Plausibility of Kosminski

[The Good Michael]

I posted this yesteday and was hoping for feedback, but things got a bit (how do the Brits say this?) argy-bargy? Maybe someone said this before and surely better, but I did want to suggest that there are lies and there ar embellishments and there are lies of omission, and not all of them are the same, nor are they always intentional and can be simply miscommunications, or misremembrances:

The idea of a positive ID might have been an embellishment based on something about the reaction of the witness upon exposure to the suspect rather than upon words that were actually spoken. By this I mean upon a feeling of certainty by the detectives/officers present based upon how the witness and the suspect both responded when confronted with each other, that made it certain in their minds that these two had seen each other before. This would have been a positive ID in the minds of the officers, but without any words spoken that could lead to further detention or a course of prosecution.

This scenario would not have been an outright lie. In their minds, the suspect would have been positively ID'ed, and the witness would not have signed a sworn statement, because he never would have actually made one.


Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello FM,

There is a line in your posting that I do disagree with, as I feel it gives an incomplete picture and the example is perhaps selective...?

If you just focus on what Anderson and Swanson are suggesting, there isn't much out of sync really:

I would opine there are significant difference between the Swanson marginalia and the Anderson book references. The example I refer to, which you used, is about the Seaside Home.

We do not have a mention of a Seaside Home at all from Anderson. We see it mentioned by Swanson, but there is no certainty that he refers to a Seaside home connected to lunactic asylums. It could be a Police Seaside Home, or a Jewish retirement Seaside Home. We simply do not know and one of the things I have always thought wrong is that it has been assumed to have been one or the other. As we do not know and have no other reference for this Seaside home, the question is simple. How do we know this statement to be correct?

In Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans and Rumbelow, there is an excellent section on both men (Chapter 16 entitled "Did Anderson know?") which questions whether, in one example Anderson was dealing in sheer falsehood (the Mylett case).. and also positive evidence that Anderson's memory may have been flawed and untrustworthy. (the mixing up of the Penge case and the Road murder)

Swanson says the suspect was "sent by us" to the Seaside Home. Again, No other source says this..anywhere. If Swanson was talking about Aaron Kosminski, then he must have meant an identification taking place in July 1890, Anderson's "Polish Jew" reference relates to February 1891, when Kosminski was incarcerated, does it not?

These are important differences.

We can discuss the Kosminski situation long and broad. It, like much of the WM case, has enormous parts missing together with odd looking jigsaw pieces that seem to come from another jigsaw altogether.

kindly


Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

I posted this yesteday and was hoping for feedback, but things got a bit (how do the Brits say this?) argy-bargy? Maybe someone said this before and surely better, but I did want to suggest that there are lies and there ar embellishments and there are lies of omission, and not all of them are the same, nor are they always intentional and can be simply miscommunications, or misremembrances:

The idea of a positive ID might have been an embellishment based on something about the reaction of the witness upon exposure to the suspect rather than upon words that were actually spoken. By this I mean upon a feeling of certainty by the detectives/officers present based upon how the witness and the suspect both responded when confronted with each other, that made it certain in their minds that these two had seen each other before. This would have been a positive ID in the minds of the officers, but without any words spoken that could lead to further detention or a course of prosecution.

This scenario would not have been an outright lie. In their minds, the suspect would have been positively ID'ed, and the witness would not have signed a sworn statement, because he never would have actually made one.


Mike

In my view, based on Swanson's notes, I would say the above is highly unlikely. He's unequivocal in that the suspect was identified and he knew he had been identified.

I found Swanson's comment (something like): "the suspect was identified, and after that no more murders of this kind were committed in London" interesting. To me, it suggests a cause and effect; the effect being no more murders in London; the cause being the identification (as opposed to being detained somewhere).

Anyway, you or I could pick holes in any source material; there will always be something that appears to be confusing based on other known source material. The question is this: can anyone pick enough holes in it to render it dubious? I don't think so.

[Phil Carter]

I posted this yesteday and was hoping for feedback, but things got a bit (how do the Brits say this?) argy-bargy? Maybe someone said this before and surely better, but I did want to suggest that there are lies and there ar embellishments and there are lies of omission, and not all of them are the same, nor are they always intentional and can be simply miscommunications, or misremembrances:

The idea of a positive ID might have been an embellishment based on something about the reaction of the witness upon exposure to the suspect rather than upon words that were actually spoken. By this I mean upon a feeling of certainty by the detectives/officers present based upon how the witness and the suspect both responded when confronted with each other, that made it certain in their minds that these two had seen each other before. This would have been a positive ID in the minds of the officers, but without any words spoken that could lead to further detention or a course of prosecution.

