Did Anderson Know

[Stewart P Evans]

Answer

Stewart,
Do any annotations by "DSS" appear elsewhere in Swanson's copy of the Anderson book, or are they confined only to p. 138 and the back? I'd be interested to know.

Gareth, I think that I phtographed only one other non-related marginal note and that wasn't initialled. As for the others, I don't recall, but I am sure someone must know the answer to that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Bow Out

Stewart,
My claim over too much emphasis being placed on a 1908 interview was aimed primarily at Natalie. She stated "it appears from this that Anderson only discovered Kosminski was his man, a little before his 1910 autobiography was published-otherwise why continue to talk about their failure to catch the Ripper?"
A game of semantics is going on in with these Anderson interviews and posts on this thread. At no point was JtR caught and convicted. But a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was caged and identified(assuming JtR was Kosminski).

I don't quite know what you are referring to as 'a game of semantics'. What is certain is that the police did not know the identity of the Ripper, even if Anderson thought he did. I think that enough has been said for people to draw their own conclusions as to what was going on, one way or the other. All the Anderson interviews are essential in order to make a proper assessment of the man and what he said. Things are becoming a bit circular now so I shall bow out, I think.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, I think that I phtographed only one other non-related marginal note and that wasn't initialled. As for the others, I don't recall, but I am sure someone must know the answer to that.

Thanks, Stewart.

[Stewart P Evans]

Macnaghten

Stewart,
Do any annotations by "DSS" appear elsewhere in Swanson's copy of the Anderson book, or are they confined only to p. 138 and the back? I'd be interested to know.

Here's the 'Macnaghten Ch. Constable' marginal note that I photographed -


Photo copyright S P Evans

[Stewart P Evans]

'Swanson Marginalia'

I know that these have been posted before, but here are a couple of old photocopies of the marginalia on page 138 of the book and the rear endpaper annotation -

[Sam Flynn]

Here's the 'Macnaghten Ch. Constable' marginal note that I photographed -

[ATTACH]2122[/ATTACH]
Photo copyright S P Evans

Thanks again, Stewart. That annotation would appear to be in a different, perhaps younger, hand to the Marginalia and the end-piece; although with such a small sample it's hard to tell. (Note: I'm not implying any subterfuge - nothing wrong with more than one person annotating a book over the years.)

[Septic Blue]

But a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was caged and identified (assuming JtR was Kosminski).

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin

[Stephen Thomas]

Many thanks for posting those photo-copies, Stewart.

This may not be too relevent but I noticed that in the last sentence the 't' in 'suspect' is crossed whereas in all other instances of words ending in 't' (including 'suspect') it is not crossed.

[Celesta]

Does anyone think that the police would have just allowed a person to walk away after identifying the Ripper because he refused to testify. And, if that was an issue with the witness, why would he be stupid enough to make the identification in the first place?

Stan,

Yes, that they would just let him walk away, doesn't make sense.

According to Sugden, Lawende (or some witness) was still looking at suspect parades after the encounter with Kosminski at the Seaside home. If this is true, then it pretty much says they didn't know who the Ripper was, and were certainly not ready to accuse Kosminski.

I don't think Swanson ever thought that either Lawende or Schwartz was a good witness, borrowing on info from a certain other member of this board, Scotland Yard Investigates. They simply just didn't see enough under the ambient conditions and other factors.

Not to be unkind to an old gent with a long service record, I think he did try to build himself up a bit. Sometimes a person remembers things more like they wish they had been. No doubt he really did believe Kosminski was the killer.

[jason_c]

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin [ATTACH]2125[/ATTACH]

Are you suggesting no witness has ever refused to testify in the entire history of legal proceedings? What alternative did the police have, particularly now that the suspect was locked away?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

I wonder if the ID was as much due to curiosity as potential legal case by the police. Kosminski was as nutty as a fruit cake at the time, legal proceedings against him would have been fraught with difficulties. If a positive ID had been acquired it would have at the very least stopped further "innocents" such as Sadler being investigated for the crimes.

