Was Anderson Prejudice?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

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

Agreed.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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?