Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Record

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

We don't have a record of the witness using the words, 'I couldn't swear to it.'

What we do have is Anderson telling us, '...but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.', which is a totally different thing. The words Anderson uses here seem to indicate that the witness identified the suspect but then learned (presumably someone told him) that the suspect was a Jew. The witness then refused to make a sworn statement to confirm the identification.

Is it necessary to keep repeating that such an identification, if it took place as described, would be worthless in a legal sense? A defence lawyer would dispose of such a witness in short order. That is without going into the added complication that Anderson described the suspect as a lunatic 'caged in an asylum'.

I'm afraid that the premise, as given, appears untenable at more than one level. So, as I said, we are again thrust back into considering the veracity and reliability of Anderson.

[mariab]

The words Anderson uses here seem to indicate that the witness identified the suspect but then learned (presumably someone told him) that the suspect was a Jew. The witness then refused to make a sworn statement to confirm the identification.

This is an interesting interpretation. Until this was mentioned recently on this thread, I was under the impression that the Jewish witness sorta backed off with his “identification“ upon learning that the suspect in question was Jewish too.

Is it necessary to keep repeating that such an identification, if it took place as described, would be worthless in a legal sense? A defence lawyer would dispose of such a witness in short order.

For some reason, this fact is not often commented upon. In my opinion, an “identification“ of this kind would have been helpful mostly as a means of intimidating the suspect into a confession.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nice to see you...

...
Irrespective of which police officer is to be believed, none of them bothered to reveal the solution to the others . . .
...
Simon

Nice to see you posting here Simon.

I am not sure how you can make the above statement when both Anderson and Macnaghten went very public with their theories, albeit they were very different.

Anderson was publicly dismissed by Reid, and, no doubt, his public 1910 statement that he knew the identity of the Ripper drew the response from Littlechild that 'Anderson only "thought he knew".'

'...to see you, nice.'

[Trevor Marriott]

over and over again

Hi Stewart

We don't have a record of the witness using the words, 'I couldn't swear to it.'

What we do have is Anderson telling us, '...but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.', which is a totally different thing. The words Anderson uses here seem to indicate that the witness identified the suspect but then learned (presumably someone told him) that the suspect was a Jew. The witness then refused to make a sworn statement to confirm the identification.

I dont think that could be correct because in order to identify him he would have had to confont him. Surely at that point he would have been able to see that the man before him was Jew. If he had those concerns at that point all he simlpy had to do was to fail to identify him end of story. Like |I said previous if the witness in the first instance had stated he could not recognise the man again would they have gone to all this trouble the answer is no

I have been involved in many ID parades where I have watched witnesses looking at suspects on a parade and by their reaction when they look at the suspect in question they then say that they are unable to make a positiive identification. Why do they do this, sometime fear of retribution, or simply they know the suspect and the suspect knows them, or they have been paid off.

Is it necessary to keep repeating that such an identification, if it took place as described, would be worthless in a legal sense? A defence lawyer would dispose of such a witness in short order. That is without going into the added complication that Anderson described the suspect as a lunatic 'caged in an asylum'.

I agree with you it is not necessary to keep going over this ID issue but the problem is that although both you and I have highlighted major flaws in it from not only the police perspective but the practical side of such an ID proceedure carried out in the way suggested. Sadly some wont accept those flaws and seem to want to keep coming back with alternatives.

I'm afraid that the premise, as given, appears untenable at more than one level. So, as I said, we are again thrust back into considering the veracity and reliability of Anderson.

[Trevor Marriott]

Chicken or the egg

Hi
Chicken or the egg ?

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

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.

Where can you prove the police became aware of him in July 1890.?

Leaving Hans Christian Anderson out of this. You have to look at what came first in this fiasco and that was in 1894 The MM in that he states Kosminski died in 1889.Clearly we know that couldnt have been AAron Kosminski and we know of no other Kosminski

In 1895 Swanson states that The Killer was now dead. Then in later years he writes the name Kosminski. This to me is quite clear and simple to understand.
All Swanson was doing was corrborating MM and the memo even to the point of only referring to Kosminski by surname. Now of course it has been proved the MM is unreliable to say the least. So it gets back to where how and from whom did the name Kosminski come from. It would appear to have been an unreliable source and was nothing more than hearsay.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Possibility

Trevor, I have no doubt that the identification described was an identification by confrontation as opposed to a proper identity parade (just think of the practical problems involved with a formal identity parade).