[Ben]

Hi Jason,

What alternative did the police have, particularly now that the suspect was locked away?

If the witness wasn't prepared to testify, why make the positive identification in the first place (if that's what happened)?

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Are you suggesting no witness has ever refused to testify in the entire history of legal proceedings? What alternative did the police have, particularly now that the suspect was locked away?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

I wonder if the ID was as much due to curiosity as potential legal case by the police. Kosminski was as nutty as a fruit cake at the time, legal proceedings against him would have been fraught with difficulties. If a positive ID had been acquired it would have at the very least stopped further "innocents" such as Sadler being investigated for the crimes.

Its quite difficult this.I mean Anderson"s almost like "the man who wasnt there" given he was only in England for one murder and it being the most horrific and possibly the last attributed to the Ripper!
I have begun to wonder whether with such a lot of these convoluted **** ups going on,whether it was actually the Jewish Aaron Kosminski who was called to testify against a fellow Jew and refused.The description of the City Police suspect is of a man with curly black hair and it doesnt match the Lawende description.
Also Kosminski was repeatedly referred to as someone who was very ,very "obstinate".Now a refusal to testify for police over a series of some of the most ghastly murders in history,suggests an unusually "obstinate" witness,a real awkward squad type, that the police were having great difficulty with.And its possible with Anderson having this propensity to see Polish Jews every time he glances around him,that a large number of Jewish people were marched through to Scotland Yard.

Its no more convoluted that some theories about a Polish Jew in a seaside Policemen"s Home saying both "yes" and "no" about another man ,years after the event,the other man having been dragged there kicking and screaming and the man finding out the suspect was Jewish and might hang said NO and did what?

[jason_c]

Edit

Sorry Ben, i replied to your post then realised i'd misinterpreted your question.

I dont know why the witness would have made a positive ID then withdraw it. A possible explanaition would be that the witness admitted the suspect looked similar to the Mitre Square suspect(Height and width). However, beyond a reasonable doubt ID could not be made.

Witness then admits his conscience couldnt be settled with condemning the suspect to death for lack of 100% positive ID and the Jewish factor despite being heavily pressured to by the police.

[Chris]

I know that it is all very complex. The records of Mile End Old Town Workhouse show that Aaron Kosminski was admitted on 12 July 1890. Three days later he was discharged into his brother's care (to 3 Sion Square), i.e. on 15 July 1890. On 4 February 1891 Aaron was re-admitted to the workhouse, this time from 16 Greenfield Street and was never released again. These are the only admissions shown. The endpaper notes state that Kosminski was sent for identification at the Seaside Home and then "...returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel" then "...In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch" which therefore refers to 4 and 7 February 1891, meaning this is how the date of the supposed identification is arrived at - based on what the notes say as compared to the workhouse records (albeit not Stepney Workhouse). Otherwise, presumably, it must refer to another, unidentified, Kosminski with a similar admission record. According to Anderson, writing about his suspect in Blackwoods, "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him..." which puts the identification after his incarceration on 7 February 1891. However in his book Anderson states "I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him..." The identification Anderson refers to is surely the same one that the marginalia refers to so we have odd contradictions.

Thanks for explaining. I think these discussions have been useful - perhaps more so than the acrimonious tone of some of the responses would suggest. Certainly some possibilities have occurred to me that hadn't struck me before.

My feeling is still that most of the anomalies and difficulties in the marginalia are probably due to confusion on Swanson's part - and that Anderson's claims may also be confused to some extent (though I can believe wishful thinking and perhaps even duplicity play a part too).

The trouble is that if Swanson were confused, he might easily be confused about the intervals of time between the events he refers to, or even the order of events. So I think it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the timings. Equally, the "Seaside Home" - whatever that meant - might have been confused by Anderson with an asylum. I think all we can really do is keep looking for information that could shed light on these questions. It's perhaps unlikely that any more information will surface, but on the other hand it's obviously far from impossible.

[Septic Blue]

What alternative did the police have, ...?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin