Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

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

  • #91
    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?
    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.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #92
      Hi Scott,

      Apologies accepted.

      On what is your belief in Swanson based?

      Stay safe.

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        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?

        Comment


        • #94
          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
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

            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.




            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

              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

              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-05-2020, 07:22 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                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.

                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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.
                Last edited by Scott Nelson; 04-05-2020, 07:15 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    If Swanson didn't pen the marginalia, is the reference to the 'seaside home' weirdly specific? Kosminski, yeah, could have come from a book, the lunatic theory etc, but why place an identification at the seaside home?
                    Them's the vagaries.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      If Swanson didn't pen the marginalia, is the reference to the 'seaside home' weirdly specific? Kosminski, yeah, could have come from a book, the lunatic theory etc, but why place an identification at the seaside home?
                      Because the term "seaside home" could not be disproved especially if it was made up!

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Because the term "seaside home" could not be disproved especially if it was made up!

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Huh?
                        Doesn't the fact it was made up demonstrate it is false?

                        Personally, I think he might have confused it with the Sailors Home, in the East End, but that's another story.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                          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.
                          In answer to your questions

                          Yes, there was probably a written record that has not survived. It is unknown how the 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.

                          It seems as if you are looking for excuses not to accept what the procedures dictated as I have set them out. The police would need a witness statement from the witness before they would consider an ID parade and that statement would have to have had some evidential value i.e what the witness saw or heard concerning one or more of the murders. The witness would be asked to give a statement from that it would be determined the evidential value of that statement and whether or not it was worth forming an ID parade.

                          How they contacted the witness is academic because if we are to believe the marginalia they did contact him and he attended the ID parade

                          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.

                          The police were investigating a series of horrific murders they were only interested in finding the killer whether that killer was a Jew, or an Afganistan fire worshipper would not matter one bit if they got their man

                          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.

                          Where did you get this from?

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

                          But it was the Met who seemingly conducted this according to what is written

                          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).

                          I have already explained the procedures

                          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.

                          But according to what is written they didn’t do that they took him back to his home address

                          "...and he knew he was identified."
                          Yes because he would have heard the witness identify him

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

                          But the MM is also unsafe to rely on there is no evidence to corroborate this

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Huh?
                            Doesn't the fact it was made up demonstrate it is false?

                            Personally, I think he might have confused it with the Sailors Home, in the East End, but that's another story.
                            You could be right, but it still doesn't explain why such an important alleged event in the murder investigation was never mentioned by MM especially when he has taken the trouble to list Kosminski as a likely suspect in two versions of his memo. They were clearly not all singing from the same song sheet.

                            Even if the venue was the sailors home and not a seaside home all the police procedures regarding ID parades and hearsay evidence would still have applied.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • I don't disagree with your general point, that the Marginalia is not to be trusted, of course it could be full of errors, they are reflections on events from long ago.
                              I'm not a fan of memoirs in general, be it Anderson, Dew, Reid or Smith or anyone writing about what they did 20-30+ years ago.
                              Memoirs can't be trusted and shouldn't be used to back up a theory.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                Memoirs can't be trusted and shouldn't be used to back up a theory.
                                I suppose the caveat should be "without other corroborating evidence", which is what's entirely missing with all these memoirs. As Trevor says, they're clearly not singing from the same sheet. So, can we conclude that there was a conspiracy, engineered across departments from working Bobbies up to the most senior level, where they each pulled a suspects name at random from a peaked cap and co-operated thereafter to mislead the inquisitive while protecting their inside knowledge, or, as I suspect, they didn't have a clue?
                                Personally, I like to believe the Swanson Marginalia is genuine. That doesn't make it correct. It's an insight into his recollections, but a solution to the problem it ain't. Does make you wonder about the name Kosminski though. Mentioned by Swanson and McNaughten (who wasn't there at the time, I know), but still not matching up factually? Although it would make Swanson a reasonable candidate for sourcing the MM.
                                Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 04-06-2020, 07:35 AM. Reason: Repetition of the word "level".
                                Them's the vagaries.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X