Kosminski Identification Questions

[Chris]

It seems that Macnaghten was mistaken about Aaron Kozminski having been sent to an asylum in March 1889. But there is still the possibility that Macnaghten's date refers to the police investigation of Aaron Kozminski.

I think the strongest reason for not dismissing Macnaghten's date as a simple error is that he didn't join the force until June 1889. Obviously people can get dates wrong, but if the investigation of Aaron Kozminski took place after Macnaghten was appointed Assistant Chief Constable, wouldn't he have known about it and remembered it - and wouldn't he have been aware that it must have happened after the date of his appointment, not before?

[Phil H]

Some thoughts on "taken" and "sent".

I can "take" a parcel to someone, which implies I personally do it.

I could "send" it, which might imply the Post Office being the carrier. But if my son or partner was "sent" to deliver it by hand, there there would be an even more direct link back to me.

The office boy delivering a parcel by hand on instruction from a superior would say he "took" it; the superior official might say he "sent" it - in that he did not carry out the action personally, but was responsible for it. So there could be an element of perspective here - Swanson "sent", other, less senior coppers "took".

"Sent" could also imply going alone - "Jimmy was sent to the headmaster's study" could be taken to imply that Jimmy went alone.was unaccommpanied, which would be off in the Kosminski situation.

I put my money on the perspective approach - Anderson/Swanson were taking an "Olympian" view - they gave instructions, thus SENT. But it may still have been his/their intent to imply that it was still their people who "took".

Others may have differing views, of course.

Phil

[Phil H]

Marlowe

Well, I'm tempted to say that it's a definitely ascertained fact...but let me just say that I'm not guessing nor is it my 'preference'. And, I have no idea if Swanson ever used those words before.

Your response to my question provides no corroboration for your view - no reasoning behind your apparent belief that it is "a definitely ascertained fact".

On that basis I cannot take your statement as other than a peronal, subjective belief and thus give it less weight than you would perhaps wish.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Source Material

This is a much-debated, much-discussed, much-argued and totally unresolved subject. And, short of new material coming to light, we are unlikely to reach a consensus of opinion.

The source material for the identification is not the best. We are told that Anderson was in the 'best position to know' but there were others in a similar position who patently did not agree with him. And we have the also unresolved issue of Swanson's 'tacit' support of Anderson. We would do well to pause, calm down, and look at the problems here.

First the only sources for the identification story are Anderson and Swanson and they do not seem to be totally in accord. So what are the pros and cons?

Pros -

The story is given by two retired high-ranking CID officers who were the two men at the head of the investigation.

It is an unsensational suspect with a mundane scenario of mental illness and incarceration.

The suspect ('Kosminski') is confirmed as a genuine suspect by Macnaghten in his 1894 report.

Cons -

The sources for the story are not contemporary official documents and no official or press report supporting the identification has ever been found.

The story was first told by Anderson in a footnote in his 1910 serialisation of 'The Lighter Side of My Official Life' in Blackwood's Magazine of March 1910, over 20 years after the event.

The story was commented upon and expanded by annotations made by Swanson in his copy of Anderson's book some time after publication. There is a discrepancy in the annotations and they are ungrammatical.

The identification described is seemingly irregular and not a proper legal procedure. It would be valueless given the remove in time and the fact that no witness ever saw a murder actually being committed.

These points have all been debated and analysed many times and cannot be resolved.

[Chris]

These points have all been debated and analysed many times and cannot be resolved.

Mind you, the fact that they can't be resolved probably has a lot to do with their popularity as a subject of debate ...

[Jeff Leahy]

It would be valueless given the remove in time and the fact that no witness ever saw a murder actually being committed.

Hi Stewart

Much though I agree with the general thrust of your post.

Do we actually know as fact no one witnessed a murder?

Its at least possible, given Dr Blackwell's evidence, that the event witnessed by Schwartz was Strides murder (although I personally think this unlikely). As you know I prefer Schwartz to Lawende (which I know you personally disagree with)

But wouldnt the event described by Swanson be a last ditched attempted to false a confession, rather than a serious attempt to bring a case against Kosminski?

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Amazing

What I find quite amazing about Anderson is that, given his legal and police background, he made statements that simply could not be true. An example is "...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal,...".

[Stewart P Evans]

Strange

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."

[jason_c]

What I find quite amazing about Anderson is that, given his legal and police background, he made statements that simply could not be true. An example is "...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal,...".

Wouldnt this be untrue only if he stated "there was no legal doubt whatever?"

Its a lawyer we are discussing here. They are as slippery as an eel covered in KY jelly.

[c.d.]

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."

I find it very hard to believe that the police would have simply said "ah shoot" and let it go. I think it much more likely that they would have leaned on the witness big time hoping that he might "reconsider" his position.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

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."

A fairly specific piece of information. And one of the reasons I've always doubted Anderson could have been refering or confusing the Sadler ID.

Pirate

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[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.

[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.