Oops I think I am getting old and daft !
Nah don't believe that. Just one of those typos I could tell you how many times I right my birth year instead of the current year when it's my birthday or the year we got married instead of the current year on our wedding anniversary. Sort of thing that's easy to do, and then you remember when it was 1964 and you wrote 1964 (at least I do, sort of) but hopefully never wrote 1864 in 1864.
If you get me drift.
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Mcnaughten,Swanson, Anderson had all those years to write about the big evidence against kosminski and they return back to solitary vice, eating from the gutter,etc.,all of which are not crimes and has nothing to do with kosminski as a murderer.It's plain to see that they had nothing strong.
Pulling a knife on his sister is far away from being a murderer.
On Anderson's "he was positively idenified",it has to be known what was the basis,did the witness specifically saidI recognize him but would not identify him because he was a jew?
Was it a tell/hunch/interpretaion ,did the witnes's demeanor changed when looking at one suspect but would not identify him ,did the witness not
able to identify the suspect in the first place and was reluctant to identify the suspect,because even though he was somewhat similar,he cold not identify anybody in the first place.
Until then it can't be used against Kosminski,if he was indeed in the Seaside ID or anybody.
There is no choice but to label kosminski innocent.