Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[Scott Nelson]

The key to all this as I've said before is the timeline of events -- when was Kosminski certified insane? He could have been arrested at any time previous to this. A lunatic wandering the streets may only be a nuisance, but they could be forcefully removed if they resisted.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Trevor. Thanks so much for your insights into the police procedures of the day. I'm not very well versed in this stuff, but I made a go of it anyway with my responses.

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

Yes, there was probably a written record that has not survived. It is unknown how police contacted the witness. A friend or acquaintance could have told someone what the witness saw, but the witness would only admit to recognizing the 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.

In the case of Jack the Ripper the witness had to be treated very carefully because of the perception of anti-Semitism should he be jailed.

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.

Henry Smith questioned the witness before the identification to see if it was worth the effort to sanction the proceeding. He concluded that it was not, but likely bowed to pressure from the MET Police anyway.

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.

If the City of London Police conducted the proceeding, that documentation, as noted above, was lost.

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.

As I said, I think the police had to tread very carefully -- this was no ordinary case. Jewish suspect. Jewish witness. The refusal of the witness to provide further evidence -- like what he actually saw the suspect doing -- wouldn't be enough to charge him (Something along the lines of what Anderson said).

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

Here I think his Jewish family intervened and reached a deal with police to have him evaluated. When it became apparent the suspect was insane, he was confined in the asylum. That's all they could do at that point.

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

"...and he knew he was identified."

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!

Macnaghten does mention the City PC witness near Mitre Square, so this indicates he may have been aware of some sort of identification proceeding.

I'm sure there are contradictions and anomalies in the above replies as a result of my lack of understanding police procedures, but I don't think things were done following the book in this case.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Marginalia were private notes, or jottings written by the man who was in overall charge of the ground investigation. If he didn't believe in what he wrote, why not say so? And why would he lie to himself if he believed otherwise? And the bit about the suspect dying shortly after being locked away is repeated at least 15 years earlier, 1895, one year after Kosminski's name is mentioned by Macnaghten in his Memorandum. I guess its a personal assessment, but I think it must be the truth as Swanson saw it on or after 1910."

What is contained in the marginalia and how it is set out clearly suggests that Swanson may not have even penned it. It is not factually or evidentially correct, and for someone who had been so heavily involved makes it even more suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

No, I was referring to the suspect having his hands tied behind his back, according to Swanson. I don't think this was the same man that was caught walking an unmuzzled dog.

Ok, so you assume the police did not use their cuffs?
I tend to think if he was in cuffs that is what would have been written ("in cuffs"), which would imply he was sent from a police station to the Stepney Workhouse.
Yet, if this suspect had been brought to one institution by a relative, if deemed insane he would likely be moved in a straight-jacket. His hands strapped behind his back. We can't be sure of course, its just the choice of words lends itself to that interpretation.

In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse..."

It would help if we knew from where.

We know Kozminski was brought to the Mile End Workhouse by a brother, and that institution was in Stepney, this was the Stepney Workhouse by the time Swanson made those notes. At least, according to Rob House.
Having his hands tied behind his back also is consistent with some home-made type of restraint; rope, belt or string, whatever came to hand.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

I would agree with you if I believed that D.S.S. had penned [or pencilled] the marginalia, or that Robert Anderson was not a liar of the first order.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, the dog incident. ...I am equally sure Swanson was only elaborating on the beliefs of his friend & superior. He was not clarifying his own personal beliefs - meaning, Kozminski was Anderson's suspect, not Swanson's.

No, I was referring to the suspect having his hands tied behind his back, according to Swanson. I don't think this was the same man that was caught walking an unmuzzled dog.

Hi Simon,

The Marginalia were private notes, or jottings written by the man who was in overall charge of the ground investigation. If he didn't believe in what he wrote, why not say so? And why would he lie to himself if he believed otherwise? And the bit about the suspect dying shortly after being locked away is repeated at least 15 years earlier, 1895, one year after Kosminski's name is mentioned by Macnaghten in his Memorandum. I guess its a personal assessment, but I think it must be the truth as Swanson saw it on or after 1910."


But you may be right. The subterfuge advocates (different policemen saying different things about the killer's identity) often neglect to mention Insp. Edmund Reid's later denouncement of Anderson's Polish Jew suspect ("that I challenge him to prove"), and so on. Why would a former Police Inspector under Anderson contradict him and openly challenge him like that unless there was some widespread alterior motive?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Apologies accepted.

On what is your belief in Swanson based?

Stay safe.

Simon

[Wickerman]

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?

Yes, the dog incident. If I'm not mistaken being charged with 'walking an unmuzzled dog in public' would be a misdemeanor, which is why he was only issued with a summonze to appear in court, after which he complied. He did not resist arrest as far as records show.
This was December 1889 and there doesn't appear to be any suggestion in the press account of Kozminski being "of unsound mind" at this point, certainly not visibly of Lunatic status.

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

I'm sure he did, but I am equally sure Swanson was only elaborating on the beliefs of his friend & superior. He was not clarifying his own personal beliefs - meaning, Kozminski was Anderson's suspect, not Swanson's.

[Trevor Marriott]

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!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[Scott Nelson]

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.

[Wickerman]

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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

"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.

[harry]

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