Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stephen Thomas]

Hey, Simon

Good to see you back .

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Taboo? You'd better believe it! Read all the books, including your own. The truthfulness of the baffled cops is a given. It's the bedrock of the Whitechapel murders mystery, which couldn't have lasted five minutes without it.

The slightest suggestion that they were anything less than honest is unfailingly met with boos, hisses and assorted abuse.

The subject is rather like Slough. Nobody wants to go there.

Kind regards,

Simon

PS. I do hope you're keeping my bottle of Leapfrog dutifully dusted.

[Scott Nelson]

Yuk, yuk, yuk....oh, you guys are a riot.

So we need Martin Fido to come on and tell us that the police used the wrong suspect (Kosminski) in the failed identification procedure. No wonder the witness couldn't proceed with any information. He was looking at the wrong man - had it been "Cohen" it would have gone somewhere.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

Taboo? You'd better believe it! Read all the books, including your own. The truthfulness of the baffled cops is a given. It's the bedrock of the Whitechapel murders mystery, which couldn't have lasted five minutes without it.

The slightest suggestion that they were anything less than honest is unfailingly met with boos, hisses and assorted abuse.

The subject is rather like Slough. Nobody wants to go there.

Kind regards,

Simon

PS. I do hope you're keeping my bottle of Leapfrog dutifully dusted.

That's 100% not true, Simon. Even in my 1988 book I questioned Anderson and specifically tested the veracity of other claims he made, and as late as the last issue of Ripperologist I examined the claims of Bussy/Mallon, and actually did so in the expectation that they were right. The same questioning has been applied to all the suspects. You can and no doubt will believe what you want to believe, but the fact is that of course the sources are examined and examined in depth and detail, and I am frequently on record as saying that these men have not been and desperately need to be examined fully and closely.

Paul

[lynn cates]

Kos

Hello Simon. Delighted to see you posting again. After all, better to discuss Aaron Kosminski than to sit around the house emulating him.

What's that? Indeed? Very well, I SHALL mind my own business. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

And here was me thinking that I should visit an optician [optometrist].

Your timely post has saved me at least $300.

Sir Robert Anderson, who railed against such self-destructive practices at meetings of the Purity League, would have been proud.

Kind regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

brave brave Sir Robert

Hello Simon.

"Sir Robert Anderson, who railed against such self-destructive practices at meetings of the Purity League, would have been proud."

So, I'm an Andersonite then?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

You may say that, and I may think that, but I could not possibly comment.

Yours,

Francis Urquhart

[Wickerman]

Or, that there were possibly two separate identification attempts with two different Jewish witnesses (something I've always believed).

Our hands are tied with respect to the ID mentioned by Swanson. If he misremembered the location (Seaside/Seaman's Home?) the identity of this potential 2nd witness is likely to remain obscure.

What I do find a little strange is the apparent resistance to the idea of a second ID.
What should be regarded as strange is if they didn't try again, and just gave up on Kosminski. Sure he had been fingered by the Jewish witness, but they decided to let it drop? - who's kidding who here?
Is this what the police do?

Swanson must have been fuming mad at this Jewish witness, no doubt a City witness too (Lawende?). Certainly both the Met. & the City were working together, and both must have agreed that Lawende was the best choice for this ID.
Once this witness said, "Thats him, thats the man I saw, but I'll not swear to it", Swanson must have been livid, wouldn't we expect him to get another witness, and sharp?
The police did consider the same man responsible for both the Mitre Sq. murder and the Stride murder.
Wouldn't we expect Swanson tell Reid, "Get another witness Reid, and fast. This time, get one of ours!" (from the Stride case?)

Ok, enough of the drama, but this is how I see the police responding to the obstinate Jewish witness, try again, and without delay.
In the overall scheme of things the ID mentioned by Swanson made no difference. Although Swanson does claim that Kosminski now "knew he was identified", whoever this witness was, the result was the same, no charge.

Did Dr Houchin represent Swanson's "card up his sleeve"?

