Plausibility of Kosminski

[Chris]

You have missed off Uncle Tom Cobbley !

Just trying to provide a bit of potentially relevant information, that may help in the interpretation of the evidence.

If you want to ridicule it, that's up to you. I can't say that it particularly surprises me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thankyou Hunter.
The only reason I made no reference to Houchin was because he was introduced to us after-the-fact, as you point out, on the second visit.

My thoughts were on the first visit, principally because of what Swanson said, that Kosminski came under suspicion when returned to his brother's house. Therefore my point was that someone at the hospital might have alerted the authorities in July while he was detained there three days.
That 'someone', could still have been Dr Houchin.

To elaborate on what I wrote earlier, if the (first?) I.D. was conducted while Kosminski was in Mile End in July (three days), then placed under surveillance by the City CID, then obviously the ID came first, that Kosminski became a police suspect due to the ID. Therefore, he was not a suspect prior to July 1890.
If Kosminski 'was' suspected prior to July, why was he admitted to Mile End by his brother?

Regards, Jon S.

I thought Aaron Kosminski was no longer a suspect for JTR

I will again comment on this questionable ID Issue which I dont belive took place.

To be able to take Kosminski down to Brighton or wherever, they would have had to tell him and possibly his relatives why they were taking him that being said he would then know he was now a suspect,as would his relatives. This was all apparently carried out by the Met

He couldnt have been taken from Mile End because he was taken back to a relatives house had he been taken from Mile End then they would have taken him back to there.

Now if the Id was as positive as is suggested when they took him back surely any observations on him would be carrried out by the Met after all the Met would not give up the ripper to The City and besides The City would not come and keep observations on him on Met territory. The Met had 4-5 murders the City only one.

Another issue to consider is that why would the police keep a watch on him thereafter. he and his relatives would know he was a suspect he is hardly likley to go out late at night or his relatives allow him to do so. If it was after 1890 why watch him in any event there had been no murders since 1889 and the next possible one was 1891 and he was locked away for that one. So if they were watching him it would have to have been around the time the murders were taking place or shortly afterwards.

According to what has been stated he was brought back from the seaside home after being identified now wouldnt you consider that to be a major breakthrough and i would have expected the police to have at least questioned him at great length and put to him the identification with a view to making him confess after all the police would not have told him that the witness would not go to court.

There is also the question of how many officers were involved in such a proceedure taking him down to Brighton. With such and important breakthrough how come no one involved has talked or written anything down in 123 years corroborating this.

In my opinion the pieces simply do not fit as far as all of this is concerned

[Trevor Marriott]

Just trying to provide a bit of potentially relevant information, that may help in the interpretation of the evidence.

If you want to ridicule it, that's up to you. I can't say that it particularly surprises me.

You just have no sense of humour which doesnt surprise me

[Chris]

He couldnt have been taken from Mile End because he was taken back to a relatives house had he been taken from Mile End then they would have taken him back to there.

I must admit I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but all the addresses that have been discovered for Aaron's relations around this time were in Mile End Old Town. That's why he was admitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse, of course.

As for the rest of it, of course people have been trying to make sense of these questions for the past 24 years.

[Chris]

You just have no sense of humour which doesnt surprise me

So sorry. Can I suggest that you post your jokes in purple or something, so we can distinguish them from the rest of your comments?

[Wickerman]

I think Wickerman does a good job of showing that, taking Anderson and Swanson at their word/s, these must have been two separate Ids.

Hi F.M.
To be fare, I should draw your attention to what Hunter wrote in response:

I believe its possible that Anderson got it wrong about the 'suspect' being incarcerated first and part of Swanson's notations seem to clarify this because it was he who conducted the procedure. As mentioned by Stewart, that part was not in Anderson's book.

That is a fare point to consider.
Just to backtrack, Anderson released his memoirs in serialized form in Blackwoods, in early 1910.
The line in question from one issue runs.
Quote:
“I will only add that 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”

The same line published later in Anderson's official biography shows the wording radically changed.
Quote:
“I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect...”

So we see that the entire reference to the suspect being “caged in an asylum” was removed, the question is why?
The possible answer (Hunter, above) is that maybe Anderson found himself in error, so he removed it. My query to that suggestion would be, then why not re-write the line correctly rather than remove it entirely? In most cases when we find ourselves in error it is largely because we realized the correct story. Could Anderson have thought “on reflection that may be incorrect, but I do not know what really happened”? - hardly!

If he knew what he wrote was wrong, I submit it would be because he knew or later learned the correct story. So, why not re-write it correctly?

But that is not the end of the issue. This line is not the only line Anderson re-worked, are we to believe Anderson only dropped lines which were incorrect?
The very same paragraph in Blackwoods, in fact in continuation of the line in question Anderson made another omission, the original ran.
Quote:
“...but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew, he declined to swear to him”.

