Kosminski Identification Questions

[belinda]

It seemed a bit odd to me that he remembered Kosminkis being tied up on being taken to Stepney well enough to mention it but said nothing more than "with difficulty" about the identification. No actual specific reference to Kosminski being in any way restrained at the Seaside Home.

Possibly Kosminski thought he would not be recognised and wasn't resistant. The difficulty may not have been Kosminski himself but some other factor?

The family may have opposed it maybe the difficulty was getting them to agree?
Is it possible that any other member of the Kosminski family could have been present when the identification took place?
Maybe the family were unwilling to allow it because of the harm it could do to them if word got around ?

[Wickerman]

Interestingly he doesn't make any mention of the suspect being restrained in any way at the identification. Of course that doesn't mean he wasn't. I don't think Kosminski would have been a willing participant though.

Ok, I was not sure in which way you meant this. Largely because I interpret there being two separate identifications.
In the first instance Kosminski is detained at Mile End and the Jewish witness is brought to him for the I.D.
In the second instance Kosminski is "sent .... with difficulty" to the Seaside Home (was he shackled?).
Only later, when being re-admitted to the Stepney Workhouse at Mile End was he tied up. By then perhaps he was unmanageable... now he was to be incarcerated for good.

Regards, Jon S.

[belinda]

Belinda, you wrote: "Interestingly he doesn't make any mention of the suspect being restrained in any way at the identification." You make an excellent point.

But he did make mention of it in a way. By saying, "with difficulty", he was suggesting there was a need to restrain Kosminski, who apparently put up some kind of fight. Naturally, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, but that's what it means in my experience. The need to tie his hands at a later date, helps to support that interpretation.

Marlowe

It struck me because he mentions Kosminskis hands being tied behind his back when taken to Stepney Workhouse but doesn't say anything specific for the identification or how Kosminski behaved while there.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah..then an excellent point it was...

[Phil H]

Which was precisely my point.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

I think we are entitled to doubt Swanson's complete accuracy given the lapse of time, and to question what he wrote on specific points.

Your entitled to question complete accuracy, it would be most unusual.

What your not entitled to do is presume that Swanson was in any way going senile or not in charge of his mental facalties...fore which there is NO evidence.

Pirate

[Marlowe]

Belinda, you wrote: "Interestingly he doesn't make any mention of the suspect being restrained in any way at the identification." You make an excellent point.

But he did make mention of it in a way. By saying, "with difficulty", he was suggesting there was a need to restrain Kosminski, who apparently put up some kind of fight. Naturally, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, but that's what it means in my experience. The need to tie his hands at a later date, helps to support that interpretation.

Marlowe

[Phil H]

But how good was Swansons memory?The ultimate question.

Looking at this from the perspective of the historical method:

I think we are entitled to doubt Swanson's complete accuracy given the lapse of time, and to question what he wrote on specific points.

We have no reason to question that he would have recollected the main sequence of events correctly or that he deliberatelly falsified his account - without some definite corroboration.

On the other hand, if my suggestion on another thread is correct, and he simply recorded Anderson's account - of which he was hitherto unaware - then we have only Anderson's credibility to question.

Phil

[belinda]

In Paul Beggs Jack The Ripper The Facts

From Swanson Marginalia

"suspect knew he was identified"

" in a very short time after this suspect was taken with his hands tied behind his back" to Stepney Workhouse

If Swanson was right this places the identification within weeks or a few months at most before Kosminski was taken to Stepney Hatch.

But how good was Swansons memory?The ultimate question.

Interestingly he doesn't make any mention of the suspect being restrained in any way at the identification. Of course that doesn't mean he wasn't. I don't think Kosminski would have been a willing participant though.

[Errata]

You will read it often enough in witness statements, "foreign looking" was a Victorian euphemism for "looking like a Jew", they used this euphemism for a reason. Jews 'looked' different to the common English working class man.

Regards, Jon S.
(why do you talk about today?, I specifically said "the 19th century".

Because it wasn't any more true back then than it is today. "Foreign Looking" was not actually as much a euphemism for Jew as it was for Eastern European. Because let's face it, the English population was not so homogenized that any outsider would stick out. And in fact the only reason it was a euphemism for Eastern European is because there were much ruder names for people who blended in less well than Russians. Being a euphemism doesn't make it accurate. if 80 out of 100 Jews would pass without comment, then it doesn't matter what language they used to say that "someone looked Jewish" they were still wrong. People did not then, and do not now "look Jewish". And people who think they can tell by looking are dumb. And also probably members of the Third Reich. There isn't even traditional Jewish dress, unless a man is wearing a prayer shawl, which would be hidden anyway, and the Orthodox sideburns. Otherwise they dressed like any other guy from whatever country they were from.

