Kosminski Identification Questions

[Chris]

Swanson didn't choose the words "with difficulty" randomly. That expression was once used to indicate that there was some force used to restrain the individual.

Why do you think that?

[Phil H]

The expression, "with difficulty", indicates that there was some physical resistance by the individual.

On what is that assertion based? You make the statement with great certainty?

Swanson didn't choose the words "with difficulty" randomly. That expression was once used to indicate that there was some force used to restrain the individual.

Are you saying that there another example of Swanson using that phrase in the context of physical resistance? Or is it simply your preference for it to mean that?

Phil

[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.

Marlowe

[Errata]

Well, to interject a note of common sense, even if Kos was having some good days and some bad days, and was checked into Mile Home for simple evaluation, I would imagine the minute that cops showed up and said "you're coming with us" that difficulties all around arose. The doctor's may not have wanted to release him, Kosminski certainly would not have wanted to go, the cops may have been less than forthcoming with their reasons and less than patient with their collection of the prisoner. I would not be surprised if force was used under such circumstances, it being faster than negotiation with all the relevant personalities.

Or "with difficulty" may be one of those lovely British understatements where the entire thing was botched.

Do we know the distance between the hospital and the place of identification? I was under the impression it was a several hour long carriage ride, which can't possibly be without difficulty with a man who is essentially a kidnapping victim.

[Chris]

Do we know the distance between the hospital and the place of identification? I was under the impression it was a several hour long carriage ride, which can't possibly be without difficulty with a man who is essentially a kidnapping victim.

Basically we know nothing at all about where the alleged identification took place, apart from Anderson's initial claim (later omitted) that it was when the suspect was "caged in an asylum" and Swanson's cryptic reference to "the Seaside Home."

There is no particular reason to think that it took place at the time of Aaron's admission to Mile End Old Town workhouse in July 1890. That's just a speculative suggestion.

As far as the sources go, Swanson says that it was "a very short time" before his admission to Colney Hatch (which was in February 1891). On the other hand Macnaghten says he was removed to an asylum about March 1889, which might suggest it took place much earlier.

[Natalie Severn]

Basically we know nothing at all about where the alleged identification took place, apart from Anderson's initial claim (later omitted) that it was when the suspect was "caged in an asylum" and Swanson's cryptic reference to "the Seaside Home."

There is no particular reason to think that it took place at the time of Aaron's admission to Mile End Old Town workhouse in July 1890. That's just a speculative suggestion.

As far as the sources go, Swanson says that it was "a very short time" before his admission to Colney Hatch (which was in February 1891). On the other hand Macnaghten says he was removed to an asylum about March 1889, which might suggest it took place much earlier.

Chris,
There is documentary proof relating to the court case about the law on dog muzzles that Aaron Kosminski was walking the dog [without a muzzle] in Cheapside in November 1889.There are no records of him having been 'removed to Colney Hatch ' earlier in 1889 ,though he could have had a short,unreported stay in a private asylum I suppose.

[Chris]

Chris,
There is documentary proof relating to the court case about the law on dog muzzles that Aaron Kosminski was walking the dog [without a muzzle] in Cheapside in November 1889.There are no records of him having been 'removed to Colney Hatch ' earlier in 1889 ,though he could have had a short,unreported stay in a private asylum I suppose.

Yes, I should have expanded that comment a bit.

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.

Anderson thought the alleged identification took place in an asylum. Swanson thought the alleged identification and surveillance took place "a very short time" before Aaron was committed. If these beliefs were mistaken, and were held as early as 1894, Macnaghten may have been given the same mistaken impression, and if he had a reference to Aaron being investigated in March 1889, that might explain why he also thought he had been committed to an asylum about that time.

[Marlowe]

Errata,

If by "common sense" you mean "guessing", then yes, your guess was a good one! :-) However, it wasn't classic British understatement, it was classic police understatement. And I am quite familar with it. But your defense of "the suspect" is quite admirable. I'm sure it stems from a true sense of fairness ;-)

Marlowe

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Swanson didn't choose the words "with difficulty" randomly. That expression was once used to indicate that there was some force used to restrain the individual.
Marlowe

Hi Marlowe.
Which might mean 'something' if that expression had been used previously by Swanson, but not if used by someone else.

...And, I have no idea if Swanson ever used those words before.
Marlowe

Aha!
"nuff said", as they say...
Marlowe, joking aside, I think what is missing is an example to support your opinion.

... I would imagine the minute that cops showed up and said "you're coming with us" that difficulties all around arose...

If Kosminski was placed under arrest, then yes perhaps.
I think Stewart mentioned that an inmate of an institution/asylum cannot be arrested, or maybe I misunderstood something.

