The Seaside Home: an alternative scenario

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification

Yes, but those are separate issues to whether or not the witness would have known the man he'd seen was Jewish before he was confronted with him at the identification.
Both, also, can be explained: "murderer" is open to interpretation, and the witness may not have believed that the suspect would not be hanged because he was insane. But, as said, it has no direct bearing on the witness knowing the suspect was Jewish prior to the identification.

Separate issues or not they are germane to the whole question of identification.

We are all aware, after the horrendously long debates on the point, that the word 'murderer' 'is open to interpretation' but the man using the word was a barrister and an Assistant Commissioner of police and the word 'murderer' really should have only one clear meaning. Whether or not the witness 'may not have believed that the suspect would not be hanged because he was insane' really should not come into it as if his 'evidence' was that crucial he could simply be subpoenaed to give evidence (if the question of giving evidence came into it).

I guess I was pointing out the obvious strangeness of the comments by Anderson and Swanson (which you so often quote) and the fact that much of what they have to say has to be explained by 'may nots', 'ifs' and 'perhaps'.

Getting back to 'the witness knowing the suspect was Jewish prior to the identification', a point which is not clear, it has been theorised in the past that the witness may have actually known the suspect (which must be incorrect).

Also, in your book, The Facts, you ponder, 'We can only wonder at how the identification was conducted. The police usually asked people on the street to attend an identity parade, but we must assume that there were not many low-class Polish Jews strolling along the pavement outside the convalescent home from whom twelve or so volunteers could have been found for a line-up, and a low-class Polish Jew is otherwise hardly likely to have blended in with a group of recuperative policemen...' and 'Mutual recognition would certainly have convinced many observers that the suspect was the man.' Here your comments appear to suggest that the suspect did look like 'a low-class Polish Jew'.

It is assumed that Schwartz (and not Lawende) was the witness. Schwartz we are told (by Abberline) did have 'a strong Jewish appearance' so there were obviously those whose appearance was strongly Jewish.

[harry]

If one can be identified as of the Jewish race,in a situation such as Anderson describes,what physical features does that race possess ,that makes for instant recognition.I can understand recognition of a Negroid or Oriental person,but not Jewish.Most Jews I have known would be described as Caucasion,and yes,in my line of work I have had to make that distinction.
Errata,
Granted your explanation is sound,but I cannot understand why,in a situation where one has a good view of another person on two separate occassions,the witness fails,in one case,and on one important issue,to reach the same conclusion as the other.
The theory of Kosminski,Cohen or of any other based on the seaside home episode,fails miserbly,the more it is discussed.

[PaulB]

Separate issues or not they are germane to the whole question of identification.

We are all aware, after the horrendously long debates on the point, that the word 'murderer' 'is open to interpretation' but the man using the word was a barrister and an Assistant Commissioner of police and the word 'murderer' really should have only one clear meaning. Whether or not the witness 'may not have believed that the suspect would not be hanged because he was insane' really should not come into it as if his 'evidence' was that crucial he could simply be subpoenaed to give evidence (if the question of giving evidence came into it).

I guess I was pointing out the obvious strangeness of the comments by Anderson and Swanson (which you so often quote) and the fact that much of what they have to say has to be explained by 'may nots', 'ifs' and 'perhaps'.

Getting back to 'the witness knowing the suspect was Jewish prior to the identification', a point which is not clear, it has been theorised in the past that the witness may have actually known the suspect (which must be incorrect).

Also, in your book, The Facts, you ponder, 'We can only wonder at how the identification was conducted. The police usually asked people on the street to attend an identity parade, but we must assume that there were not many low-class Polish Jews strolling along the pavement outside the convalescent home from whom twelve or so volunteers could have been found for a line-up, and a low-class Polish Jew is otherwise hardly likely to have blended in with a group of recuperative policemen...' and 'Mutual recognition would certainly have convinced many observers that the suspect was the man.' Here your comments appear to suggest that the suspect did look like 'a low-class Polish Jew'.

It is assumed that Schwartz (and not Lawende) was the witness. Schwartz we are told (by Abberline) did have 'a strong Jewish appearance' so there were obviously those whose appearance was strongly Jewish.

There is much that is germane, Stewart, but I thought there was nothing to be gained by bringing up points that risked diverting the thread from Harry's interesting question of when and how the witness discovered the suspect was a Jew.

What Anderson meant by "murderer" is open to question. As a man who by training one would expect to be precise in his writing, Anderson can in fact be shown to have been sloppy and seems not often to have given thought to how what he wrote could and probably would be interpreted.

I don't think the witness being subpoenaed is here nor there as far as his refusal to give evidence is concerned. Obviously the police could and no doubt would have subpoenaed the witness, but it is to be assumed from Anderson, who seems to blame the witness for the suspect never having been charged, that the witness's action for some reason forced the police to release the suspect, who was duly committed by his family before charges could be brought and a subpoena issued. The circumstances are decidedly odd however one looks at it, but if the source is genuine then what happened did happen and there is an explanation for it.

