Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

Lynn,

This is what I have been saying for a few days now, that non-verbal communication can be a positive ID and especially to people who might think they know the psychology of witnesses and suspects. This could never lead toa conviction unless a witness was somehow forced to write a statement, but it might be good enough in thr form of a memoir, to constitute positive identification in the writer's mind.

Mike

It would seem that even when Adersons memoirs were pubished nobody took that much interest one would have expected the press of the day to want ask more about the fearsome killer who had given the police the runaround. Guess thd press had no faith in Anderson either

[Trevor Marriott]

That is certainly my understanding of the modern identificational procedure, Trevor. If, as you imply, a similar approach was current in the early 1890s, Kosminski would have been either residing at his brother’s house, ‘caged in an asylum’ or undergoing treatment at the Mile End Infirmary when the preliminaries to the Seaside Home identification were actioned. In either case, I cannot understand the logic of conveying Kosminski to Brighton in order that he might be viewed by Anderson’s witness, particularly since, according to Swanson, this was an arrangement that incurred some ‘difficulty’. From a purely practical standpoint, it makes no sense.

So we’re back to square one.

There was obviously a reason why the Seaside Home was chosen for the prospective Kosminski identification – a very good reason at that, given the time, trouble and expense that would have been invested in the exercise. Hence I wondered whether the Seaside Home might have been used to accommodate sequestered witnesses in high-profile investigations. Whatever the real reason, it is only with the clarification of such matters that we can hope to understand what happened and why.

But I’m not holding my breath.

So we get back to the suggestion that there was no seaside home regarding Kosminski and that it was in fact a seamans home/mission and it related to Sadler and Hans Christian got all his facts wrong when writing his book after all what records would he have has access to all those years later. When you retire ffrom the police you still just cant swan in and out of police station at will or access records as and when.

[The Good Michael]

1) Swanson stated the man would hang based on him being identified (agreed?).

2) You are stating that the identification was likely to have been: "looks like him, can't be certain" (agreed?).

3) Therefore, deduction tells us that you're suggesting this as the most likely scenario: Swanson believed that the man would hang when the suspect said: "looks like him, but can't be certain" (agreed?).

Number 1, Yes

Number 2, NO

Number 3, No

I am saying it was enough for Swanson and/or Anderson to believe they had the suspect and to believe that the witness knew who he was without him having to say a thing. That by merely believing through body language and/or discomfort on the witness' part, that the witness did indeed ID the suspect, and that had they gotten a statement to that effect, they believed they could have condemned the man. Once again, the positive ID is a product of the minds of the men and not of anything you or I might accept. Once again, the first phase of the process of positive identification was satisfied with or without words, and is irrelevant as they needed a statement anyway. I'm done with this. I have repeated the same thing maybe 6 times and I don't know if I have another way to do it.

Mike

[PaulB]

So did the police give him a return ticket on the bus to cover his out of pocket expenses ?

Is that what you used to do?

[lynn cates]

rationalising

Hello Mac.

"The question that follows is which is more likely:

1) Swanson believed he would have been convicted on the basis of body language/eye contact etc?

2) Swanson believed he would have been convicted on the basis of a: "yes, that's the man".

I think that depends on how serious A/S were about the being hanged business. Perhaps they were rationalising why the witness was not firm?

Of course, they may have had a genuine witness with a good deal more to say that either Schwartz or Lawende. For I doubt that anyone could be hanged on their evidence.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

To Rob House:
Once again, I'm not claiming that the Echo report from October 15 was wrong (pertaining to sergeants Sergeants W. Thicke and S. White visiting Ms. Kür), but that it was (obviously) subsequent to Le Grand & Batchelor visiting her on October 9. Obviously, the “they discovered“ part in the Echo report from October 15 IS wrong, but then again, this is a newspaper report.

Again, the same thing. I do not see how you can deduce from reading the numerous reports on this that the Police visited Mrs. Kuer after October 9. Subsequent means after...

