Was Anderson Prejudice?

[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.

[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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Especially as there were no Jewish policemen.

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

Especially as there were no Jewish policemen.

That is not a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is not a fact.

And what, pray, is a fact?

[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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Persons of Interest is not a term found in the Police Code of 1889, but Suspected Persons does exist.

[Wickerman]

And what, pray, is a fact?

Consider the 'fact' we do not have a complete list of the names of Met. constables on duty through 1888.
Then clearly any 'absolute' claim to knowing there were no Jewish constables is simply not provable.
It is nothing more than an assumption.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Consider the 'fact' we do not have a complete list of the names of Met. constables on duty through 1888.
Then clearly any 'absolute' claim to knowing there were no Jewish constables is simply not provable.
It is nothing more than an assumption.

I had a feeling that the assumption word was about to be put to use again.

I really don't want to have an argument with you because your # 83 is so similar to what I have been arguing all along, most recently in # 454 of A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899.

I must say, though, that I fear that trying to identify Jewish policemen in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century could be just as challenging as trying to find Polish Jews who assaulted Gentile women in the same area and period.

[c.d.]

Persons of Interest is not a term found in the Police Code of 1889, but Suspected Persons does exist.

Thank you, Wick. That brings up an interesting point. How did a "suspected person" differ from what today we would call a person of interest? And was a Suspected Person the same as a Suspect? And was everybody back then on the same page with their terminology?

A potential can of worms here?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Thank you, Wick. That brings up an interesting point. How did a "suspected person" differ from what today we would call a person of interest? And was a Suspected Person the same as a Suspect? And was everybody back then on the same page with their terminology?

A potential can of worms here?

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Reading that portion of the Police Code we see that you could be charged as a Suspected Person, which likely means Charged under suspicion of some offense.
The section explains that all constables are to be aware that it is preferable that an arrest be made for an offense as opposed to a Charge of Suspicion of an offense.

"Apprehension, therefore, of prisoners as suspected persons cannot be encouraged, and if of frequent occurrence suggests the inference that the officer effecting them possesses little skill in keeping discreet observation." (p.175).

The paragraph goes on to explain that an exception can be made if the observed person recognizes he is being watched and then attempts an escape. Such circumstances may then justify an arrest as a Suspected Person.
The section ends with the reminder that caution is to be exercised, as an arrest as a Suspected Person if not deemed justifiable may result in a civil charge being made against the officer.

[Scott Nelson]

And what, pray, is a fact?

Richard Brown was Jewish.

PC Richard Brown - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

There were likely others. One cannot tell a person's religion by name alone.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I must say, though, that I fear that trying to identify Jewish policemen in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century could be just as challenging as trying to find Polish Jews who assaulted Gentile women in the same area and period.

Richard Brown did not serve in the East End nor even in the City of London.