My comments in The Facts were intended to suggest the improbability of an identity parade at the Seaside Home, having in mind a one-on-one confrontation. And yes, Abberline did say that Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance, and many Jews do look Jewish, but I'm not clear about the point. Insofar as we can tell, BS man looked anything but Jewish so it probably would have surprised Schwartz to learn he was also a Jew.

[PaulB]

If one can be identified as of the Jewish race,in a situation such as Anderson describes,what physical features does that race possess ,that makes for instant recognition.I can understand recognition of a Negroid or Oriental person,but not Jewish.Most Jews I have known would be described as Caucasion,and yes,in my line of work I have had to make that distinction.
Errata,
Granted your explanation is sound,but I cannot understand why,in a situation where one has a good view of another person on two separate occassions,the witness fails,in one case,and on one important issue,to reach the same conclusion as the other.
The theory of Kosminski,Cohen or of any other based on the seaside home episode,fails miserbly,the more it is discussed.

Harry,
Not every Jew looks like Ron Moody as Fagin. There are stereotypical-looking Jews, there are also Jews who don't look Jewish at all, and whether the witness was Lawende, who merely glanced at a man, or Schwartz, who was caught up in witnessing an assault, it is probable that neither would have recognised a non stereotypical-looking Jew as being a Jew. Nor, for that matter, would it be necessary for the witness to have known the suspect was Jewish at the identification from his appearance. As Chris has pointed out, maybe the suspect spoke Yiddish or was addressed in Yiddish.

[Stewart P Evans]

Lawende

...
...whether the witness was Lawende, who merely glanced at a man,...
...

Joseph Lawende (at the Eddowes inquest) -

"...I saw a woman. She was standing with her face towards a man. I only saw her back. She had her hand on his chest. The man was taller than she was. She had a black jacket and a black bonnet...She appeared to me short. The man had a cloth cap on with a cloth peak. I have given a description of the man to the police. I doubt whether I should know him again."

Description given by Lawende, "Age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. complexion fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot round neck, appearance of a sailor."

That must have been quite a 'mere glance' to take in all that detail. But, I guess, if you are trying to minimise Lawende as a witness whilst promoting Schwartz as the witness, that is what you would say.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unreliable

...
What Anderson meant by "murderer" is open to question. As a man who by training one would expect to be precise in his writing, Anderson can in fact be shown to have been sloppy and seems not often to have given thought to how what he wrote could and probably would be interpreted.
...

Yes, Anderson was 'sloppy' in his writing and, if Assistant Commissioner John Mallon is correct, unreliable and inaccurate as well.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

...
I don't think the witness being subpoenaed is here nor there as far as his refusal to give evidence is concerned. Obviously the police could and no doubt would have subpoenaed the witness, but it is to be assumed from Anderson, who seems to blame the witness for the suspect never having been charged, that the witness's action for some reason forced the police to release the suspect, who was duly committed by his family before charges could be brought and a subpoena issued. The circumstances are decidedly odd however one looks at it, but if the source is genuine then what happened did happen and there is an explanation for it.
...

I think the point has been made enough times now, but it might need repeating, if the identification was made over two years after the event it would be totally valueless for any legal proceeding.

It has become the fashion to suggest that there 'must have been' an unknown 'something else' besides the dubious identification. It's very easy to suggest that without any evidence. However, whatever the 'something else' was (and perhaps the points listed by Macnaghten suggest the answer) it did not amount in any shape or form to hard evidence. I don't think that the question of a subpoena did arise as I think that (if everything claimed by Anderson and Swanson is as correct as it can be) the identification was a mere ploy to frighten the suspect into an admission.

Whilst I accept the obvious fact that 'Kosminski' was a suspect, the questions and doubts that surround him are such that, in my opinion, he cannot be described as a 'good suspect'.

[Stewart P Evans]

I see...

...
My comments in The Facts were intended to suggest the improbability of an identity parade at the Seaside Home, having in mind a one-on-one confrontation. And yes, Abberline did say that Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance, and many Jews do look Jewish, but I'm not clear about the point. Insofar as we can tell, BS man looked anything but Jewish so it probably would have surprised Schwartz to learn he was also a Jew.

Ah, I see. As you know it has always been my argument that this identification (assuming it took place as described) was not an identification line-up but an identification by confrontation.

Of course, an identification by confrontation is of a lot less evidential value than selection of a suspect from a line-up of similar looking individuals. This fact increases my belief that the identification (assuming it took place as described) was indeed a ploy to try to get the suspect to admit his guilt.

[Stewart P Evans]

However...