How do any of the numerous press reports on this allow us to conclude that it is "obvious" the Police visited Mrs. Kuer subsequent to October 9? It is the exact opposite of obvious... it is going against what is said in several sources, albeit newspaper reports. You say: "Obviously, the “they discovered“ part in the Echo report from October 15 IS wrong." This is exactly the type of statement that bothers me since it goes against the sources. And again, I am citing several sources that back up the chronology of events... not just one. These include an actual interview with Mrs. Kuer, and a letter written by a lodger in her house. You seem to be basing your "obvious" conclusion on the one report dated October 10, which is not even accurate enough to get the landlady's name right... it is reported as "Mrs. Kail."

Unless I am missing something. (I am starting to feel like this is a twilight zone episode.) Can you please clarify exactly how it is "obvious" that Le Grand got to Mrs. Kuer before the police did?

RH

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am saying it was enough for Swanson and/or Anderson to believe they had the suspect and to believe that the witness knew who he was without him having to say a thing. That by merely believing through body language and/or discomfort on the witness' part, that the witness did indeed ID the suspect, and that had they gotten a statement to that effect, they believed they could have condemned the man.

Mike

Lets's try again:

1) You have agreed that Swanson said the man would have hanged based on the suspect/witness encounter.

2) You are saying, in the above, that Swanson believed they had their man through body language/discomfort etc.

3) Through deduction, you are saying Swanson believed that body language/discomfort would have convicted the man.

This is where we disagree: I am saying it is unlikely a trained policeman would have arrived at the conclusion that he would have been hanged on that basis; it is more likely that Swanson would have needed a: "yes, that's the man". Ask 100 people on the street which is more likely.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac.

I think that depends on how serious A/S were about the being hanged business.

I agree, Lynn.

And, when Swanson categorically states: "he would have hanged", with no caveat whatsoever, then surely we have to take that to mean he was serious? Otherwise, we're in the realms of not taking any of the information in the source material serious based on a possibility, however slim, that the author didn't mean what he said.

I doubt that anyone could be hanged on their evidence.

Cheers.
LC

Again, Lynn, I agree. It certainly wouldn't be enough for me to hang someone.

My point is this:

The question we're discussing is not: would either the body language or "yes, that's the man" have been enough?, but rather: which of the two aforementioned theories posited between you/Chris/Mike/I is more likely?

a) That Swanson believed body language would have been enough to convict?
b) That Swanson belived a: "that's the man" would have been enough convict?

To me, there's 0.1% chance with a), and perhaps a 30/40% chance with b).

And, as Mike quite rightly said, we just don't know for sure either way,so the best we can go for is a more likely scenario.

If we're saying neither would have been enough to render even a 10% chance of Swanson arriving at that conviction conclusion, then that raises two entirely different questions: a) what would have been enough for Swanson to arrive at that conclusion b) based on a), what else did Swanson have that we're missing?

In sum: "yes that's the man" might not have been enough in Swanson's mind, but we can be as safe as one can be with regard to these matters in saying that a nod and a wink/body language/discomfort would definitely not have been enough to convict in Swanson's mind. And, this renders the idea that the ID was less than a: "yes, that's the man" an unsatisfactory conclusion, which was my original premise.

[Scott Nelson]

Yawn....God, this thread is Boring!

108 pages of circular nonsense and counting.

[mariab]

Again, the same thing. I do not see how you can deduce from reading the numerous reports on this that the Police visited Mrs. Kuer after October 9. Subsequent means after... How do any of the numerous press reports on this allow us to conclude that it is "obvious" the Police visited Mrs. Kuer subsequent to October 9?

This is a bit too circular a debate for my taste. So far, the FIRST newspaper report to document 2 detectives visiting Ms. Kür is the Northern Eastern Gazette from October 10. Everything else about an alleged police investigation at Ms. Kür's previously to October 15 (documented by The Echo) is speculation/hearsay.

You seem to be basing your "obvious" conclusion on the one report dated October 10, which is not even accurate enough to get the landlady's name right...it is reported as "Mrs. Kail."