There is no particular reason to think that it took place at the time of Aaron's admission to Mile End Old Town workhouse in July 1890. That's just a speculative suggestion.

I would not say, "no particular reason", but given the occasionally dubious sources available we might allow for a bit of flexibility.

If a Jewish suspect was brought before Kosminski in an asylum, not a police station, not a hospital, not at his home, and it had to be before he was returned "to his brothers care".
And, also, before his detention in Colney Hatch, then the period of his 3 night stay at Mile End, where they had a ward for imbeciles (asylum?), is quite a reasonable conjecture.
Though still conjecture.

Some have accepted more, from less...

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Firstly
If the ‘Seaside home’ suspect was Kosminski, then why on earth would the police ship suspect and witness so far away in order for the identification to take place?
Secondly
We know that the doctors at Grove Hall refused the police permission to interview or ID Ischensmidt. How likely is it that Kosminski was allowed to be shipped to a Seaside home – even ‘with difficulty’? Or interviewed or identified by a witness anywhere for that matter.

[Errata]

If Kosminski was placed under arrest, then yes perhaps.
I think Stewart mentioned that an inmate of an institution/asylum cannot be arrested, or maybe I misunderstood something.

I'm saying, let's say my sister told me I was going to be dropped off at a hospital to have a chat with a doctor to see how I am doing. Now lets say three cops suddenly show up and expect me to go with them. Even if they ask nicely, I'm not all that concerned with what they have the right to do, or what the doctor's have the right to do, as much as I am concerned that this is CLEARLY not what I signed up for, and not what I was told was going to happen. So yes. There will a ruckus. I will make one until someone either explains it to me to my satisfaction, or they physically silence me. There will be even more of a ruckus if the doctors appear to be on my side. Cause I would be off balance, in an institution, where i'm probably not super thrilled to be at in the first place.

[Chris]

We know that the doctors at Grove Hall refused the police permission to interview or ID Ischensmidt. How likely is it that Kosminski was allowed to be shipped to a Seaside home – even ‘with difficulty’? Or interviewed or identified by a witness anywhere for that matter.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he would have been sent to a Seaside Home after he was committed to Colney Hatch; Swanson places the alleged identification before he was committed.

If on the other hand you're questioning whether he would have been sent there from the Mile End Old Town workhouse, I think that's a valid question. I'd have thought that sending him to a Seaside Home would necessarily have involved discharging him from the workhouse, and his discharge on 15 July 1890 is recorded as "In Care of Brother"/"To Brother." That suggests he wasn't in police custody. Equally, Swanson's language ("sent by us") suggests that - whenever it happened - he wasn't taken by the police to the Seaside Home.

[Wickerman]

Firstly
If the ‘Seaside home’ suspect was Kosminski, then why on earth would the police ship suspect and witness so far away in order for the identification to take place?

Thats the conventional argument, that the Jewish witness was transported to Brighton/Hove as well as Kosminski - which I contest.

Whereas I offer the interpretation that there were two witnesses, a Jewish person and a policeman. And two locations for the identification, an asylum and the Seaside Home, respectively.

Two separate witnesses, two locations, two identifications.

Secondly
We know that the doctors at Grove Hall refused the police permission to interview or ID Ischensmidt. How likely is it that Kosminski was allowed to be shipped to a Seaside home – even ‘with difficulty’? Or interviewed or identified by a witness anywhere for that matter.

The whole incident is a puzzle, all we can do is work with the info we have, which is entirely inadequate, hence the conjectures.

... So yes. There will a ruckus. I will make one until someone either explains it to me to my satisfaction, or they physically silence me.

Psst....chloroform.

.... I'd have thought that sending him to a Seaside Home would necessarily have involved discharging him from the workhouse,

Wouldn't a transfer suffice?, especially if signed by one other H Division police surgeon, Dr. Houchin. He wouldn't be gone more than 24 hrs.
The overiding question then is, "why that location?" (Seaside Home).

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Psst....chloroform.


Regards, Jon S.

I actually had the pleasure of watching a lab tech open a bottle of chloroform in a closed sedan. Hilarity ensued. Which I mention because Chloroform isn't going to last for a several hour journey, so would require a reapplication. So I have visions of three cops and one asylum inmate conked out in a carriage as it pulls up to the seaside place. If I'm gonna drug someone for this, I am picking opium.

[Chris]

Wouldn't a transfer suffice?, especially if signed by one other H Division police surgeon, Dr. Houchin. He wouldn't be gone more than 24 hrs.

Was there was a procedure of "transfer," distinct from discharge, though? As far as I know, there was just admission when an inmate entered the workhouse, and discharge (or death) when they left it. Certainly when an inmate was transferred to an asylum, that was recorded as a discharge.