Was Anderson Prejudice?

[Wickerman]

It's difficult to understand what you mean here, Wick.

Macnaghten and Swanson state that a Polish Jew named Kosminski was a suspect in the murders, and they described him well enough that later historians could identify him.

He was identified as Aaron Kosminski--living in the heart of the district, a brother, sent to Colney Hatch, etc

The asylum and workhouse records do not mention any suspicion against him for murder--that's true--...

And that is precisely what I meant, for all the later conjecture there is nothing by way of paperwork associated with Aaron Kozminski to confirm he was ever suspected by police as being the murderer.

...but it does not follow that it is purely modern conjecture. The conjecture dated back to at least 1894.

Yes, I'll accept I should remove 'modern', what I was alluding to was 'after the fact' - years later.

Who would believe Ostrog was ever suspected?
I wouldn't, I'm sure you wouldn't, but I think you suggested later opinions like that of Macnaghten (1894) should be included?
Macnaghten listed Ostrog, clearly a mistake, so maybe Kozminski was another mistake?

I'm not sure Swanson qualifies, as Anderson's memoir was only published in 1910, and Swanson died in 1924, so his marginalia dates between 1910-1924.
Kozminski died about 1919.

The fact remains, Kozminski was never suspected of being the murderer at the time of the crimes.
Almost 6 years later Mac. lists Kozminski as a suspect, on what grounds, and when did he become a suspect, and why - who knows?
He writes that there were 'circumstances', but prefers to not name what they were.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is not a fact.

And what, pray, is a fact?

[Wickerman]

Especially as there were no Jewish policemen.

That is not a fact.

[c.d.]

I have a question -- did the police at the time ever use the expression "person of interest" or something comparable? I guess I am trying to determine if "suspect" always meant an actual suspect as opposed to person of interest.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

Isn't that an assumption?
We have those sparse records, that is true, but all they are is just records of a mentally unstable Jew. There's no mention anywhere in those records that he was suspected of being a murderer. That is all modern conjecture.

It's difficult to understand what you mean here, Wick.

Macnaghten and Swanson state that a Polish Jew named Kosminski was a suspect in the murders, and they described him well enough that later historians could identify him.

He was identified as Aaron Kosminski--living in the heart of the district, a brother, sent to Colney Hatch, etc

The asylum and workhouse records do not mention any suspicion against him for murder--that's true--but it does not follow that it is purely modern conjecture. The conjecture dated back to at least 1894.

Unless you are suggesting Aaron Kosminski is not the 'Kosminski' of the Memo and the Marginalia, which I personally find hard to believe. The description of the suspect and Aaron Kosminski are too similar.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the witness was a policeman, there is reason enough not to name him.

Especially as there were no Jewish policemen.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Swanson had spent over 40 yrs of his life in the police, observing that rule. To him it's always been the right thing to do.
Why do you think he should change?
Swanson is merely doing what he was trained to do, but you seem to think he should stop - why is that?

Swanson was entitled to withhold the identity of the witness - if he knew it - and I am entitled to say that this is the only case I have ever heard of in which a suspect has allegedly been identified as a wanted murderer by a witness of whose name there is no record.

Not only that, but we are told that the witness was Jewish and the only Jewish witness who the police seriously considered could have seen the murderer was Joseph Lawende.

Lawende simply could not have identified Kosminski/the Polish Jew because

(1) He said he would not be able to recognise the suspect if he saw him again

(2) It is obvious from his description of the suspect that he was a gentile; it is not credible that Kosminski had a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor

(3) Lawende appears to have been asked to try to identify Sadler and Grainger, neither of whom was Jewish.

Is it just a coincidence that Sadler had been a sailor?

It is therefore conceivable that Sadler had the appearance of a sailor, but the same cannot be said of Kosminski.

Why would the police have been trying to identify a gentile sailor as the Whitechapel Murderer if a Polish Jew had already been so identified?

Swanson did not have to identity the witness, but I suggest that he knew that if he had done so, it would not have been a credible identification.

And the same goes for Anderson.

[Wickerman]

How do we know that the police were mucking around with Aaron Kosminski in 1890 and February 1891?

Isn't that an assumption?
We have those sparse records, that is true, but all they are is just records of a mentally unstable Jew. There's no mention anywhere in those records that he was suspected of being a murderer. That is all modern conjecture.

I would add that if Anderson's suspect was not called Kosminski, why would Swanson think that he did mean Kosminski - and why would Macnaghten, who must have had access to all the relevant papers, know of Kosminski but not the other Jewish suspect?

