departments that were fully cooperative with each other, both during the investigation, and in the years prior. However, the fact is that there was a considerable, long-standing rivalry between the two departments. Viewed in that context, the above scenario becomes considerably less bizarre, and considerably more like a major coup won against a bitter rival. Turning to Mr. Dooley and the issue of the Grainger identification, I am perfectly well aware that newspapers have been known to embellish the truth in order to increase circulation. I am also aware that it is risky to rely on such an uncorroborated newspaper report as a source of historical information. Unfortunately, no such corroborative material seems to exist - the information I have is that no police files regarding this incident are known to exist. As to Mr. Dooley's point that my arguement was weak and inconclusive, I concede that it is based on an extremely literal interpretation of a source that has not been substantiated. However, I would point out that newspaper reports are not written metaphorically, or with heavy doses of symbolism. They are, ostensibly, factual reports of actual events. Again, the lack of corroborative material is a problem - since we have no additional information with which to evaluate the veracity of the report, we are faced with the choice of literal interpretation, or ignoring the source entirely. If Mr. Dooley has or knows of such a source, that either substantiates or refutes my interpretation, I would be most pleased if he would provide it.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:47 pm
I originally observed that Kosminski was distinguished from other suspects by the authority of Anderson and Swanson, who I said were the most senior and arguably the best informed officers involved in the Ripper investigation. Mr DiPalma disagreed, saying that the duties of Anderson and Swanson were largely clerical and with this I agreed, acknowledging that Abberline's "hands on" experience would have far exceeded Anderson's personal knowledge, but I offset this by pointing out that Anderson would have received information from the Divisions, special departments, the City of London Police, the Provincial Forces, Foreign Forces and so on. This information would not have been made available to Abberline and thus Anderson had a better overall view of the investigation as a whole. As Anderson's grasp of the case I directly relevant to how seriously his statement about Kosminski is taken - which was in fact the subject under discussion - it seemed fair to me to ask how Anderson's whereabouts in 1888 were supposed to have a bearing on his ability to assess a suspect in 1891. Let me clarify the situation just a little further. Swanson received reports from a variety of sources. Robert Anderson did not see this material because he was abroad. Abberline did not see it either. On his return from abroad Anderson would have received from Swanson a digest of the murders with relevant medical and witness testimony, the progress of the investigation, what clues had been followed up, what suspects there were and so on. Abberline would not have received this digest. Therefore on his return from abroad, Anderson would have been better informed about the overall progress of the case than would Abberline. Anderson will have received such a digest because it would have been common police prectice, but Anderson states in his autobiography that he spent the day of his return and half the night "reinvestigating the case". Obviously, he cannot have meant that he'd interviewed witnesses, plodded around the murder sites, read every report and seen every document. He clearly meant that he'd been provided with relevant reports given him by Swanson. And Anderson goes on to say that on the day after his return he was told by the Home Secretary: "We hold you responsible to find the murderer", so thereafter Anderson would clearly have had more than a passing involvement in the case. Thus, as time progressed, Anderson would have been completely up to speed on the course of the investigation, receiving reports from Swanson, who retained a special responsibility for the Ripper inquiry for several years to come. Abberline, of course, did not continue to have an involvement in the case. In 1889, for example, he took charge of the Cleveland Street case. It is manifestly clear, therefore, that Anderson would have had a better grasp of the investigation overall than would Abberline - which, of course, isn't to say that either Anderson or Swanson had Abberline's first hand experience of Whitechapel and when some specific question concerning detail was requested, as it was by the Home Secretary, Abberline was consulted directly. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Abberline was as informed about the case in general as were Anderson and Swanson). I hope this clarifies the point. To briefly touch on some other points: I did not say that Mr DiPalma was wrong in surmising that the police were maintaining surveillance on Kosminski because they suspected him of being Jack the Ripper. The section is said was wrong was clearly quoted and it is wrong. The City CID could maintain surveillance on a suspect in a City crime wherever they liked. That the suspect happened to live within Metropolitan Police jurisdiction has no direct bearing on the identity of the witness. It is also by no means certain - and certainly hasn't been established - that the City CID were maintaining surveillance on Kosminski because they thought him guilty of the murder of Eddowes. For all we know the Met may have been investigating the threat to Kosminski made to the life of his sister, as reported by Jacob Cohen of Carter Lane (which was in the City). And I was not joking when I described the murder of Eddowes as a City crime or when I asked what kudos there would have been for the Met. Strictly speaking, had the City CID picked up someone suspected of having committed one of the pre-Eddowes murders then they would have passed that suspect over to the Metropolitan Police because the murders were not within their jurisdiction. It will therefore be appreciated that the Eddowes murder, not being within the jurisdiction of the Met, was a City crime. The point is that if the Met picked up Kosminski and demonstrated that he'd murdered Eddowes, they'd have had to pass the case over to the City for charges to be brought and the case prosecuted. The only exception would be if they were able to show, either through evidence or a confession, that Kosmnski had also committed murders within Met jurisdiction. They may indeed have hoped to do this. We don't know, but consider the unholy uproar the City Force would justifiably have caused about the Met interfering with a City CID surveillance operation? Consider, too, whether Anderson would have morally sanctioned such an action (it's doubtful that he would). And isn't it reasonable to suppose that the City, if they did suspect Kosminski of being the Ripper, would have had him identified by their own witness? And finally Schwartz actually best fits Anderson's description of the witness as being the only person ever to have had a good view of the murderer.
