The Seaside Home: an alternative scenario

[Chris]

"... after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night."


The Seaside Home reference is one of the more perplexing statements about the case made by senior officers. Why send the suspect so far away from London to be identified, especially if it could be done only with difficulty?

It is often assumed that this is a reference to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Clarendon Villas, Hove. That leaves me unable to think of any plausible answer to the question above. The best I can do in that case is to suggest that Swanson must have been very confused, and muddled up an attempted identification by a police officer staying in the home with an attempted identification by a reluctant Jewish witness somewhere else.

Another possibility is that it refers to another seaside home, where the witness was a patient at the time. That seems a more reasonable possibility.

But a third possibility is that it was Aaron Kozminski himself who was the patient. This scenario was originally suggested by the possibility that the Crawford letter referred to Kozminski, but obviously the general idea doesn't depend on that being the case. The reasoning is as follows.

Suppose the police were approached by a member of Kozminski's family, who for some reason suspected that he might be the murderer. This person wanted to help the police to investigate him, but was terrified both for his safety and for the safety of the rest of the family in case it became known that he was a suspect. After all, John Piser had quite plausibly explained that he stayed indoors during the Leather Apron hysteria because "I should have been torn to pieces if I had gone out."

Suppose that the first thing the police wanted to do was to show Kozminski to a witness and see if he could be identified. But how could they do that without it becoming known that he was a suspect? Arresting him openly would obviously risk giving the game away. Standing outside his house with the witness might make it even more obvious. Even if there were a concealed place nearby where they could watch, they could hardly keep the witness there for hours on end waiting for the suspect to make an appearance.

Suppose they suggested instead that, with the family's cooperation, they could arrange for him to be sent away to a seaside convalescent home as a patient for a week or two. In that environment, he could be shown to the witness without even knowing that an attempt was being made to identify him. If the police did then need to arrest him, it could be done in the privacy of the seaside home, far from London, and there would be time to take measures to protect the family before the news got out and the identity of the suspect became known.

The sending of Kozminski to the seaside home might have involved difficulties for several reasons. Beds in charitable convalescent homes were in short supply, and it might not have been easy to arrange a place for him, particularly if the police wanted the real reason for his visit to remain secret. On the other hand, if they admitted they were indulging in subterfuge, that might have been viewed as an abuse of the charitable purpose of the home. And of course it may be that Aaron Kozminski himself resisted being sent away from home, particularly given the degree of paranoid behaviour that was later recorded of him.

Of course, this is just speculation. But it would provide one possible explanation for the identification having been attempted at a location far from London, to which it was difficult to send the suspect. And I think it might also explain some of the odd phraseology used by Swanson. Thus the suspect was not "taken" to the seaside home, but "sent." He was not brought back home, but he "returned". And why does Swanson tell us that the suspect had been sent to the seaside home "in order to subject him to identification"? Isn't that obvious from the fact we've just been told - that he was identified there? Or does Swanson mean that he had been sent there as a patient in order to subject him to identification?

It might also explain Anderson's apparently confusion about the suspect being identified while "caged in an asylum" - because it would mean that the identification was attempted while he was, at least, a patient in an institution. And if the same confusion was passed on to Macnaghten, it might even explain why he thought Kozminski was sent to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. Could this, in reality, have been the date when he was sent to the "seaside home"?

[Phil H]

The idea seems plausible, Chris.

I maintain strongly that we have to assume that (minor points of detail apart) Swanson intended to say something.

As we cannot square what we know to the evidence we have, then it is surely worth examining other approaches. (Hence my suggestion in another thread that Swanson may have written at Anderson's "dictation" facts he did not previously know - hence the grammatical and other odditiwes.)

We should look at all these points, as also any potential confusion between a Seaside Home - on the coast - and a Seamen's Home - in London? (was not one involved in the case of Saddler?)

We should certainly examine alternative scenarios and differing interpretations - they may bring to light internal evidence (i.e. from the document itself) that may enlighten us.

Phil

[robhouse]

Hi Chris,

I, for one, think that this is a very plausible scenario. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the most plausible one I have yet heard, and it does provide an explanation for most of the anomalies of the identification. I also like the suggestion re: the date of March 1889 as a possible date of the identification.

The only part I think I might disagree on is where you said "he could be shown to the witness without even knowing that an attempt was being made to identify him." This would be apparently contradicted by Swanson's statement that the suspect "knew he had been identified." It seems likely to me that the police would have wanted the suspect to know that he was being subjected to identification by a witness, in order to see if they could get a reaction or a confession out of him, even if the identification failed.

I suppose the only real problem with this scenario is Swanson's statement "In a very short time the suspect... was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch..."

But, it is possible that this "very short time" means the time between the identification and Kozminski's first admission to MEOT workhouse. Still, that would be over a year (March 1889 to July 1890). But I do not see that as a very big problem really.