You can't be serious. How often did the London newspapers get the names right, particularly a German name? Diemshitz became “Diemschutz“ in The Times, and so on.

an actual interview with Mrs. Kuer, and a letter written by a lodger in her house.

I'll refresh my memory (via Bromley) about this letter written by the lodger and come back to you, after having taken care of a pending deadline.

Yawn....God, this thread is Boring!
108 pages of circular nonsense and counting.

Noticed this too?

[The Good Michael]

Lets's try again:

1) You have agreed that Swanson said the man would have hanged based on the suspect/witness encounter.

2) You are saying, in the above, that Swanson believed they had their man through body language/discomfort etc.

3) Through deduction, you are saying Swanson believed that body language/discomfort would have convicted the man.

Your logic is illogical. You can't jump from point 2 to point 3 through what I've posted unless you are a total idiot. Only a sworn, signed statement could convict a man. Chris was right. You are a dork and need to just shut up. 7 times I've said the same thing and your brain can't fathom it still. Friggin' nutcase.

[robhouse]

This is a bit too circular a debate for my taste. So far, the FIRST newspaper report to document 2 detectives visiting Ms. Kür is the Northern Eastern Gazette from October 10. Everything else about an alleged police investigation at Ms. Kür's previously to October 15 (documented by The Echo) is speculation/hearsay.

I think it is obvious that your reasoning is illogical. You are basing your conclusions on nothing. This will be my last post on this, as there is clearly no point in continuing.

[lynn cates]

swinesflesh

Hello Mac. I see your point.

If it's body english, then at least I can see the incident MIGHT have taken place. But for a genuine identification to have taken place--and of hanging strength--and that with no corroboration in the official police record? Well, the word "porkie" comes to mind.

I'd like to think that Swanson was beyond that.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

The idea pertaining to hanging is what the witness thought would happen if he testified positively to the suspect, according to Swanson, not necessarily that Swanson believed this would happen. I realize literally, that is what it appears to say, but Swanson often chopped sentences and ran some together into one for brevity; having transcribed documents from ABC telegraph messages and shorthand, he was unaware of the ambiguity it might cause, because he knew what he meant... Remember the 'opposite side of the street' controversy.

He should have written - if he knew the world would read it - '... and witness (believed he) would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.

He was more emphatic that the 'suspect knew' he had been identified- repeating this twice- which suggest that Swanson played particular notice to the reaction of the suspect upon his encounter with the witness, despite what the witness may or may not have said. He wouldn't need the suspect's reaction if he had complete and positive results from the witness; which it appears he didn't. This is what a trained investigator did in a one on one confrontation and if faced with a lack of cooperation on the witness' part.

Swanson had undoubtedly faced similar situations before when a witness backed out at the last minute; for fear of his own safety, personal doubts...etc.. With all of the trouble that accrued in bringing this event about and realizing he may not get another shot, the suspect's reaction became his focus. There would have been other reasons - however incriminating they may or may have not have been- for bringing this suspect to this point.

Given the suspect's probable unpredictability and excitable condition, Swanson may have read this reaction incorrectly or may have not. We don't know the extent of this policeman's knowledge in dealing with mentally ill characters. He certainly had knowledge of what common criminals might do. But, this was a unique case revolving on a very unique situation and individual.

[Debra A]

Absolutely and most obviously, since the Batchelor in The Echo report was a shop manager and not a policeman. I'm under the impression that Debs has researched him for the possibility of family acquaintance to James Batchelor, but no results?

Maria, there are so many Js and JH Batchelors in London at the right time that it's impossible to determine who he was without more information I think. There are many intriguing possibilities.

As far as that bloody shirt goes. I think that Le Grand and Batchelor were probably just the first to disclose a well kept SY secret to the press, first discovered in the house to house by Thicke and White. The lodger thing is a different issue maybe.

and my last off topic comment...Chris...don't go! I'm reminded of a Crystal Gale song here.