And to be perfectly frank, the Russians were tolerated quite a bit more than a lower class Jew. Any witness statement that said "foreign looking" likely meant just that. Foreign looking. It's only in a policeman's own statements where they would not come out and say that the guy looked like a Jew, or more commonly a kike. Cops had to worry about who would see their reports. Shopkeepers didn't care.

[Wickerman]

You will read it often enough in witness statements, "foreign looking" was a Victorian euphemism for "looking like a Jew", they used this euphemism for a reason. Jews 'looked' different to the common English working class man.

Regards, Jon S.
(why do you talk about today?, I specifically said "the 19th century".

[Errata]

In keeping with that line of thought, that what Anderson claimed was not entirely accurate. I would only add, that as this Jewish citizen witness was said to have had a "good view" of the murderer, then I find it difficult to believe that one Jew could not recognise another Jew.

In other words, if this witness truely did have a good view of the killer then he already knew the killer was a Jew, simply on appearances, be them facial or by traditional dress. I'm not sure that Jews tried to assimilate into Western Culture in the 19th century as readily as some might today.
They lived different, ate different, dressed different, looked different, and spoke different.
Something, is not kosher...

Regards, Jon S.

Well, I don't recognize other Jews all the time, and there are actually less of us now than there were then. Jewish isn't something you look like. Anymore than Southern Baptist is something you look like. A lot of people assume that certain famous people are Jews when they really aren't. And vice versa. I mean maybe it gets reinforced when people think Dustin Hoffman looks Jewish, and is Jewish. But everyone acts so surprised to find out Sarah Michelle Gellar, Lisa Bonet, Paula Abdul, Goldie Hawn, even Paul Newman are equally as Jewish as Dustin Hoffman. Most people think Alan Alda is Jewish. He isn't. I think we as a planet need to get past the idea that one can recognize Jews on sight.

Jews assimilated brilliantly in Victorian London. Disraeli anyone? Sarah Bernhardt assimilated in Paris, which is much harder. Willingness or ability had little to do with assimilation. Wearing British clothes, owning British things, living a British lifestyle takes money. Which is why everyone in the East End wore the clothes the came with until they were threads. The sheer volume of Jews in the East End made it incredibly unlikely that Jews knew each personally. There are 18 times less Jews here, and I know maybe a a tenth of that number as a nodding acquaintance. It isn't that he couldn't identify the man, it's that he wouldn't. On blatantly false pretenses. Which the cops should have known were crap reasons.

[Wickerman]

...I can only think of two things. It didn't happen that way at all, or the identifying witness lied about why he wouldn't make the identification. Maybe the witness was a criminal and didn't want to be exposed, although a better situation for immunity I can't imagine. Maybe he lied about the initial identification.

In keeping with that line of thought, that what Anderson claimed was not entirely accurate. I would only add, that as this Jewish citizen witness was said to have had a "good view" of the murderer, then I find it difficult to believe that one Jew could not recognise another Jew.

In other words, if this witness truely did have a good view of the killer then he already knew the killer was a Jew, simply on appearances, be them facial or by traditional dress. I'm not sure that Jews tried to assimilate into Western Culture in the 19th century as readily as some might today.
They lived different, ate different, dressed different, looked different, and spoke different.
Something, is not kosher...

Regards, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

Um...doesnt it say something like 'the suspect new he was recognised'?

[Errata]

Another strange thing that Anderson stated, apropos of the identification, was, "the man who identified the murderer was a Jew, but on learning that the criminal was a Jew he refused to proceed with his identification."

Yeah, I don't understand this at all. There was no cultural or religious consequence to identifying another Jew as a murderer. I mean, you might get ribbed if you identified a pickpocket, but not a killer. Jewish law has the death penalty, so it's not even as though he had to worry about whether or not the suspect would hang. In fact the council of Rabbis in London were sending out the word, begging people to tell what they knew. I can't think of a single reason not to identify him, not even to spare his family because even his family would have been perceived as in grave danger.

I can only think of two things. It didn't happen that way at all, or the identifying witness lied about why he wouldn't make the identification. Maybe the witness was a criminal and didn't want to be exposed, although a better situation for immunity I can't imagine. Maybe he lied about the initial identification.