Rob

[Stephen Thomas]

[I]Another possibility is that it refers to another seaside home, where the witness was a patient at the time. That seems a more reasonable possibility.

Indeed, Chris. As far as I'm concerned there's an awful lot of rot talked about this subject. The gist of the story is that a Jewish person declines to testify against another Jewish person. This totally rules out the Sadler/Seamans Home theory as Sadler wasn't Jewish and the idea that there was a Jewish policeman who refused to identify JTR on cultural grounds is just silly.

[Abby Normal]

"... after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night."


The Seaside Home reference is one of the more perplexing statements about the case made by senior officers. Why send the suspect so far away from London to be identified, especially if it could be done only with difficulty?

It is often assumed that this is a reference to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Clarendon Villas, Hove. That leaves me unable to think of any plausible answer to the question above. The best I can do in that case is to suggest that Swanson must have been very confused, and muddled up an attempted identification by a police officer staying in the home with an attempted identification by a reluctant Jewish witness somewhere else.

Another possibility is that it refers to another seaside home, where the witness was a patient at the time. That seems a more reasonable possibility.

But a third possibility is that it was Aaron Kozminski himself who was the patient. This scenario was originally suggested by the possibility that the Crawford letter referred to Kozminski, but obviously the general idea doesn't depend on that being the case. The reasoning is as follows.

Suppose the police were approached by a member of Kozminski's family, who for some reason suspected that he might be the murderer. This person wanted to help the police to investigate him, but was terrified both for his safety and for the safety of the rest of the family in case it became known that he was a suspect. After all, John Piser had quite plausibly explained that he stayed indoors during the Leather Apron hysteria because "I should have been torn to pieces if I had gone out."

Suppose that the first thing the police wanted to do was to show Kozminski to a witness and see if he could be identified. But how could they do that without it becoming known that he was a suspect? Arresting him openly would obviously risk giving the game away. Standing outside his house with the witness might make it even more obvious. Even if there were a concealed place nearby where they could watch, they could hardly keep the witness there for hours on end waiting for the suspect to make an appearance.

Suppose they suggested instead that, with the family's cooperation, they could arrange for him to be sent away to a seaside convalescent home as a patient for a week or two. In that environment, he could be shown to the witness without even knowing that an attempt was being made to identify him. If the police did then need to arrest him, it could be done in the privacy of the seaside home, far from London, and there would be time to take measures to protect the family before the news got out and the identity of the suspect became known.

The sending of Kozminski to the seaside home might have involved difficulties for several reasons. Beds in charitable convalescent homes were in short supply, and it might not have been easy to arrange a place for him, particularly if the police wanted the real reason for his visit to remain secret. On the other hand, if they admitted they were indulging in subterfuge, that might have been viewed as an abuse of the charitable purpose of the home. And of course it may be that Aaron Kozminski himself resisted being sent away from home, particularly given the degree of paranoid behaviour that was later recorded of him.

Of course, this is just speculation. But it would provide one possible explanation for the identification having been attempted at a location far from London, to which it was difficult to send the suspect. And I think it might also explain some of the odd phraseology used by Swanson. Thus the suspect was not "taken" to the seaside home, but "sent." He was not brought back home, but he "returned". And why does Swanson tell us that the suspect had been sent to the seaside home "in order to subject him to identification"? Isn't that obvious from the fact we've just been told - that he was identified there? Or does Swanson mean that he had been sent there as a patient in order to subject him to identification?

It might also explain Anderson's apparently confusion about the suspect being identified while "caged in an asylum" - because it would mean that the identification was attempted while he was, at least, a patient in an institution. And if the same confusion was passed on to Macnaghten, it might even explain why he thought Kozminski was sent to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. Could this, in reality, have been the date when he was sent to the "seaside home"?

Hi Chris
It sounds like a very good possibility. Except perhaps this part:

Suppose the police were approached by a member of Kozminski's family, who for some reason suspected that he might be the murderer

Does not Anderson's and Swanson's repeated statements that jews of this kind wont give away members of their own go against the idea that a family member would have told police they thought he might be the murderer?

[Chris]

Thanks for the comments.

"The only part I think I might disagree on is where you said "he could be shown to the witness without even knowing that an attempt was being made to identify him." This would be apparently contradicted by Swanson's statement that the suspect "knew he had been identified." It seems likely to me that the police would have wanted the suspect to know that he was being subjected to identification by a witness, in order to see if they could get a reaction or a confession out of him, even if the identification failed."

I'm not sure about this. Perhaps they would have wanted him to know he was being identified, but perhaps they wouldn't. In the short term the knowledge that he was suspected might have provoked an escape attempt. In the longer term it might have made it harder to keep him under observation.