This scenario would not have been an outright lie. In their minds, the suspect would have been positively ID'ed, and the witness would not have signed a sworn statement, because he never would have actually made one.


Mike

Hello Mike,

Good afternoon. Hope the water supply is good?..lol

The psychology of the point you make is indeed, a fair one. But surely then the whole idea of the ID is that we do not actually know, in specifically Kosminski's case, that it happened with certainty, unless we believe Anderson's words, who does not actually name him. It is only a supporting comment, made as an annotation by Swanson in Anderson's book, that gives any form of back up.

The line in Swanson's marginalia that always causes me to ponder is..

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London"

Really? If Swanson's lines are true, then the ID took place in July 1890. There certainly were more murders of that kind in London after this date between July 1890 and 1910 when Anderson's book was published for Swanson to write in the margin of it.

But I do indeed see the psychology of your thought.


kindly


Phil

[Phil Carter]

The question is this: can anyone pick enough holes in it to render it dubious? I don't think so.

Hello FM,

See my posting above to Mike. In my opinion, Swanson was clearly mistaken on this point. There were more murders of this kind between 1890 and 1910, which is the earliest point that Swanson could have written his marginalia. (1891, 1895 and 1909 (The Camden Town murders) ) for example.


kindly


Phil

[The Good Michael]

In my view, based on Swanson's notes, I would say the above is highly unlikely. He's unequivocal in that the suspect was identified and he knew he had been identified.

I agree with you re: identification, and in my scenario, the suspect is ID'ed and knows it. It just isn't a verbal ID. This allows for liberal interpretation of what Identification means, I know, but it also allows for partial truth, intentional or not in Anderson's memoirs.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Phil,

We do not have a mention of a Seaside Home at all from Anderson. We see it mentioned by Swanson, but there is no certainty that he refers to a Seaside home connected to lunactic asylums.

Agreed.

It could be a Police Seaside Home, or a Jewish retirement Seaside Home. We simply do not know and one of the things I have always thought wrong is that it has been assumed to have been one or the other. As we do not know and have no other reference for this Seaside home, the question is simple. How do we know this statement to be correct?

Have no problem in contradicting myself here, as just putting a few thoughts out.

My interpretation of Swanson's "the seaside home" is that it was a place most familiar to him. He didn't qualify it because it's THE seaside home; he didn't need to because in his mind it's obvious to which seaside home he is referring.

This seems to throw up the problem of who was the witness. I personally can easily envisage both witness and suspect being taken to the seaside home. It would seem expedient in order to maintain secrecy, and because the police couldn't predict the reaction of the suspect to a positive ID, and in the event of an extreme reaction they had a better chance of containing it at a police seaside home than say a sailor's home.

In Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans and Rumbelow, there is an excellent section on both men (Chapter 16 entitled "Did Anderson know?") which questions whether, in one example Anderson was dealing in sheer falsehood (the Mylett case).. and also positive evidence that Anderson's memory may have been flawed and untrustworthy. (the mixing up of the Penge case and the Road murder)

Agreed. Problem being that Swanson supports his central proposition, i.e. identification, witness and suspect Jewish, albeit with some inconsistent details.

So: faulty memory? a decent bet; lying? less likely in my opinion.

These are important differences.

They certainly are.

I suppose the question is this: which is most important? agreement on the central points in the event, or agreement on the details supporting the central points?

Again, in my view, it is likely that they were telling the truth on the identification while inaccurately recollecting some of the details.

And, I feel this question demands a decent explanation: who exactly was Swanson lying to?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

See my posting above to Mike. In my opinion, Swanson was clearly mistaken on this point. There were more murders of this kind between 1890 and 1910, which is the earliest point that Swanson could have written his marginalia. (1891, 1895 and 1909 (The Camden Town murders) ) for example.


kindly


Phil

I suppose it turns on 'this kind'.

Perhaps 'this kind' meant the mutilations and organ removal.

[Phil Carter]

I suppose the question is this: which is most important? agreement on the central points in the event, or agreement on the details supporting the central points?

Again, in my view, it is likely that they were telling the truth on the identification while inaccurately recollecting some of the details.

And, I feel this question demands a decent explanation: who exactly was Swanson lying to?

Hello FM,

Three very good points you make here, in my opinion.

If one is going to look at this logically, then I would opine one takes the
central points in the event first, see if they agree with other known "evidence" then widen then question to the details, to back up the central points. Otherwise it's the horse before the cart..no? Which would explain your 2nd point nicely.