Harry,
Not every Jew looks like Ron Moody as Fagin. There are stereotypical-looking Jews, there are also Jews who don't look Jewish at all, and whether the witness was Lawende, who merely glanced at a man, or Schwartz, who was caught up in witnessing an assault, it is probable that neither would have recognised a non stereotypical-looking Jew as being a Jew. Nor, for that matter, would it be necessary for the witness to have known the suspect was Jewish at the identification from his appearance. As Chris has pointed out, maybe the suspect spoke Yiddish or was addressed in Yiddish.

However, I think that given the fact that the majority of East End Jews at that time were fleeing immigrants, many of whom were poor, the majority probably did look the part and their ethnic origins were obvious.

We must also bear in mind Anderson's repeated description of his suspect as a 'poor Polish Jew', and his reference to 'he and his people were low-class Jews', which seems to emphasise the fact. But, of course, it may still be argued that he was not obviously of Jewish appearance.

[Stewart P Evans]

Indeed...

...
...
Insofar as we can tell, BS man looked anything but Jewish so it probably would have surprised Schwartz to learn he was also a Jew.

Indeed, and another point that, I believe, indicates that Schwartz did not witness a murder taking place, but probably witnessed an altercation between touting prostitute and drunken passer-by.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wise

We have very little evidence at all about what happened at the seaside home. An obvious possibility is that the police told the witness that the suspect was Jewish. Another is that he might have heard the suspect speak in Yiddish.
I should make it clear that I don't necessarily accept the accuracy of what Anderson says. In fact I think it's unlikely that anything happened as clear-cut as a definite identification, followed by an explicit refusal to testify when told that the suspect was Jewish. It may be that the witness said the suspect looked like the man he had seen, but could not be sure, but that the police officers were convinced - rightly or wrongly - that there had been a mutual recognition.

Wise words Chris.

[PaulB]

Yes, Anderson was 'sloppy' in his writing and, if Assistant Commissioner John Mallon is correct, unreliable and inaccurate as well.

Well, I think you'll find Mallon needs to be treated cautiously as both accusations can and have been leveled at him too. Unfortunately, Anderson's sloppy writing and lack of thought is often the basis for much of the criticism levelled at him, particularly by later commentators, and is why his words must always be looked at with care.

[PaulB]

I think the point has been made enough times now, but it might need repeating, if the identification was made over two years after the event it would be totally valueless for any legal proceeding.

It has become the fashion to suggest that there 'must have been' an unknown 'something else' besides the dubious identification. It's very easy to suggest that without any evidence. However, whatever the 'something else' was (and perhaps the points listed by Macnaghten suggest the answer) it did not amount in any shape or form to hard evidence. I don't think that the question of a subpoena did arise as I think that (if everything claimed by Anderson and Swanson is as correct as it can be) the identification was a mere ploy to frighten the suspect into an admission.

Whilst I accept the obvious fact that 'Kosminski' was a suspect, the questions and doubts that surround him are such that, in my opinion, he cannot be described as a 'good suspect'.

Had there been good evidence and a witness identification then the suspect could have been brought before a magistrate and the charges made, but in the case of Aaron Kosminski he would almost certainly have been certified insane and been committed before a trail could have taken place. The police would nevertheless have had an opportunity to claim they'd caught the Ripper.

When we have a result, it is perfectly legitimate to postulate a cause. The suspect was taken to an identification, therefore there must have been a reason why that happened. The 'must have been' and the 'something else' is therefore perfectly legitimate.

Anderson and presumably Swanson evidently thought he was a good suspect; so good, in fact, that they thought he was Jack the Ripper.

But this is all getting away from Harry's point.

[PaulB]

However, I think that given the fact that the majority of East End Jews at that time were fleeing immigrants, many of whom were poor, the majority probably did look the part and their ethnic origins were obvious.

We must also bear in mind Anderson's repeated description of his suspect as a 'poor Polish Jew', and his reference to 'he and his people were low-class Jews', which seems to emphasise the fact. But, of course, it may still be argued that he was not obviously of Jewish appearance.

Which ultimately is the point: if the witness did not know the suspect was Jewish until the identification then the witness presumably didn't look like a Jew.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, Stewart,

Indeed, wise words. All we have is the mention of the seaside home. We don't even have a name, only a guess/estimation as to which home it refers to. There were also other seaside homes, not only in that area but elsewhere. Not all of these refer to a police establishment either.

So we have a seaside home with no name, an unnamed witness that apparently made a sort of identification under differing plausible circumstances, one in which the "suspect" himself was apparently ferried to the seaside home to be identified, which is, I suggest, unusual in itself, as I would think that the person identifying the "suspect" would be the one transported, and all this implication written down in the apparent side notes of a retired policeman (Swanson) in a book written by another retired policeman (Anderson), at least 22 years after the actual set of murders, (whose reliability has come under question both from those of whom were his contempories and by some after he retired and even after he died). On top of all this there is room for speculation as to the supposed suspect as well.

Way too little information with far too many holes in it to lay a great deal of weight upon certainty and reliability, perhaps?

best wishes

Phil