Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I'm sure the press would have appreciated a little consistency.

    But at what point could the decision makers have decided to break the news that they all agreed on the solution/suspect?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      I read Swanson's words as implying the suspect was taken to Stepney Workhouse by another authority. Earlier, in the same paragraph Swanson tells us the police "sent" the suspect to the Seaside Home ("sent by us with difficulty"). So when he next uses "sent", he doesn't identify by whom.
      What does 'difficulty' mean, in this context?
      Does it mean; He wouldn't willingly admit himself to a mental asylum, so we has to drag him there, kicking and screaming

      Why not just arrest him for the crimes?
      They may not have a lot of evidence against him, but how much evidence is required for a murder conviction, in an age before human rights?
      He was probably average height or a bit under, wore a peaked cap, and looked foreign, and that quite tallies with the descriptions Mr Abberline got of 'him', by all the people that agreed they saw Jack the Ripper .... from behind.
      The only discrepancy was that he was about 15 years too young, but's it's easy to misjudge age from a back view.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #78
        "Difficulty" could mean dragging an unwilling prisoner or it could mean the red tape they had to go through.

        They could have charged him but I would think you would need eyewitness testimony to convict him. Now if it was Lawende all the defense attorney has to say is how long did you look at the defendant when you saw him on the street? How far away were you from him? Was it night time? How long a period was it before you identified him while in police custody? I think it would be pretty easy to shred that testimony.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          What does 'difficulty' mean, in this context?
          Does it mean; He wouldn't willingly admit himself to a mental asylum, so we has to drag him there, kicking and screaming
          I think you are using the wrong "sent" the word was used twice by Swanson.
          The suspect was "sent by us with difficulty" to the Seaside Home for the identification.
          However, this same suspect was then "sent" to Stepney Assylum, but Swanson doesn't say with/by whom.

          Why not just arrest him for the crimes?
          Because to arrest someone they have to be charged with something.
          Stewart Evans once said that a lunatic cannot be charged with anything as a lunatic cannot be expected to provide a reasonable defense.
          A person can be detained without being arrested/charged with anything.
          A suspect would be detained until a qualified doctor was available to make an assessment of his mental fitness, it is this doctor who would determine him to be a lunatic, or send him to an asylum for a more qualified determination.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #80
            "....after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspects return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse..."

            Those are Swanson's words.
            The fact the suspect was sent with his hands tied, and not in police cuffs suggests some other authority was responsible for this move - like medical staff?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #81
              Just having a second thought here...

              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Stewart Evans once said that a lunatic cannot be charged with anything as a lunatic cannot be expected to provide a reasonable defense.
              I'm just wondering if Stewart might actually have said - "a lunatic cannot stand trial", because he obviously cannot defend himself. But in this case as Kozminski was clearly & visibly unbalanced, they likely wouldn't have charged him with anything knowing it wouldn't stick. So, detaining him while a doctor is available is the most obvious course of action, which amounts to the same thing. The doctor orders him taken to an asylum for assessment.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #82
                I believe "Kosminski" was arrested as a lunatic wandering at large (either at his brother's house or on the street) and brought to the workhouse by a P.C. I don't know why his hands were tied instead of using another means of restraint.

                He could have been sent to the workhouse for a final evaluation before deeming him insane and bound for the asylum.
                Last edited by Scott Nelson; 04-03-2020, 09:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  I believe "Kosminski" was arrested as a lunatic wandering at large (either at his brother's house or on the street) and brought to the workhouse by a P.C. I don't know why his hands were tied instead of using another means of restraint.

                  He could have been sent to the workhouse for a final evaluation before deeming him insane and bound for the asylum.
                  Are you saying "wandering as a lunatic" is a charge?

                  British law divides crime into Felony at the high end - most serious, down to Misdemeanor for nuisance-type crimes. I guess Stewart was assuming Felony, as opposed to Misdemeanor.
                  I guess if you're deemed to be a lunatic and you were found wandering in the street, there's no real defense there.
                  Was he arrested, or summonsed?
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Whether it w as a charge,would depend on the wording of the law,and the policeman's interpretation of that wording.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      "Difficulty" could mean dragging an unwilling prisoner or it could mean the red tape they had to go through.

                      They could have charged him but I would think you would need eyewitness testimony to convict him. Now if it was Lawende all the defense attorney has to say is how long did you look at the defendant when you saw him on the street? How far away were you from him? Was it night time? How long a period was it before you identified him while in police custody? I think it would be pretty easy to shred that testimony.

                      c.d.
                      On the contrary, I think Pipeman got a good view of him - good enough to realize he was looking at someone he knew.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        I think you are using the wrong "sent" the word was used twice by Swanson.
                        The suspect was "sent by us with difficulty" to the Seaside Home for the identification.
                        However, this same suspect was then "sent" to Stepney Assylum, but Swanson doesn't say with/by whom.
                        Words like 'sent' and 'difficulty' are being used by people like Swanson, to further there own interests.
                        What is Kosminski's side of the story?
                        Why is his first name never used - is it too keep his identity mostly hidden, so that no pressman will ever know who talk to, to get a second opinion?

