Was Anderson Prejudice?

[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'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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

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

[Wickerman]

Thanks for your reply, Jon.

If Swanson learned the extra details from official paperwork, then he should have known the name of the witness, the name of the street in which the surveillance took place, the name of Kosminski's brother, and the dates of the events he described, yet he provides none of those details.

Avoiding specifics is just the police way, his only intent was to provide the name of the suspect, I see nothing suspicious there.

How likely is it that Swanson would have derived his incorrect information about Kosminski's death from official papers rather than something he heard said?

Don't forget, the City police did much to help the Met. in their investigations, these particulars may have come to Swanson from reports by his equal at City, McWilliams. They kept each other updated on regular intervals. Given how long after the events Swanson was writing his marginalia, any confusion of details I suspect are his doing.

Is it likely that he read in an official report that Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back?

Is it not much more likely that it would have stated merely that he was placed under arrest?

Lets assume it was the institution who conducted the transfer (most likely option), the suspect not being under arrest, nor were the police trained in handling mental patients, the most police involvement was possibly two or three local constables (not Scotland Yard), who were there to avoid any attempt at escaping, then if they had any altercations it would have been mentioned in a report as they would feel a need to justify the use of handcuffs, or some means of restraint.

The witness was not arrested due to him being incarcerated, he can't be charged with a crime if he is deemed 'insane', the law considers such a person as 'unable to defend himself' therefore cannot be charged with anything. So, any police involvement can only be as a cautionary measure.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your reply, Jon.

If Swanson learned the extra details from official paperwork, then he should have known the name of the witness, the name of the street in which the surveillance took place, the name of Kosminski's brother, and the dates of the events he described, yet he provides none of those details.

How likely is it that Swanson would have derived his incorrect information about Kosminski's death from official papers rather than something he heard said?

Is it likely that he read in an official report that Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back?

Is it not much more likely that it would have stated merely that he was placed under arrest?

[Wickerman]

Would you agree with me that there is no inside information in Swanson's marginalia to suggest that he was personally familiar with the events he described?

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.

And if so, does that not in turn suggest that any clarification of Anderson's published claims may have come from Anderson himself?

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.

In that case, the corroboration conferred by Swanson on Anderson's claims is nothing more than an illusion.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have commonly referred to Anderson's so-called 'evidence' as Andersons Fairy Tales, and this is not to simply be flippant.
The complication surfaces when we read Swanson's notes, because he highly respected Anderson, though after carefully reading those notes it becomes clear Swanson is merely clarifying Anderson's theory, not agreeing with it.
We have no idea what Swanson thought himself.

Would you agree with me that there is no inside information in Swanson's marginalia to suggest that he was personally familiar with the events he described?

And if so, does that not in turn suggest that any clarification of Anderson's published claims may have come from Anderson himself?

In that case, the corroboration conferred by Swanson on Anderson's claims is nothing more than an illusion.

[Wickerman]

We have commonly referred to Anderson's so-called 'evidence' as Andersons Fairy Tales, and this is not to simply be flippant.
The complication surfaces when we read Swanson's notes, because he highly respected Anderson, though after carefully reading those notes it becomes clear Swanson is merely clarifying Anderson's theory, not agreeing with it.
We have no idea what Swanson thought himself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sir Robert Anderson was certainly a liar.

If he was a liar, then the one whopping lie he told was his claim that he and everyone else involved in the investigation had come to the conclusion that the murderer was a Jew at a time when they did not even have a Jewish suspect!

In spite of his grand statements intended to convey the overwhelming strength of his case, he did nevertheless write as though well aware of how weak it was.

He mentions no arrest, no interrogation, no searching of any premises, no discovery of any incriminating evidence, and no specific physical characteristic of the alleged suspect that would have facilitated his identification.

When looked at critically, there is no substance to his claims whatsoever and a careful reading of them reveals that nothing whatsoever could have given Anderson any reason for suspicion prior to the man's incarceration.

The fact that Anderson exercised his right to remain silent when publicly challenged simply reinforces the case that what he wrote was not true and that he knew it was not true.

Those who defend Anderson from the charge of antisemitism have never quite managed to explain how someone who was not anti-Jewish could nevertheless manage to make three charges against the Jews when one would obviously have done.

The long list of improbabilities in Anderson's ramblings is truly staggering: the police concluding that the murderer was a Jew even though they had already concluded that he was an anti-Semite; the Kosminskis are low-class Jews, even though Isaac Kosminski is a freemason; the Jews prefer to allow one of their own to continue to eviscerate Gentile women to informing on him; a Jewish witness prefers to allow the evisceration to continue rather than testify against a fellow Jew; Kosminski is not of Jewish appearance even though his brothers are; the attempt to prosecute the suspect is simply dropped as soon as a Jew refuses to cooperate.

Anderson achieved the doubtful distinction of blowing his own trumpet by relying on that well-worn and trusted tactic of blaming you-know-whom.

[Simon Wood]

Sir Robert Anderson was certainly a liar.