Of course, it's quite possible that he realised what was going on without the police having intended him to.

"I suppose the only real problem with this scenario is Swanson's statement "In a very short time the suspect... was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch..."

Yes. I don't really see the timing as essential to the scenario. Something like this might have happened at any time before Aaron Kozminski was sent to Colney Hatch.

Obviously, whatever ideas people have about the police investigation of Kozminski, there will apparently be a contradiction between Swanson's "very short time" and Macnaghten's March 1889. I think there are some reasonably strong arguments for the earlier date, so I don't think the solution is obvious.

"It sounds like a very good possibility. Except perhaps this part:
Suppose the police were approached by a member of Kozminski's family, who for some reason suspected that he might be the murderer
Does not Anderson's and Swanson's repeated statements that jews of this kind wont give away members of their own go against the idea that a family member would have told police they thought he might be the murderer?"

I do think that cooperation by the family, or some members of the family, would have been necessary in what I've suggested. Otherwise I think it would have been very difficult for the police to send Kozminski to a convalescent home. Moreover, I'm not sure why they would have bothered, unless as part of a deal to secure the family's cooperation.

I agree that on the face of it, the idea seems to be inconsistent with what Anderson says (though I think Swanson's remarks concern only the witness, not the suspect's family). But perhaps there is another way of reading Anderson's narrative that would be consistent with the scenario. He claims that the police had already concluded that the murderer was a Polish Jew, who was being shielded by his family. When he says "the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point," could that mean that he saw that conclusion as having been vindicated when a member of the family told the police of their suspicions?

I think that's a possible interpretation, though I find it difficult to make much sense of Anderson's argument at the best of times, because his singling out of Polish Jews as the only people who would protect their relations against the police is so nonsensical.

[jason_c]

Hi Chris
It sounds like a very good possibility. Except perhaps this part:

Suppose the police were approached by a member of Kozminski's family, who for some reason suspected that he might be the murderer

Does not Anderson's and Swanson's repeated statements that jews of this kind wont give away members of their own go against the idea that a family member would have told police they thought he might be the murderer?

The only specific given by either was that the Jewish witness wouldnt testify against a fellow Jew. It could be different if a family member became afraid that the family themselves would come to harm by the suspect, or become victims of mob justice if the suspect had become known to the public.

[Chris]

The only specific given by either was that the Jewish witness wouldnt testify against a fellow Jew. It could be different if a family member became afraid that the family themselves would come to harm by the suspect, or become victims of mob justice if the suspect had become known to the public.

I think this is the part of Anderson's memoirs that Abby was referring to:
"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"I agree that on the face of it, the idea seems to be inconsistent with what Anderson says (though I think Swanson's remarks concern only the witness, not the suspect's family). But perhaps there is another way of reading Anderson's narrative that would be consistent with the scenario. He claims that the police had already concluded that the murderer was a Polish Jew, who was being shielded by his family. When he says "the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point," could that mean that he saw that conclusion as having been vindicated when a member of the family told the police of their suspicions?"

Could it have been the other way around, Chris? Could the initial contact have been made by the police, approaching the family after having been tipped of or simply making the call themselves that Kosminski was quite possibly the Polish Jew they were looking for?
The reason I ask is that this may perhaps - if this was the case - have lain behind the difficulties spoken of in connection with sending Kosminski to the Seaside Home; Maybe it took a whole lot of persuading of Kosminskiīs family to gain access to him? It would also tally with the belief that Jewish people are reluctant to give up their own.

The best,
Fisherman

[jason_c]

I think this is the part of Anderson's memoirs that Abby was referring to:
"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

Thanks, I had forgotten that quote.

IF the scenario that you paint is true then the family did not give him up to Gentile justice. Strictly speaking, no trial means no Gentile justice. No family member testified against him in court.

Its also a possibility that Anderson was convinced the family had dragged there heels in coming forward.

[belinda]

That's a very good plausible theory.

[Abby Normal]

Hi
I think a good possibility could be that the police heard from the Dr/staff fabout AK from the first worhouse visit (especially if the knife incident is revealed to them at this time) and then while AK was back living with family the police found his name on the previous house search list, decided he could be a very viable suspect and then started the process for the ID. perhaps this process took a long time (why Swanson notes "with difficulty) and the ID was not actually performed until shortly before his second visit to the workhouse. This would also account for Swansons account of "shortly afterwards".

[Marlowe]

"with difficulty" means force was required.

And a convalescent home is an asylum.

Marlowe

[Fisherman]

Marlowe:

"with difficulty" means force was required."

I donīt think so, Marlowe. I think that it would then have been spoken about the man having been BROUGHT there with difficulty. But is was said that he was sent - with difficulty. Chris pointed this out, and I think he could well be correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[Marlowe]

It looks as though I'm going to have to explain "sent", too! :-)