Author: Andrew Lorne Morrison Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:47 pm
Reading Paul Begg and Koji's debate over Kosminski and the question of Anderson and Swanson being more informed about the case than Abberline has reminded me of a suggestion I read somewhere. Basically it went like this. Through the police grapevine Abberline hears that some of his superiors suspect a man with a surname K...SKI has something to do with the Ripper murders. Abberline comes to the conclusion that this man is S A KlosowSKI aka George Chapman thus when Godley arrests Chapman he makes the comment about having caught JTR at last. However, the real suspect was KosminSKI. If this is the case then Abberline is actually supporting Swanson and Anderson and Mr Begg and Koji et al are arguing over nothing !
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:48 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr.Morrison that the argument is essentially over nothing. The fact is that both Abberline and Swanson were very well-informed policemen. Abberline would have been far better informed about Whitechapel (as far as I know Swanson never set foot there!), but Swanson would have possessed a better overview of the investigation and would almost certainly have been party to information, theories and details which Abberline was not. And any well-informed contemporary police testimony is important and valuable. What distinguishes Kosminski from other suspects, in my opinion, is Anderson's thrice stated view that the Ripper's identity was known. As for Mr. Morrison's succinct outline of the idea that Abberline knew about a K-something-ski suspect, that theory poses one or two problems but the parallels between George Chapman and Aaron Kosminski are quite remarkable - not the least being that both were hairdressers. both lived within a street or two of one another, both had K-something-ski names.
Author: Scott Nelson Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:48 pm
MARK KING (RIPPERANA NO. 15, JAN. 1996) HAS FOUND A KOZMINSKI FAMILY RESIDING IN WHITECHAPPEL IN 1891 AT 76 BRUNSWICK BUILDINGS, GOULSTON STREET (WHERE A PIECE OF EDDOWES BLOOD-STAINED APRON WAS FOUND). AMONG THE CENSUS, ONE ISAAC KOZMINSKI, 43, BOOT AND SHOE MAKER, BORN POLAND. REMEMBER SWANSON NEVER WROTE THE FIRST NAME OF KOZMINSKI ON HIS MARGINALIA NOTES OF ANDERSON'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. IT IS AGAIN THROUGH MACNAUGHTON THAT WE ARE GIVEN A FULLER DESCRIPTION OF KOZMINSKI, BUT STILL NO FIRST NAME IS GIVEN. HE MAY HAVE BEEN A HARMLESS LUNATIC THAT WAS SET UP AS A FALL GUY FOR SOME MORE SINISTER KOZMINSKI CLAN MEMBER. REMEMBER THE CONFUSION ABOUT AARON'S AGE, DATES OF VARIOUS INCARCERATIONS AND HIS IDENTIFICATION BY A WITNESS. COULD THE WITNESS HAVE BEEN BRIBED? MAYBE HE WAS A KOZMINSKI FAMILY MEMBER. THE KEY TO ALL THIS IS MACNAUGHTON AND HIS THREE PRINCIPLE SUSPECTS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EXTENDED AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS OR FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES OF THE SUSPECTS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED MORE THOROUGHLY. INFORMATION WAS FILTERED AS IT CAME DOWN TO MACNAUGHTON, BUT HE WAS PROBABLY VERY CLOSE TO THE PATH OF THE REAL RIPPER, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS FOCUSING ELSEWHERE.
Author: Scott A. Munro Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:49 pm
Kosminski is the best suspect so far named. There is no solid evidence that Kosminski was the Ripper. In these two statements lies ripperology's problem: there is not one single suspect against whom we have decent evidence. If Kosminski was identified at the Seaside Home, then the identification took place more than a year, possibly as long as two years, after the witness saw the Ripper briefly. If the witness was a stranger to Kosminski, then the identification is worthless. I notice that there has been no speculation regarding Joseph Hyam Levy or the possible connection between Aaron Kosminski and Martin Kosminski (has this idea been shot down?). If there is a connection between the two Kosminskis, that would change the complexion of the debate. If the witness personally knew Kosminski, then that witness's identification of Kosminski should be given great weight. Certainly the opinions of Swanson and Anderson must be taken into account, but without knowing what evidence (other than the identification) they based their opinions on, we cannot tell what weight they should be given. Indeed, how solid could the other evidence have been, given that it was not sufficient to allow the police to charge Kosminski with the crimes? We must also take into account the fact that only Swanson and Anderson (that we know of) were of the opinion that Kosminski was the Ripper. Other policemen were of other opinions. Yes, Kosminski is the best suspect we have. But that isn't saying much. Personally, I think it is more likely than not that the Ripper's identity will never be proven.
