Trying to make sense of the Swanson Marginalia

[Scott Nelson]

...in connection with the Whitechapel Murders.

[Scott Nelson]

Incarceration: prisons
Confinement: lunatic asylums

A crime has to be committed before going to prison. Kosminski committed no known crime.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not concerning whether a crime has been committed or not.

I do not think your latest comment makes sense, but in answer to the point you made previously: both confinement and incarceration can be used to refer to the detention of inmates of lunatic asylums as well as of prisons.

[Scott Nelson]

"Confine" and "Incarcerate" are synonyms.

Not concerning whether a crime has been committed or not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If Anderson and Swanson though that Kosminski was their man, and that Kosminski knew he had been identified, they prejudiced their contention by having Lawende look at Sadler, who he didn't identify, and Grainger, who he did identify.

If I may alter slightly the point you make: if Anderson was right that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew and both he and Swanson were right that a Polish Jew was positively identified as the murderer, and that the witness too was Jewish, then why did the police subsequently ask a Polish Jewish witness to identify, in turn, two non-Jewish suspects?

[Fiver]

Anderson and Swanson had every right to their smug self-satisfaction.

They both got away with condemning a man in the absence of any incriminating evidence.

A Ripperology tradition that continues to this day.

[Wickerman]

"Confine" and "Incarcerate" are synonyms.

[Scott Nelson]

Kosminski was "confined", not incarcerated. There being no trial because no known crime was committed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If Anderson and Swanson though that Kosminski was their man...

... they would have been able to cite incriminating evidence against him, would have been able to agree on the place in which he was identified, and would have been able to agree on when he was incarcerated.

Anderson stated that the identification took place when the suspect was already incarcerated; Swanson stated that he was living with his relatives.

Anderson had the incarceration taking place no later than early 1889, yet Swanson - if he meant 'the Seaside Home' in Hove, knew when it opened, was including the McKenzie murder when he wrote about 'no other murder of this kind', and knew when Kosminski was certified - had it taking place in February 1891.

That is a difference of about two years.

There would have had to be incriminating evidence against Kosminski for him to have become a suspect.

The fact that Anderson has him in an asylum itself suggests there was none, because otherwise the identification would surely have taken place before the suspect's incarceration.

The fact that Macnaghten knew only of circumstantial evidence again suggests there was no incriminating evidence.

Anderson and Swanson had every right to their smug self-satisfaction.

They both got away with condemning a man in the absence of any incriminating evidence.

[Scott Nelson]

The Grainger ID has always nagged at me a little. It was only reported in one paper and if it was a positive ID you would think charges may have followed ? Just a thought.

I think this newspaper report of the Grainger ID was fed to a single journalist to fend off further witness inquiries.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

If Anderson and Swanson though that Kosminski was their man, and that Kosminski knew he had been identified, they prejudiced their contention by having Lawende look at Sadler, who he didn't identify, and Grainger, who he did identify.

Cheers, George

Hi George

With the case never being officially closed I believe the police had to explore other options. In the Suzy Lamplugh case the police are convinced that John Cannan is the murderer. Even without sufficient evidence to prosecute the police still in 2002 named him as their only suspect . Yet in 2008 they still investigated the serial killer Steven Wrights movements at the time of Suzy's disappearance before eliminating him.
You could argue this is similar to Kosminski and Grainger . Certain police believe that Kosminski was their man but he was never prosecuted . Then a man comes along who stabs a woman in the district were the murders occur making him a viable person of interest before eliminating him.
The Grainger ID has always nagged at me a little. It was only reported in one paper and if it was a positive ID you would think charges may have followed ? Just a thought.
Regarding Kosminski I still feel that over the years , past 1895 and beyond Swanson, and as a knock on Anderson's stance on him hardened to the point of , if only, regarding the ID, we would have got him .

Regards Darryl

[GBinOz]

Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson that Kosminski was their man. Particularly after he said Sadler wasn't the man not long after, even though he could be seen as a reasonable suspect. He could even have been used at the Sadler ID to test his veracity. Pick out Sadler as well and the case against Kosminski gets watered down, but he didn't.

Hi Darryl,

If Anderson and Swanson though that Kosminski was their man, and that Kosminski knew he had been identified, they prejudiced their contention by having Lawende look at Sadler, who he didn't identify, and Grainger, who he did identify.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was referring to Swanson's congratulating himself on having caught the Whitechapel Murderer and prevented him from committing any more murders.

There is no point in congratulating oneself unless in the expectation that someone else will know about it.

[c.d.]

There is no such thing as private self-congratulation, Roger!

Just solitary vices.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

You are correct Jeff I have mentioned the Seaman's homes before as a possible location for the ID to have taken place.

I am in agreement with you that some form of ID was attempted [ wish we knew exactly what and where ], but as much with the case it is open to interpretation.
I also concur with your take on the ID and why the witness refused to testify . Kosminski probably looked like the man seen, but definite was a stretch too far , particularly after the time gap leaving the police frustrated and searching for answers . In the A6 murder case the victim Valerie Storie on the first ID parade she attended where the first suspect Peter Alphon was present, she picked out an wholly innocent man . Afterwards Valerie said that she felt pressured into picking someone , even though straight after she let it be known she wasn't certain she had picked out the right person . Suppose she had picked Alphon out would he have been charged ? Instead of Hanratty further down the line.
Could something similar have happened with the witness ?


Regards Darryl

I have no doubt that something similar could have happened. I mean, we know today that is bad practice and yet it still happens, so back in 1888, it was probably routine based on the idea that you had to "encourage" a reluctant witness to boost their confidence. And the frustration the police would be under, given they had little else but witnesses as a source of evidence, well, what else would they do but try and get something from them? To me, the whole explanation for why the witness wouldn't swear to the identification just reaks of frustration, which is why I think it is probably not what the witness actually said but is what the police assumed, if that makes sense?

- Jeff