Speaking for myself Kozminski is not an easy name to forget, but if Swanson was in a job that dealt with the Police-Jewish community and came across a variety of similar names on a daily basis: e.g. Korzynski, Kozminski, Klosowski, Kuczynski, Kalinski, etc. he could easily have confused Anderson's actual suspect, so he decided in this case to write it down.
Re: the Marginalia - For all we know he could have spent a week or more looking up the name because so many Polish-Jewish names sound so similar, so in case he forgets again, he wrote it down.

[Wickerman]

If the marginalia were not intended to be published, nor even read, in his lifetime, then why would Swanson be concerned about whether the suspect or witness were dead?

A dead person cannot be libelled, but nor can a dead person be sued for libel.

Swanson had spent over 40 yrs of his life in the police, observing that rule. To him it's always been the right thing to do.
Why do you think he should change?
Swanson is merely doing what he was trained to do, but you seem to think he should stop - why is that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The 'confusion' theory could be true, but it's hard to believe that Kosminski could be someone other than Aaron Kosminski--living in the heart of the district, brother, solitary vices, Colney Hatch, etc.

Thus, the 'confusion' theory is in itself confusing and unpalatable except in a negative way. If the Ripper was another Jew who had been positively identified and safely caged back in 1888/1889, why the heck were the police still mucking around with Aaron Kosminski in 1890 and February 1891?

This aspect of Fido's theory never made any sense to me.

How do we know that the police were mucking around with Aaron Kosminski in 1890 and February 1891?

I would add that if Anderson's suspect was not called Kosminski, why would Swanson think that he did mean Kosminski - and why would Macnaghten, who must have had access to all the relevant papers, know of Kosminski but not the other Jewish suspect?

If the suspect was another man by the name of Kosminski who was also certified around that time, why did Macnaghten and Swanson not specify which Kosminski they meant?

And if there was another Kosminski who was incarcerated, why is there no record of him?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Swanson says in his annotations that the suspect knew he was identified . In the case notes of Colney Hatch Nov 17 1892 Kosminski is reported as only speaking German with Yiddish in brackets and a question mark.
If Kosminski knew he was identified straight away and Anderson says the witness unhesitatingly did so [ recognise the suspect ]. Is it possible Kosminski threw out some expletives at the witness in Yiddish/Hebrew, [ or even just talked the tongue ] and the witness recognised the language, with also being a Jew ?

Regards Darryl

It is possible, except for one thing: Anderson wrote that the witness at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him, not that the witness at once identified him; but when the the suspect indicated to him that he was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

I would also ask why, if something of the kind that Anderson alleged really happened, it was excised from his memoirs.

[rjpalmer]

The 'confusion' theory could be true, but it's hard to believe that Kosminski could be someone other than Aaron Kosminski--living in the heart of the district, brother, solitary vices, Colney Hatch, etc.

Thus, the 'confusion' theory is in itself confusing and unpalatable except in a negative way. If the Ripper was another Jew who had been positively identified and safely caged back in 1888/1889, why the heck were the police still mucking around with Aaron Kosminski in 1890 and February 1891?

This aspect of Fido's theory never made any sense to me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If you look at police reports that are published they do not name witnesses - Hutchinson comes to mind, on 13 Nov. all the press account that included info from the police did not name the witness. It's normal police procedure, they don't even name a suspect until the suspect is charged, and this suspect couldn't be charged. This is why Swanson's exception in his personal notes to name the suspect is unique, but more likely due to the suspect being dead.

If the marginalia were not intended to be published, nor even read, in his lifetime, then why would Swanson be concerned about whether the suspect or witness were dead?

A dead person cannot be libelled, but nor can a dead person be sued for libel.

[Wickerman]

There are plenty of holes, or inconsistencies in Anderson's memoir, but the most significant difference between what Anderson wrote & Swanson's marginalia is, Anderson seems to be under the impression the suspect was identified while incarcerated, presumably by a witness brought to face him.
Whereas Swanson clearly says it was the suspect to was brought before the witness.
Their stories are opposite, I think they are talking about different ID's, involving different suspects. While Swanson has the name of Anderson's suspect correct, his details are confused with another suspect and a different I.D.

[Wickerman]

Swanson backs up Anderson on an identification having taken place, but Anderson originally claimed that the suspect had already been incarcerated in an asylum, which is completely different from what Swanson claimed.

Swanson has confused two different suspects, this is why his information differs in my view.