Was Anderson Prejudice?

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Wickerman]

... He backs up Anderson that an ID took place. That is beyond dispute.

Agreed.

[Wickerman]

That's fair enough.

But there is a serious question about Swanson's marginalia: why would he name the suspect but not name the witness?

If he is not writing for posterity, why name the suspect?

And if he can name the suspect, why not name the witness?

I suspect you're the kind of person who doesn't habitually make notes?

There doesn't have to be a reason for not detailing everything, there is nothing to be gained by naming a witness. Police typically refrain from naming people regardless of their role in an investigation, unless it be the victim.
Did Swanson know the name of the witness, or has he simply forgotten?
If the witness was a policeman, there is reason enough not to name him.

[Wickerman]

He did not name the witness because he had no name to divulge.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As far as I am aware Sunny, the witness [ according to Anderson ] learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew .
Perhaps he wasn't told but found out through his own probing, so to speak. I would hazard a guess he would be interested in who the person was he identified.

Regards Darryl

How could the witness obtain confidential information?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You actually make a good point. Why would the witness have been told the suspect was Jewish? Surely he was there to identify whether or not this was the man he had seen near Mitre Square. Yes or no.

Well now, you are making an assumption about the suspect having been seen in Mitre Square!

But it is a reasonable one, because Schwartz's suspect was never taken as seriously as Lawende's, and there is no other Jewish witness.

I think I can answer the question: why did Anderson have the witness not knowing that the suspect was Jewish?

First, he has to explain why a Jewish witness would be prepared to identify a Jewish suspect in spite of Anderson's portrayal of the Jews as being unwilling to co-operate with the police.

Secondly, he has to explain why the witness ultimately refused to testify, and he knew that the suspect was not of Jewish appearance, which made his scenario possible.

And this is where Anderson made his second mistake.

The first was that he had the identification taking place after the suspect had been certified as insane.

His hopes of having him tried for murder being dashed by a reluctant witness were therefore unbelievable and either he realised that himself or someone pointed it out to him.

His second mistake was to imply that the police gave the witness confidential information about the suspect.

Those, I suggest, are the reasons for those two details being excised from Anderson's memoirs.

Swanson's version has the suspect not yet being certified and solves the first problem (except that it does not explain why Anderson would have written that the suspect was already certified if he was not) but he does not explain how the witness became aware that the suspect was Jewish either!

And that is a question both Anderson and Swanson would not be able to answer without difficulty.

[Darryl Kenyon]

You actually make a good point. Why would the witness have been told the suspect was Jewish?

As far as I am aware Sunny, the witness [ according to Anderson ] learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew .
Perhaps he wasn't told but found out through his own probing, so to speak. I would hazard a guess he would be interested in who the person was he identified.

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

I suggest that the account given by Anderson is unbelievable:


I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

(ANDERSON)



Anderson does not explain how the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish.

Elamarna suggested that it was likely that the witness and suspect had a conversation in Yiddish.

I suggest this is not possible because police procedure would not have permitted a conversation between them.

I realise that whatever explanation I offer is liable to be dismissed as supposition, but the only credible explanation is that the police informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish.

I am suggesting that this would not actually have happened, not only because Anderson was convinced that Jews were conspiring against Gentile justice and would not testify against one another, but because it would be irregular for a policeman to give private details about the suspect to the witness following an identification.

Actually to have done so in this case would presumably have wrecked the chance of a successful prosecution, and this, together with the obvious irregularity of doing so, explains Anderson's reluctance to elaborate.

He knew that what he was writing was farfetched and omitted all reference to it in the final version of his memoirs.

You actually make a good point. Why would the witness have been told the suspect was Jewish? Surely he was there to identify whether or not this was the man he had seen near Mitre Square. Yes or no. A maybe or probably is a no. Anderson claims he was unhesitatingly identified. So why the extra information. It makes no sense. I have no doubt an ID took place but that Anderson in particular became wholly convinced of the suspects guilt and remembered the ID as watertight. I think we can surmise it was far from it. It may have been confirmation bias.

I have a feeling though that the Jack the Ripper case was a major embarrassment to Anderson. The most famous case of the generation and he had been at the head of the investigation which had failed to catch the killer. This surely would have grated on such a proud man. In his own mind the ID took on a significance it never had and no matter what was said about Anderson he was going on record to lay it out that he hadn't been bested. Swanson fleshes out some details of the ID but is mostly non committal on its significance other than stating no other murders took place after it. Unless you count Frances Cole he is technically correct even accounting for the gap between the final murder and the ID.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I suggest that the account given by Anderson is unbelievable:


I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

(ANDERSON)



Anderson does not explain how the witness learned that the suspect was Jewish.

Elamarna suggested that it was likely that the witness and suspect had a conversation in Yiddish.

I suggest this is not possible because police procedure would not have permitted a conversation between them.

I realise that whatever explanation I offer is liable to be dismissed as supposition, but the only credible explanation is that the police informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish.

I am suggesting that this would not actually have happened, not only because Anderson was convinced that Jews were conspiring against Gentile justice and would not testify against one another, but because it would be irregular for a policeman to give private details about the suspect to the witness following an identification.

Actually to have done so in this case would presumably have wrecked the chance of a successful prosecution, and this, together with the obvious irregularity of doing so, explains Anderson's reluctance to elaborate.

He knew that what he was writing was farfetched and omitted all reference to it in the final version of his memoirs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I thought we were agreeing to disagree. Swanson was annotating for his own reasons, whatever they were. The details he gave was not for a book or a court case. He backs up Anderson that an ID took place. That is beyond dispute.

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.

[Sunny Delight]

That's fair enough.

But there is a serious question about Swanson's marginalia: why would he name the suspect but not name the witness?

If he is not writing for posterity, why name the suspect?

And if he can name the suspect, why not name the witness?

I thought we were agreeing to disagree. Swanson was annotating for his own reasons, whatever they were. The details he gave was not for a book or a court case. He backs up Anderson that an ID took place. That is beyond dispute.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well we agree to disagree then.

That's fair enough.

But there is a serious question about Swanson's marginalia: why would he name the suspect but not name the witness?

If he is not writing for posterity, why name the suspect?

And if he can name the suspect, why not name the witness?

[Sunny Delight]

He gave us enough to know that he had no personal knowledge of what he was writing about.

I suggest that the vagueness and lack of detail is proof of that and it was not a matter of lack of space or not wanting to elaborate.

He did not name the witness because he had no name to divulge.

Well we agree to disagree then.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't know how many times you need to be told this but he was annotating for his own reasons- not to give future historians or some guys on an Internet forum the full story. He gave us enough to work with.

He gave us enough to know that he had no personal knowledge of what he was writing about.

I suggest that the vagueness and lack of detail is proof of that and it was not a matter of lack of space or not wanting to elaborate.

He did not name the witness because he had no name to divulge.

[Sunny Delight]

Swanson did not claim to have been present at the alleged identification.

He claimed that Kosminski was 'sent by us' to the Seaside Home.

He did not claim that he personally accompanied him to the Seaside Home, nor that he met other police officers at the Seaside Home, nor that he met the witness.

Nor does he describe the witness, nor give his name.


It is doubtful even whether if would have been considered proper procedure for him to have been present at such a procedure.


Ask Trevor Marriott.

I don't know how many times you need to be told this but he was annotating for his own reasons- not to give future historians or some guys on an Internet forum the full story. He gave us enough to work with.