What we have discussed here is the possibility that the suspect did not have an obvious Jewish appearance (you will see what Chris posted on that). So I speculated that Anderson's wording, if taken literally, means that the witness made a positive identification, then on learning that the suspect was Jewish refused to make a sworn statement. Whatever way you look at this it couldn't have been a proper police procedure, if it took place as described.

[PaulB]

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.

Hi Stewart,
Disagreement over the interpretation of a source is why historians often appear to be argumentative, but that's really not a problem because both interpretations are probably valid and can be openly acknowledged as such. It's the perception of being pro- or anti-, with the implication of bias, that causes the trouble as it questions the individual's professionalism. But I think we have established now that we are not biased, not pushing for a particular interpretation of the evidence, but are just interested in establishing the facts or making clear the possible interpretations. So I think our being at loggerheads is a thing that we can both comfortably assign to the past. Having said that, we know how we both think, so there is no point in our going over the well-trodden ground again and again, but others may like the alternative perspective so we can state it in the comfort of knowing that we don't have to debate it with each other! That's how it should be. It's great.

[Steven Russell]

There can surely be no doubt that the police of the time were well aware that this kind of identification would be worthless in court. Is it possible that they were reasonably confident of Kosminski's guilt but also aware it could not be proven legally? If (and I understand it's a big if) this was the case, might they not have been content to let him languish in an asylum where he was no threat to the public, perhaps having a quiet word with asylum authorities to make sure he was never released?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

I dont think that could be correct because in order to identify him he would have had to confont him. Surely at that point he would have been able to see that the man before him was Jew. If he had those concerns at that point all he simlpy had to do was to fail to identify him end of story. Like |I said previous if the witness in the first instance had stated he could not recognise the man again would they have gone to all this trouble the answer is no

Hello Trevor

Presuming these are your words -- it's a bit hard to tell given that you are using the quote boxes and putting your own words in the box with other people's statements. If you don't put your statements in that box we would better know who is saying what --

In any case, needless to say, and I don't think it is anti-semitic to say it, not all Jews look like Jews. It's just that as you have been saying, and so many of us say, the whole identification idea doesn't sound right. Not only would it not have stood up in court but the scenario doesn't quite add up from what we are told about it.

All the best

Chris

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I have no doubt that the identification described was an identification by confrontation as opposed to a proper identity parade (just think of the practical problems involved with a formal identity parade).

What we have discussed here is the possibility that the suspect did not have an obvious Jewish appearance (you will see what Chris posted on that). So I speculated that Anderson's wording, if taken literally, means that the witness made a positive identification, then on learning that the suspect was Jewish refused to make a sworn statement. Whatever way you look at this it couldn't have been a proper police procedure, if it took place as described.

Forgive me if i didnt make myself clear I was referring to a direct confronation as aginst a formal ID parade.

But how would the witness have learnt the suspect was a jew surely if he identified him the police would have taken a statement from him there and then why would they have felt the need to tell him that the man he had identified was a jew.

Of course on the other side of the coin if the suspect was known or belived to me insane the question of the witness giving evidence would have been academic.

If all of this did take place how come good old Abberline never ever mentioned it has anyone thought of that surely he more than anyone would have been aware.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Forgive me if i didnt make myself clear I was referring to a direct confronation as aginst a formal ID parade.
But how would the witness have learnt the suspect was a jew surely if he identified him the police would have taken a statement from him there and then why would they have felt the need to tell him that the man he had identified was a jew.
Of course on the other side of the coin if the suspect was known or belived to me insane the question of the witness giving evidence would have been academic.
If all of this did take place how come good old Abberline never ever mentioned it has anyone thought of that surely he more than anyone would have been aware.

It's all very confusing I agree. Not least of all because in one version (Blackwood's) Anderson first places the identification after he was 'caged in an asylum'. That should have been impossible and it casts very serious doubt on what Anderson said.

Yes, normal procedure would have been (and is) to take a sworn statement immediately after a positive identification. Which leaves us with the puzzle of Anderson definitely saying, '...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 the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.' This is unequivocal, at the same time being seemingly impossible to have happened like that.

