Kosminski Identification Questions

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[Phil H]

Which was precisely my point.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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 ?

The way Swanson keeps his opinions at almost arm's length as far as the authorities are concerned, might reflect the possibility that although the police knew about the events, they had nothing to do with the actual transportation of the suspect. You might notice Swanson never says "we".
"Sent" by us could simply mean the police required/requested/initiated his movement, hence "with difficulty".

As far as we know, Kosminski was never under arrest. The police might have supervised his movements, due to him being a special suspect, but as far as hands-on control, that might have been the responsibility of the Institution.

We can only guess...

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

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

No, but what we are entitled to do is to question what Swanson has written.

As we all know, he tells us that 'In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS.'

If he is referring to Aaron Kosminski then he is patently wrong as that person lived in the asylum until 1919 when he died, never, apparently, ever giving rise to the suspicion amongst the asylum authorities that he was a murderer.

If Kosminski was such an important, and potentially dangerous, murderer (or even suspect) as Jack the Ripper I simply cannot believe that Swanson (and or Anderson) would not have kept tabs on him and would not have known his true status.

The above phrase is also not grammatical and must leave us with some very serious questions.

[Jeff Leahy]

Which was precisely my point...

But seriously.... I do agree with you on this Stewart.

The problem is without more information its very difficult to know for certain..

But of all Swanson's mistakes believing Kosminski was dead is by far the biggest and most problematic...

If indeed he is talking about Aaron (which as you know J B is highly sceptical about)

This is not like confusing a date or getting a name wrong, its key to the story and therefore intrinsic to the event...

My personal belief, for what its worth, is that more trawling of asylum records is necessary, both double checking Martins work and spreading the net to other asylums in 1889.

How the money is raised to achieve that I have no idea at present.

Yours Pirate

[Chris]

No, but what we are entitled to do is to question what Swanson has written.

As we all know, he tells us that 'In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect - DSS.'

If he is referring to Aaron Kosminski then he is patently wrong as that person lived in the asylum until 1919 when he died, never, apparently, ever giving rise to the suspicion amongst the asylum authorities that he was a murderer.

And if he's referring to someone else then that person couldn't have been recorded as Kozminski, either at Stepney Workhouse, or at Colney Hatch, or when he died shortly afterwards, because all those records have been checked for Kozminskis.