Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk

[Uncle Jack]

Regardless of the who, whys and whats behind the seaside home I.D, it certainly seems to (almost) confirm that Cohen and/or Kaminsky wasn't the suspect involved. The I.D likely took place in 1890, possibly as late as 1891, and Cohen/Kaminsky was dead by this point.

[Abby Normal]

The Seaside Home confrontation aspect of the Swanson Marginalia always puzzles me, especially when read in conjunction with the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten memorandum. (I know that MM wasn't a serving officer in 1888 but he arrived not long after and would have had access to the relevant papers). Why hold the ID at the Seaside Home (assuming the Convalescent Home in Brighton is the venue referred to)? You wouldn't need to go that far to escape press attention surely?

MacNaghten says that 'no-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square'. Many people must have seen the murderer without realising who he was, so this has to be a reference to an unambiguous sighting IMHO - so not Lawende.

The 'City PC' sentence is missing from the 'official' version and I think most people think MacNaghten meant City witness (i.e. presumably Lawende). If that's the case why does the sentence not appear, in amended form, in the official version? I wonder if the PC element is in fact correct and the sentence doesn't appear because of the potential embarrassment of a PC having seen the killer and failed to apprehend him. The candidates would be James Harvey (if City PC is correct) or possibly Arnold Long (if PC is correct but City is not). My speculation (and I concede it's nothing more than that, before everyone jumps down my throat) is that Long could have found the apron piece so easily because he saw it being discarded. (In that scenario - with which few will be in agreement I suspect - the 'fellow Jew'reason for the refusal to give evidence would have to be a cover story, but if Long was convalescing there it would explain the choice of location).

Hes mixing up pc smith at dutfield and lawende at mitre sq

[Bridewell]

I think the whole of this rests on the supposed seaside home identification, which likely occurred in 1890. David Cohen died in 1889, so therefore cannot be the suspect that (possibly) Joseph Lawende did or did not identify in the seaside home. Cohen works as the police's Jew but it simply cannot be him if the I.D took place in 1890, which is very likely.

The Seaside Home confrontation aspect of the Swanson Marginalia always puzzles me, especially when read in conjunction with the Aberconway version of the MacNaghten memorandum. (I know that MM wasn't a serving officer in 1888 but he arrived not long after and would have had access to the relevant papers). Why hold the ID at the Seaside Home (assuming the Convalescent Home in Brighton is the venue referred to)? You wouldn't need to go that far to escape press attention surely?

MacNaghten says that 'no-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square'. Many people must have seen the murderer without realising who he was, so this has to be a reference to an unambiguous sighting IMHO - so not Lawende.

The 'City PC' sentence is missing from the 'official' version and I think most people think MacNaghten meant City witness (i.e. presumably Lawende). If that's the case why does the sentence not appear, in amended form, in the official version? I wonder if the PC element is in fact correct and the sentence doesn't appear because of the potential embarrassment of a PC having seen the killer and failed to apprehend him. The candidates would be James Harvey (if City PC is correct) or possibly Arnold Long (if PC is correct but City is not). My speculation (and I concede it's nothing more than that, before everyone jumps down my throat) is that Long could have found the apron piece so easily because he saw it being discarded. (In that scenario - with which few will be in agreement I suspect - the 'fellow Jew'reason for the refusal to give evidence would have to be a cover story, but if Long was convalescing there it would explain the choice of location).

[Uncle Jack]

I think the whole of this rests on the supposed seaside home identification, which likely occurred in 1890. David Cohen died in 1889, so therefore cannot be the suspect that (possibly) Joseph Lawende did or did not identify in the seaside home. Cohen works as the police's Jew but it simply cannot be him if the I.D took place in 1890, which is very likely.

[Scott Nelson]

“KEEPING A BROTHEL IN WHITECHAPEL
Gertrude Smith, a well-dressed middle-aged woman of 254 High-street (sic-Whitechapel Road), Whitechapel, surrendered to answer a charge preferred against her by Mr. Metcalf, vestry clerk of St. Mary, Whitechapel, on behalf of the overseers of the parish, for unlawfully keeping her house as a brothel. Uriah Harvey, who was specially engaged by the vestry of Whitechapel, owing to gross immorality taking place in certain houses, to keep a watch, gave evidence of the number of both sexes which entered and left the defendant’s house. On Saturday night, the 24th November, ten men and as many well-known prostitutes infesting the neighbourhood entered and left defendant’s house; Sunday, the 25th, twelve couples; Monday, the 26th, three couples; Saturday, December 1st, eighteen couples. It was ostensibly a cigar shop, and when the parties entered, the defendant was at the door letting them in. When Inspector Ferris (sic - Metropolitan Police Inspector Arthur Ferrett) entered, he found two well-known prostitutes in bed. In answer to Mr Lushington, Inspector Ferris said there had been no complaints of disturbances or robberies at defendant’s house. Mr Lushington convicted the defendant in taking part in keeping a brothel and fined her £10 and £5 costs, or one month. The money was paid.”

-Reynolds Newspaper 9 December 1888

[RockySullivan]

What is the deal with David Cohen and the women from the brothel? http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/7522.html

[DirectorDave]

Really there is nothing to suggest David Cohen was anyone other than David Cohen, the whole "John Doe" theory pretty much falls apart with the name being later given as "Aaron Davis Cohen".

Given that "S" is next to "D" on a typewriter keyboard "Davis" is more than likely a typo for "David".

[John Wheat]

By Kozminsky you mean Swanson's man or Nathan Kaminsky as Fido suggested. Why did Fido believe he was?

David Cohen may be both, either or neither as the case may be.

[RockySullivan]

There is not enough evidence by any stretch of the imagination to say David Cohen was Kosminski.

By Kozminsky you mean Swanson's man or Nathan Kaminsky as Fido suggested. Why did Fido believe he was?

[John Wheat]

There is not enough evidence by any stretch of the imagination to say David Cohen was Kosminski.

[Abby Normal]

How long have you been waiting to use that?! Brilliant.

Just thought of it actually, but thanks! Ha

[Xoferbean01]

You say kaminsky, I say Kosminsky...let’s cohen the whole thing off!

In other words it’s a convoluted mess.

How long have you been waiting to use that?! Brilliant.

[Abby Normal]

You say kaminsky, I say Kosminsky...let’s cohen the whole thing off!

In other words it’s a convoluted mess.

[RockySullivan]

He believes it best to put Kaminsky aside and focus on Cohen and Kosminski being confused with one another by Swanson.


JM

I thought the theory was that David Cohen was Kaminsky? How else would Swanson have confused the names? Cohen does match the man Swanson perhaps more than Kozminsky?

[Xoferbean01]

Great. Thanks a lot guys. Many thanks.