Continuing from the previous quote in the biography we read.
Quote:
“...the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him”

So here we see Anderson removed any suggestion that the witness was also a Jew.
Anderson has repeatedly suggested that the suspect was a Jew, but first in Blackwoods he uses the term “fellow Jew” with reference to the suspect, indicating for the first time that the witness was also a Jew.
In the biography, he removed this suggestion entirely, so was this also wrong?

Was Anderson correcting lines which were initially in error? Or was there another reason?

We all know Swanson's first marginalia was to point out that the witness was indeed a Jew.
So Anderson was not removing incorrect lines, here is one that we know to have been correct. Or at least that seems to be the consensus, that Swanson was in a position to know and therefore being correct.

This example demonstrates that the observation given in Hunter's post is not necessarily the correct interpretation. That the “caged in an asylum” removed in one line may also have been just as correct as the “fellow Jew” removed from the subsequent line.

Regards, Jon S.

[Scott Nelson]

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

Joseph Hyam Levy and City P.C. James Harvey, for examples.

Now, I don't want to proclaim these things flippantly. I have the support of a prominent Ripper author with the initials of ***.

[mariab]

I'm not sure if it is known if Israel Schwartz was available in the years following the murders. We do know that Lawende remained in the area.

There was an Israel Schwartz living at 22 Samuel Street (a couple of hundred yards from the murder site) at the date of the 1891 census. As he is the only Israel Schwartz who has been found in that census anywhere in England and Wales, I think he is quite likely to have been the witness. He lived nearby for the rest of his life, and never learned English. Although he was still in the area, by the date of the 1891 census he had apparently changed his address at least three times - to 16 Brunswick Street by 8 December 1890, to 19 Brunswick Street by 3 March 1891 and to 22 Samuel Street by 5 April 1891. (Possibly one of the Brunswick Street addresses is an error) {...}

One discrepancy in the Israel Schwartz mentioned here by Chris Phillips is that he was born in Poland/Russia, not Hungary/Austria.
There was also apparenty an Israel Schwartz naturalized in 1911, resident of London from Austria, which would fit with him being an Hungarian (certificate nr. 21074 issued 14 October 1911, available at the NA).
I don't think that anyone has ever located an Israel Schwartz listed at 22 Ellen Street, as immediately after the Stride murder.
I've been researching a Schwartz anarchist orator associated with William Wess, documentedly active in London from 1902-1905 (before that, no information is available), favoring speaking in Yiddish, Polish, and Hungarian, and apparently with bad to inexistent capacity in the English language. In one report he's listed as “N. Schwartz“. Several N. Schwartzes appear in the London censuses, including a Nathan Schwartz who had a son named Israel.
I'll attempt a comprehensive research of all N. Schwartzes in censuses and possibly synagogue listings, but not before mid October/November at the absolute earliest.
I've also set my hopes in the Arbeter Fraint translation project initiated by Lynn Cates, for the possibility of the AF advertizing their orator Schwartz in the documented occasions in which he spoke in Whitechapel from 1902-1905.

There is nothing about the descriptions given by both Schwartz and Lawende to suggest that their suspects looked Jewish. However, you will see in an earlier post that I referred to Anderson's wording on the identification where he stated that the witness identified the suspect but on learning he was a fellow Jew refused to swear to it. This might indicate that the Polish Jew suspect did not have a Jewish appearance.

Very interesting interpretation.
For a host of different reasons, I tend to believe that the Jewish witness in question was Lawende.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

Well its nice to know we are in total agreement all we need now is a few more to come forward and join our cartel

But whatever you do, don't put the cartel before the horse.

[Trevor Marriott]

relatives addresses

I must admit I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but all the addresses that have been discovered for Aaron's relations around this time were in Mile End Old Town. That's why he was admitted to Mile End Old Town Workhouse, of course.

As for the rest of it, of course people have been trying to make sense of these questions for the past 24 years.

I was referring to the addresses at Sion Square and Greenfield Street which I believe came under the met so when he was taken back for The ID he would still have been in Met Territory

[Phil Carter]

But whatever you do, don't put the cartel before the horse.

Hello Stewart,

That joke got panned before you were born it is so old.


kindly

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Goodness!

Hello Stewart,
That joke got panned before you were born it is so old.
kindly
Phil

Goodness! And wasn't I born a few years before you?

By the way, didn't Diemschitz approach Dutfield's Yard in a cartel?

[Stewart P Evans]

What about...

Or, that there were possibly two separate identification attempts with two different Jewish witnesses (something I've always believed).
Joseph Hyam Levy and City P.C. James Harvey, for examples.
Now, I don't want to proclaim these things flippantly. I have the support of a prominent Ripper author with the initials of ***.

What about if there were three separate identification attempts, or four?

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson...

Anderson: Doing anything special today Swanson?

Swanson: No sir.

Anderson: Why don't we try another identification?

[mariab]

By the way, didn't Diemschitz approach Dutfield's Yard in a cartel?

I'm getting an interesting visual.
Plus post #584 totally cracked me up.