Author: David A. Radka Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:49 pm
I've been reading Ripper materials for some years, and worry about Kosminski before falling asleep. While Begg's referee discovery seems compelling, on the one hand, I can't square it with Dr. Houchin's synopsis on the certification recommendation, on the other. A man who chooses to eat exclusively from the gutter and says he hears voices telling him where everyone is all the time doesn't sound like someone a prostitute could take seriously, especially in the midst of the Ripper scare. I'd think she'd run away just at the sight of him, if she weren't completely stupid. There are some psychologically-different people living in my little town who aren't nearly as possessed as Houchin describes Kosminski, yet they're obviously unusual and unreliable-appearing. I'd think you'd have to be entirely passable, socially, for a streetwalker to let herself take you to her secret place, where the police won't be able to see what's happening. Could someone like Aaron Kosminski accomplish this? On the other hand, there have always been people involuntarily confined to mental institutions who really aren't crazy--there are many ways this can happen, and perhaps it was more common back then when medical causality was sometimes conceived backwards. Maybe Kosminski's relatives discovered he was the Ripper and, to protect themselves from ethnically-biased public stigma, told Dr. Houchin stories about him being crazy, just to get him committed and out of their lives. But this seems like a desperate, unlikely ploy, since Kosminski could spoil their game at any time by confessing to the murders.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:50 pm
What we know of Aaron Kosminski's mental condition is derived from documents relating to his admission to the asylum in 1892 and do not tell us anything about his mental state in 1888. Although he would obviously have been insane and recognised as such by his family in 1888, he may have presented a harmless appearance to strangers. I cannot speak with authority, but my understanding is that if Kosminski was prevented from continuing to kill his mental state would have deteriorated rapidly. Maybe that is what happened. As far as Kosminski confessing to the murders is concerned, perhaps he did. The asylum papers are in fact bi-annual reports on his physical health and there are no references to anything he hallucinated or anything of that sort. If he'd confessed daily to the Ripper murders, the confession wouldn't have been noted in the surviving papers - and, given that we're told he was largely incoherent and otherwise spoke Yiddish or German in the asylum - would any of his carers have been able to understand him?
Author: Terry Heaps Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:50 pm
Hello Stephen, further on the subject of "Jack" one has to firmly imprint in his mind that the person who perpetrated the atrocities on Mary Kelly had literally to be out of his tree!!(A stark lunatic) his mind oblivious of anything normal... With that imprinted on the mind, we can assure ourselves that we were not dealing with anyone who was educated, or anyone who "thought" out the crimes, but just someone who hated Prostitutes (possibly instilled at a very early age) and who was very lucky in his escapes...Knowing that every eye around him was "watching" I still say it was Kosminski - early thirties, fit, sexually inadequate,thinking he was doing his "brotherhood" (Judaism) a favour by eliminating this scourge.. Judaism detested Prostitution.... In McNaughten's notes a sincere witness placed Kosminski at the scene of the second victim within ten minutes, but being Jewish later recanted against Kosminski... therefore, no case. Kosminski however was found to be insane and sent to Coney Hatch Lunatic Asylum.. He plunged to the depths of insanity in Coney Hatch and lived out his tortured existence..