                        Because to arrest someone they have to be charged with something.
                        Stewart Evans once said that a lunatic cannot be charged with anything as a lunatic cannot be expected to provide a reasonable defense.
                        A person can be detained without being arrested/charged with anything.
                        A suspect would be detained until a qualified doctor was available to make an assessment of his mental fitness, it is this doctor who would determine him to be a lunatic, or send him to an asylum for a more qualified determination.
                        This label of 'lunatic' is very convenient and self-serving.
                        They don't have enough evidence to arrest him other than a few 'circs', so they have classified as lunatic instead, which metaphorically ties their own hands, thus providing an excuse for not having caught the Ripper.

                        It's all about excuses - the other whopper being those recalcitrant 'low-class Polish Jews', who just refuse to testify against one of their own.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          On the contrary, I think Pipeman got a good view of him - good enough to realize he was looking at someone he knew.
                          So you think Schwartz was telling the truth?
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Are you saying "wandering as a lunatic" is a charge?...
                            Was he arrested, or summonsed?
                            If he resisted arrest or a summons, he was -- arrested. And I'd say he was arrested -- brought to the workhouse by a P.C. under restraint. The thing one has to consider is that if Kosminski was arrested, how does it fit into Swanson's timeline? He was, after all a Ripper suspect. Was he arrested before being sent to the Seaside Home? Was he arrested immediately after the Identification attempt? Or after being confined to his brother's house, but before being taken to the workhouse? Maybe just before he was confined in Colney Hatch?

                            Just so there's no modern confusion here, I'm saying that Aaron Davis(d) Cohen makes a better fit than the enfeebled former hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski (because Cohen's European name could have been "Kosminski."

                            With apologies to Simon Wood for my stubborn belief that Swanson believed what he wrote in the Marginalia.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              So you think Schwartz was telling the truth?
                              Other than the time, the location, the identity of the woman, the identity of the first man, and the omission of a crucial detail, yes.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                                If he resisted arrest or a summons, he was -- arrested. And I'd say he was arrested -- brought to the workhouse by a P.C. under restraint. The thing one has to consider is that if Kosminski was arrested, how does it fit into Swanson's timeline? He was, after all a Ripper suspect. Was he arrested before being sent to the Seaside Home? Was he arrested immediately after the Identification attempt? Or after being confined to his brother's house, but before being taken to the workhouse? Maybe just before he was confined in Colney Hatch?

                                Just so there's no modern confusion here, I'm saying that Aaron Davis(d) Cohen makes a better fit than the enfeebled former hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski (because Cohen's European name could have been "Kosminski."

                                With apologies to Simon Wood for my stubborn belief that Swanson believed what he wrote in the Marginalia.
                                As I have said before the content of the marginalia is questionable as is who penned it, but when you analyse this particular aspect of it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

                                Looking closely at what is recorded in the marginalia, and the relevant points and I am going to play devils, advocate.

                                If this ID did take place and a positive ID took place lets look at the police actions thereafter and we have to ask could there be any truth in what their actions were as recorded

                                1. According to what is written a positive ID was made and the killer identified. I would imagine the rules of evidence regarding ID were not as strict as they are today.
                                Firstly whoever the witness was if there ever was a witness, would have first made an initial written statement to the police about what or who he saw for the police
                                to be able to use him on an ID parade with a suspect

                                2. Having made that statement the witness would still have been summoned at any subsequent trial even if he chose not to say anything about the Id parade. see police codes

                                In all cases where a person is committed for trial, the prosecutor and every witness is bound over, by recognisance, to prosecute and give evidence. A witness refusing to be so bound may be committed for safe custody until the trial.

                                If a witness disobeys a summons, and no just excuse is offered for the neglect or refusal, after proof of its due service, a warrant may be issued, to bring and have such person at the appointed time and place ;

                                or if even in the first instance a Justice is satisfied by evidence, upon oath or affirmation, that it is probable such person will not attend to give evidence without being compelled to do so, a warrant may be issued instead of a summons.

                                If any witness upon whom a summons or warrant has been served refuses to be examined upon oath or affirmation, or refuses to answer questions put to him, he may be committed to prison.


                                3. A police officer would have been present when the Id parade took place and would have observed and noted down the positive Id made. and those officers could have given evidence at any subsequent trial. Police codes "A witness is not allowed to give evidence of what another person (except the prisoner) has said, unless it was said in the presence of the prisoner" which in the case of an Id parade back then would have been.

                                When ad ID Parade takes place as in 1888 the police officer present would ask the witness something along the lines of " Can you make a positive identification of the man you saw................................. both the question and the reply would be noted down and produced in court.

                                4. As to what happened after the ID is incomprehensible- The police had positive proof that the killer had been identified and on the strength of that Id parade and they, therefore, had sufficient evidence to charge, irrespective of what went on at a later stage in the proceedings.

                                5, But no we are asked to believe that they simply returned him back to his home address and did nothing thereafter!

                                6. Even if they did not want to charge him, they surely had sufficient to detain him under the Lunacy act to prevent him being able to go out and commit any more crimes, because if they were then watching him I am sure they wouldn't have told him of that fact as they would have wanted to see what he did thereafter

                                So for those who think the marginalia is a to be totally relied on, I would urge them to rethink.

                                And concluding on that last sentence

                                Magnaghten who was Swansons immediate superior makes no mention of such an important fact on the Ripper murders in neither of the two versions of the marginalia. despite mentioning the name Kosminski as a likely suspect!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X