The third point as to whom Swanson was lying to (if he was indeed lying).. I would personally change to.. "for whom would he be writing his "corrected" version?" For it seems it would be only for his own ascertainment of the facts as he himself remembered them.

kindly

Phil

[Chris]

The idea of a positive ID might have been an embellishment based on something about the reaction of the witness upon exposure to the suspect rather than upon words that were actually spoken. By this I mean upon a feeling of certainty by the detectives/officers present based upon how the witness and the suspect both responded when confronted with each other, that made it certain in their minds that these two had seen each other before. This would have been a positive ID in the minds of the officers, but without any words spoken that could lead to further detention or a course of prosecution.

Personally I've always thought that the likeliest explanation would be something like that.

Of course, what Anderson wrote implies that there was a positive identification. But as discussed endlessly over the years, that involves serious difficulties.

Essentially I think we have three choices:
(1) What Anderson wrote was literally true.
(2) Anderson's story of an identification was a complete invention.
(3) What Anderson wrote was inaccurate, but it had a basis in fact.

I feel the third choice is by far the likeliest. To my mind it seems probable that there was an attempted identification, that the witness was not able to make a positive identification, but that Anderson (and probably Swanson) believed, or came to believe, that the witness and the suspect had recognised each other.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I would also opine that No. 3 be the most likely, with a touch of No. 2 added for literary spice or even a sense of self importance... this last point based on the fact that he didn't really know who the killer(s) was (were) and this charged at his belief in being on top of everything happening under his watch as Assistant Commissioner.
Pride comes before a fall, as they say. I believe his pride was hurt. This case showed he was indeed not on top of everything that happened under his watch.

kindly


Phil

[Chris]

I would also opine that No. 3 be the most likely, with a touch of No. 2 added for literary spice or even a sense of self importance... this last point based on the fact that he didn't really know who the killer(s) was (were) and this charged at his belief in being on top of everything happening under his watch as Assistant Commissioner.
Pride comes before a fall, as they say. I believe his pride was hurt. This case showed he was indeed not on top of everything that happened under his

There may well have been an element of that in it.

However, if the attempted identification had been viewed as a complete failure I'm not sure why Anderson would have mentioned it at all.

Of course, that's not to say I think that Aaron Kozminski really was identified by Anderson's witness, or even that the witness thought he might have been the right man. But I think something probably happened that the police took as confirmation of their suspicions.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

The third point as to whom Swanson was lying to (if he was indeed lying).. I would personally change to.. "for whom would he be writing his "corrected" version?" For it seems it would be only for his own ascertainment of the facts as he himself remembered them.

kindly

Phil

Yes, the objective behind Swanson's notes appears unlikely to have been to promote a suspect in the public domain. So, we're left with Swanson writing a sort of diary of the events. I doubt many would lie to themselves in a diary. Also, I feel there isn't much room in the notes for infering that the identification was positive based on body language or whatever; Swanson is unequivocal in that he was identified and the suspect knew it. I think it's too much to argue otherwise.

I remain curious as to why Swanson would sign his comments when they were intended only for his own consumption.

[Trevor Marriott]

I disagree.

Clearly, supporting official documents would lend weight to the ID, but a dearth of such documents is not 'a nail in the coffin'.

Plus, the burden of proof falls on the accuser, so in the event Anderson is being acccused of lying then someone needs to prove it; and the 'more evidence should exist' line of argument does not disprove the evidence that does exist.

If you just focus on what Anderson and Swanson are suggesting, there isn't much out of sync really:

Suspect and witness Jewish - agreed.
Seaside Home v Asylum - asylums opened up wings/sections named 'Seaside Homes', so there isn't necessarily a contradiction.
Positive identification - agreed.

The meat of the story is agreed upon. They have a couple of details out, e.g. the dying in an asylum part, well, as they recalled the event 20 years down the line it would be a surprise to me were all details to marry up.

Swanson is writing his notes to Anderson's work. Swanson's notes are not intended for consumption by the general public. So, who is he lying to? Himself?

Oh, and as Feigenbaum is not mentioned in the Anderson's official records, does it speak volumes?

But does he ever mention any suspects anywhere in any official records ?

I think consistency needs to be applied across all of the source material, and were you to put together a check list of criteria to be used to compare such material, then I think Swanson's statement in particular would feature high up the list of 'good source material' (and compare favourably).

You think it because it suits you to beleive that.

[Trevor Marriott]

In my view, based on Swanson's notes, I would say the above is highly unlikely. He's unequivocal in that the suspect was identified and he knew he had been identified.

I found Swanson's comment (something like): "the suspect was identified, and after that no more murders of this kind were committed in London" interesting. To me, it suggests a cause and effect; the effect being no more murders in London; the cause being the identification (as opposed to being detained somewhere).

Anyway, you or I could pick holes in any source material; there will always be something that appears to be confusing based on other known source material. The question is this: can anyone pick enough holes in it to render it dubious? I don't think so.

But people with sensible reasoning logic can