Author: SKeenan Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:51 pm
As a recently induced ripper-addict, I've been trained to think that JTR looked normal, even respectable. I was told to laugh at the feelings of JTR's contemporaries' that said to watch out for raving madmen. But shouldn't somebody take these feelings into account when discussing Aaron Kosminski? People were looking to the mentally unstable for a possible suspect. Faced with this, wouldn't somebody notice this guy? Even if Kosminski was not "raving," wouldn't somebody have taken note of any of his irregular habits (being insane he would undoubtably had some). And being Jewish would have been another strike against him. Those door to door searches certainly would have revealed the name "Kosminski" well before more murders occurred, if anyone even had an inkling that he might have committed the crimes. My question, then, is if the police had so much "evidence" (Mr. Begg) against Kosminski, and he fit the mental description of JTR that Whitechapel's populace held, then why wasn't he picked up and interrogated until, what, 2 years later? Were there so many others in Whitechapel like him that the police did not get around to him until then? No, I think the police did not feel he was a viable suspect until he went practically delirious with insanity, when they could then offer him as a scapegoat for the crimes to their various biographers at the end of their lives. Mentioned above, I'm of the mind that Jack was of a stable mind (until he had his victims alone), and respectable appearance. I don't believe Kosminski, insane as he was in 1888, could have been capable of conversing with prostitutes (as Jack undoubtably did), without jumping and killing the object of his hatred right in front eye-witnesses. If anything, Kosminski sounds like the guy Schwartz saw attacking Liz Stride (not suggesting that he actually was)--pulling her into the street and attacking. Of course, that's if he was in fact so inclined to attack prostitutes. No, I don't think Kosminski was the Ripper.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:52 pm
"No, I think the police did not feel he was a viable suspect until he went practically delirious with insanity, when they could then offer him as a scapegoat for the crimes to their various biographers at the end of their lives." Which biographers? The Polish Jew is mentioned in the autobiography of Sir Robert Anderson and by name as Kosminski in some pencilled marginalia notes by Chief Superintendent Swanson that were never intended for publication and remained wholly unknown until 1987. Even if one were prepared to accept that Anderson sought some sort of kudos, what possible benefit would Swanson have derived from deceiving himself? No, the fact that Swanson didn't disagree with Anderson or observe that Anderson was writing a load of twaddle, forces us, I think, to accept that both men genuinely believed that Kosminski was the Ripper. They may have been wrong, but I don't buy the idea that they were self-deceivers. Also, consider that Anderson made other startling admissions in his autobiography and these were true, why assume that what he had to say about the Ripper was untrue.
Author: SKeenan Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:52 pm
The point I was trying to make is that if Kosminski was a Jewish lunatic in 1888 (which is what much of the public felt-or hoped-Jack was), why didn't somebody connect him to the murders then, instead of two years later? Maybe, I suggest, it's because the police had no reason to suspect Kosminski--there not being any substantial evidence against him until they discovered the madman later. The police could then say he was in Whitechapel at the time of the murders (who'd argue with them-no proof otherwise). Armed with the public assumption that JTR was a lunatic, they could put two and two together (a lunatic in Whitechapel) and proclaim that they knew it all along. Of course, if anyone can find proof of a connection between Kosminski and the murders, I would re-evaluate my opinion.
Author: SKeenan Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:53 pm
Yes, but my point was that we don't know that Aaron Kosminski was obviously insane in 1888, so there may not have been any reason for the police to suspect him at that time. But suspicion DID fall on him two years later when he was taken for the eye-witness identification, and at that time the police must have had some sort of evidence against him, otherwise why would they have suspected him? Furthermore, Kosminski was named publicly named. Anderson only referred to a Polish Jew.
Author: SKeenan Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:53 pm
Picture this scenario: the police, still with no leads to go on two years after the murders, suddenly find a madman named Aaron Kosminski. They can't precisely say where he was during the murders, or if he had any connection to the crimes whatsoever. But he is a madman found in the area. Based on only this, and desperate to get something on Kosminski, the police make the trek to the eyewitness with their "suspect" and ask if he (Kosminski) was the man the eyewitness saw in the dark two years previously. The police only bring one suspect to show to their witness, giving him the impression that the police have found their man and that they only need a simple I.D. to solidify their case. The eyewitness (was it Lawende?)--as eager to end his connection with the case as the police are--responds and faintly affirms that it might have been Kosminski whom he saw that night two years ago. Boom! The police have their verification, Kosminski can be shuttled off to an asylum and the case can be un-officially closed. This is the reason no more evidence has come up in recent times implicating Kosminski. The police did not have any reports of Kosminski at or around the murder sites, or any other evidence against him. This set-up eye-witness report was all that the police had. They knew it, and that's why Kosminski's viability as the murderer was never released to the public. Now this scenario is just as likely to have occured as the one that suggests that there's a wealth of police evidence against Kosminski that researchers just haven't found yet, isn't it?
Author: A. Tilney Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:54 pm
Personally I think the 'Swanson Marginalia' is suspect. It was found at a very convenient time, just before the centenery, the owner tried to get cash for it, and the writing in pencil could be anyone's.
Author: Chris George Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:55 pm
Hi, Paul: I have to agree with S. Keenan to the extent that the police suspects named in reminiscences and marginalia are unsatisfactory in that those notes are so contradictory. While the notes of the policemen are interesting and give us leads, I am not sure where they leave us unless we have other concrete evidence that would lead us to believe that the men named could indeed have been Jack the Ripper. I get the sense as I think S. Keenan does that there is a certain arrogance here, "Aha, we've solved the case--this is the answer," when the case is not solved at all. Just my thoughts. Chris George