Kosminski Identification Questions

[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

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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,...".

[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

[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 ...

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.