The police may not have informed the witness that the suspect was a Jew. Anything could have been said to alert the witness to that possibility immediately after he identified the suspect. For instance the witness was probably of obvious Jewish appearance (like Schwartz) and after the identification the suspect could have said to the witness, 'How can you condemn a fellow Jew?'

It is all speculation and theorising and very, very, unsatisfactory, especially if you are a police officer and know the strict rules which the police have (and had) to adhere to. And it goes without saying that such an important identification should have been known about by other officers, significantly people like Macnaghten, who makes no mention of it at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's all very confusing I agree. Not least of all because in one version (Blackwood's) Anderson first places the identification after he was 'caged in an asylum'. That should have been impossible and it casts very serious doubt on what Anderson said.

Yes, normal procedure would have been (and is) to take a sworn statement immediately after a positive identification. Which leaves us with the puzzle of Anderson definitely saying, '...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 the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.' This is unequivocal, at the same time being seemingly impossible to have happened like that.

The police may not have informed the witness that the suspect was a Jew. Anything could have been said to alert the witness to that possibility immediately after he identified the suspect. For instance the witness was probably of obvious Jewish appearance (like Schwartz) and after the identification the suspect could have said to the witness, 'How can you condemn a fellow Jew?'

It is all speculation and theorising and very, very, unsatisfactory, especially if you are a police officer and know the strict rules which the police have (and had) to adhere to. And it goes without saying that such an important identification should have been known about by other officers, significantly people like Macnaghten, who makes no mention of it at all.

So at the end of the day it all comes back to Anderson fact ot fiction ?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's all very confusing I agree. Not least of all because in one version (Blackwood's) Anderson first places the identification after he was 'caged in an asylum'. That should have been impossible and it casts very serious doubt on what Anderson said.

Yes, normal procedure would have been (and is) to take a sworn statement immediately after a positive identification. Which leaves us with the puzzle of Anderson definitely saying, '...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 the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.' This is unequivocal, at the same time being seemingly impossible to have happened like that.

The police may not have informed the witness that the suspect was a Jew. Anything could have been said to alert the witness to that possibility immediately after he identified the suspect. For instance the witness was probably of obvious Jewish appearance (like Schwartz) and after the identification the suspect could have said to the witness, 'How can you condemn a fellow Jew?'

It is all speculation and theorising and very, very, unsatisfactory, especially if you are a police officer and know the strict rules which the police have (and had) to adhere to. And it goes without saying that such an important identification should have been known about by other officers, significantly people like Macnaghten, who makes no mention of it at all.

i agree Macnaghten should have been aware it and if he had surely he would have included it in the same reference to Kosminski in his memo.

[PaulB]

It's just that as you have been saying, and so many of us say, the whole identification idea doesn't sound right."

Actually Chris, as far as I know everyone recognises and says “the whole identification idea doesn't sound right” and they've been saying it for over two decades. That’s why there is argument about it.

Not only would it not have stood up in court but the scenario doesn't quite add up from what we are told about it.

This presupposes that it was the intention of the police to present the identification in court (not unreasonable given Swanson's statement that the the witness didn't want to be responsible for a man being hanged) and decidedly odd if the suspect was manifestly insane. All I can suppose is that the police hoped to bring the suspect before the magistrate and outline the charges against him, whereupon the suspect would have been examined by a doctor, certified insane and declared unfit to plead. No trial would have taken place, no verdict given, but some of the evidence would have been heard and the suspect's guilt implied. That's all supposition, of course.

[Chris]

You have to look at what came first in this fiasco and that was in 1894 The MM in that he states Kosminski died in 1889.Clearly we know that couldnt have been AAron Kosminski and we know of no other Kosminski

In 1895 Swanson states that The Killer was now dead. This to me is quite clear and simple to understand.
All Swanson was doing was corrborating MM and the memo even to the point of only referring to Kosminski by surname.

Macnaghten says that he was removed to an asylum about March 1889, not that he died then.

In fact, in the Aberconway version he wrote that he believed Kosminski was still in the asylum. Was this statement removed because there was already a belief in some quarters that Kosminski was dead?