The police had failed to identify their suspect, but they knew they had him, or perhaps only some of them "knew" they had him. Whatever occured at the Seaside/Seaman's Home (or elsewhere?), the result was legally inconclusive, Swanson turned to Dr Houchin?
Our prime suspect may never hang for his crimes, but he'll never see daylight again either.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Deleted - found answer to question

[Chris]

What do people normally mean when they say "I couldn't swear to it"?

[Phil Carter]

What do people normally mean when they say "I couldn't swear to it"?

Hello Chris,

Here's a common interpretation...

"I think so but I'm not sure and I couldn't swear to it"

That doesn't have anything to do with recognising someone as a fellow Jew.. does it?

Which seems to me to sum up Anderson's embellishment nicely. Gets him off the hook for lack of catching the supposed killer, makes him look good with his comment used instead about being so close yet so far... and covers a gaping hole called evidence lacking on the witness sighting and uncertainty of said witness.


kindly


Phil

[Wickerman]

Scott, you did not just post this, but I lifted from your dissertation.

Both Anderson and Swanson speak of an eye-witness identification and of the refusal of the witness to give evidence. A point often made in relation to Kosminski is that a witness was not likely to have been required to give evidence against a certified lunatic already confined in an asylum. A certified lunatic would automatically be deemed unfit to plead and would simply have been kept in the asylum. The implication of this is that if the police hoped the witness would testify, then the identification took place before the suspect had been committed.

So, if the identification did not happen after committal to an asylym and if Aaron Kosminski had not been identified before he was committed, the only reasonable solution is that Aaron Kosminski wasn’t the suspect ‘Kosminski’.

I've heard of this argument before. I am not clear how it arose.

Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch in Feb 1891 by Dr Houchin. Therefore, were the police not able to charge Kosminski before that time? Since the police became aware of him in July 1890, by his placement at Mile End for three days, and the subsequent 6 months of freedom he enjoyed, couldn't the police have subjected him to an ID at any time during this period?
I think this is being assumed by some, certainly by myself.

Or perhaps the quote I lifted is an old argument which has run it's course and was put to rest in favour of more recent research?
I mention it because not too long ago someone again suggested that "you can't charge a lunatic with a crime anyway". I am wondering if this recent claim was given out of context.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

What do people normally mean when they say "I couldn't swear to it"?

Chris.
Depends really whether you mean in the common vernacular, or as a legal definition.
In this case, Anderson's words, I think we need to adopt the legal definition.

Quote:
swear v. 1) to declare under oath that one will tell the truth (sometimes "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"). Failure to tell the truth, and do so knowingly, is the crime of perjury. 2) to administer an oath to a witness that he/she will tell the truth, which is done by a notary public, a court clerk, a court reporter, or anyone authorized by law to administer oaths.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/swear

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank you...

Yes, it's a major problem and one perhaps underestimated, yet I have no real difficulty in supposing that there was an identification and that Anderson blew it way out of proportion. That's like somebody being in the crowd just after the Kennedy car had passed by, who didn't see any part of the assassination, but later is convinced and tells everyone that they did. That's essentially what Phil Sugden is saying memory does; it exaggerates things. But to invent an identification that never took place or to confuse the non-identification of a Gentile sailor by a Jewish witness, with a positive eye-witness identification of a Jewish hairdresser by a Jewish witness, seems to me to be pushing the edges of the bubble too far. Especially in a case of this significance.
Don very generously sent me a copy of the first mammoth part. Talk about deeply researched! No wonder Pt.2 has been so long coming.
Paul

Thank you for that Paul. The one thing that really does put me off addressing Anderson and his honesty is the fact that it invariably puts us at loggerheads and that I don't enjoy.

I greatly respect your work and your attention to detail in researching sources and their quality. And it is very unfortunate that the whole of this identification business hinges on the honesty of Anderson and, possibly, that of Swanson. I am all for an objective assessment of Anderson which is why I have always stated sources for anything which reflects adversely on the man. The latest, of course, being the Mallon via Bussy observations. I really don't want to go there. Inevitably it would also bring the usual cries of disdain at a perceived 'anti-Anderson' stance.

We all know the problems that beset the Anderson identification story and it would be tedious, and unnecessary, to trail them out again here.

On a happier note, yes, Dr. John Sugden's work is mammoth and, according to another Nelson aficionado, no other work on Nelson will be required by the interested student.