Was Anderson Prejudice?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Would police have been authorised to tie a person's hands behind his back without arresting him?

[Wickerman]

Would police have been authorised to tie a person's hands behind his back without arresting him?

That may have been the straight-jacket with belts on the end of the sleeves. A normal procedure for an institution to use.
We can only guess, with only sparse information it is easy to over estimate the situation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That may have been the straight-jacket with belts on the end of the sleeves. A normal procedure for an institution to use.
We can only guess, with only sparse information it is easy to over estimate the situation.

The question is: if the police needed to put Kosminski in a straitjacket a very short time after he had been returned from the seaside to his brother's house, how had they sent him to the Seaside Home?

Did they send him to a convalescent home in a straitjacket and expect thereby to avoid the publicity that would have resulted from an identification parade in London?

Would no-one at the Seaside Home have remembered the spectacle of a man under heavy police guard being brought in a straitjacket to a place where people normally went to convalesce?

[Sunny Delight]

There is nothing to indicate Swanson was personally involved, otherwise I would expect a phrase similar to "where we took him" as opposed to "him being sent by us".
It also could mean the infirmary took him on orders from Scotland Yard, so no actual police involvement in the transfer.



I'm not sure Anderson is the type to chit-chat with the lower ranks, but given Swanson's position he more likely learned of the sequence of events from reports passing across his desk.



I wouldn't draw that conclusion.
I think Swanson has provided some confused details, but he did identify Anderson's suspect.
What Swanson knew about the I.D. he learned from official paperwork, not from Anderson.
I could be wrong and Anderson may have been present, but I see nothing in his notes to indicate this.

I am not so sure. He did state that the suspect knew he had been identified. This always read to me that the body language of the suspect in Swanson's mind had given something away. Or at least that was Swanson's interpretation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am not so sure. He did state that the suspect knew he had been identified. This always read to me that the body language of the suspect in Swanson's mind had given something away. Or at least that was Swanson's interpretation.

Swanson's interpretation of what?

Are you suggesting that Swanson was present at the alleged identification?

[Wickerman]

The question is: if the police needed to put Kosminski in a straitjacket a very short time after he had been returned from the seaside to his brother's house, how had they sent him to the Seaside Home?

That was my first point, he doesn't say who tied his hands behind his back. I think it was most likely to have been done by the people who transported him to Stepney Workhouse, that would be the staff who came to the brothers house to collect him.
This had to be the result of a complaint, that some incident had occurred and the witness was immediately admitted to the nearest workhouse mental institution.

Did they send him to a convalescent home in a straitjacket and expect thereby to avoid the publicity that would have resulted from an identification parade in London?

I think we are missing information here, at some point Swanson has confused Kosminki with another suspect. Also, we have no clearly stated roll by the police in this incident.

Would no-one at the Seaside Home have remembered the spectacle of a man under heavy police guard being brought in a straitjacket to a place where people normally went to convalesce?

People are typically brought in through a back door when they need to enter without anyone being aware, we know the drill, we hear of it all the time.

In this whole scenario some details fit with Kozminski's story and some don't, yet other pieces can be made to fit if we make allowances.
I'm not convinced Anderson had any reason to suspect Kozminski, and the suspect is a late comer to the mystery anyway. Anderson had no suspect in Oct. 1888, he specifically says so. Swanson was writing many years after the events took place, so he has a few details confused.
My view about the whole Kozminski affair is it is another red herring. No suspect was ever identified as a 23 yr old and we have no idea what Kozminski looked like. The whole theory is built on a house of cards.

[Sunny Delight]

Swanson's interpretation of what?

Are you suggesting that Swanson was present at the alleged identification?

He stated 'and the suspect knew he was identified'. What else can that mean other than Swanson remembering that the suspect's reaction had given him away and you don't get that from reading notes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He stated 'and the suspect knew he was identified'. What else can that mean other than Swanson remembering that the suspect's reaction had given him away and you don't get that from reading notes.

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.