The Seaside Home: an alternative scenario

[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.

[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.

[Errata]

Chris,

So the question remains.Why could the witness be sure the suspect was Jewish when seeing him at the seaside home,and not on the other occassion.

Well, you really can't tell who is a Jew based on appearance. So there are a couple of ways this could happen. Clearly they are saying that the witness was Jewish. While it was a large enough community that not every Jew would know each other, it is possible that every Jew had at least seen each other. Or at least most of the rest of the Jewish community.

So if at the time of the crime, if the guy thought to himself "Wow, that guy looks a lot like the watchmakers apprentice I met at Joel Greenbaum's Bar Mitzvah" And then when confronted with the suspect at the Seaside Home realized that it WAS in fact the watchmaker's apprentice, who he knew to be Jewish, then he would know the suspect was a Jew. Or if as suggested he heard the man speak yiddish. Or if he had seen the man in synagogue. Or if the man was wearing a kippah or tallis. Or if an officer tried to caution him beforehand by saying "Make sure that this is the man you saw in the alley, and not that you just recognize him from somewhere else in the Jewish community." Or he could have known the man's family.

There is also something called situational recognition that could be in play here. It is based on the fact that no matter how well you may know someone, if you see them in a place where you genuinely do not expect them to be, you don't recognize them. I would recognize a friend if they walked into my dentists office, but it took me about 20 minutes to recognize a friend when I ran into her at an arts festival about 6 states away. If I had only seen her for a couple of seconds, I never would have known it was her. There was no reason for her to be there, so I just thought she looked a little familiar, and dismissed it as her having one of those faces. It happen all the time, and could have happened to the witness.

Or it never happened.

[PaulB]

But, no person ever had 'a good view of the murderer' and identification would not be 'the means of murderer being hanged' as he was a lunatic and would not have been executed (which the police would no doubt have told the witness to put his mind at ease).

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.

[jason_c]

But, no person ever had 'a good view of the murderer' and identification would not be 'the means of murderer being hanged' as he was a lunatic and would not have been executed (which the police would no doubt have told the witness to put his mind at ease).

Unless the police didnt know he would always be a "lunatic". The suspect's mania had previously come in spells. No-one could know for sure this spell would last 20 plus years.

Ed Gein was convicted many years after his arrest.

I realise Gein was under a different legal system and a far improved medical treatment compared to 1888.

[Chris]

Then how was it that the witness at the seaside home was aware the suspect was a Jew.It is,we are told,that upon seeing the suspct,and realising that suspect was Jewish.There is no evidence that the witness was told beforehand or at the seaside home that the subject was Jewish,or that witness knew by any other means that the person he was going to face ,was Jewish..

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

‘I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.’ [Anderson]
'because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.' [Swanson]
We are told that the witness identified the suspect 'the instant he was confronted with him'. We are not told that his refusal to give evidence was at the same time.

But, no person ever had 'a good view of the murderer' and identification would not be 'the means of murderer being hanged' as he was a lunatic and would not have been executed (which the police would no doubt have told the witness to put his mind at ease).

[PaulB]

‘I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.’ [Anderson]

'because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.' [Swanson]

We are told that the witness identified the suspect 'the instant he was confronted with him'. We are not told that his refusal to give evidence was at the same time.

[harry]

Chris,
Then how was it that the witness at the seaside home was aware the suspect was a Jew.It is,we are told,that upon seeing the suspct,and realising that suspect was Jewish.There is no evidence that the witness was told beforehand or at the seaside home that the subject was Jewish,or that witness knew by any other means that the person he was going to face ,was Jewish..The witness was there to identify a person in connection to a crime.To make a comparison and a declaration, that a person he saw on two separate occasions,were one and the same,and one of those occassions must have been at the scene of a Ripper crime.
So the question remains.Why could the witness be sure the suspect was Jewish when seeing him at the seaside home,and not on the other occassion.

[Errata]

The only logical answer seems to be that witness had seen Kosminki,(named by S wanson) as the suspect,commit a Ripper killing.

So, here's something to ponder.

As far as we know, no one saw the Ripper killings take place. So the witnesses we have saw a man with the victim shortly before their death. One of the (many) problems I have had with the Seaside Home identification was that it simply did not make sense to refuse to testify against someone because they were a fellow Jew. That's just really not our thing.

What if the reason the witness would not testify was because while he HAD seen the man with the victim, he didn't think that necessarily made him the killer? He said "Yes, I saw him talking to her half an hour before she died, but I didn't see them go off together, I didn't hear what they were talking about, I don't know if he even propositioned her, and I'm not going testify that I saw the killer. Because I don't know that I did."

Swanson did not make it particularly sound as though they wanted the identification so they could talk to the guy. He made it sound like this was supposed to be the smoking gun, and the witness snatched it away. Which could make him think that the witness was being unreasonable, and therefore had another motive for not testifying.

There are still problems with the story, but I think the above scenario, if possible, could reconcile one of them for me.

[Chris]

If the witness had seen the suspect clear enough to remember and identify him at a later date ,as being a Jew,why hadn't the witness been able to identify the suspect as being a Jew at the scene of the crime,and if he had,why,if he would not give evidence against another Jew,leave it untill the seaside home visit,to say so?.

Because you can't always tell whether someone is Jewish from their appearance?

[harry]

I may be wrong,and yes, I may be misreading the meaning of what was said,but Kosminsky's guilt seemed to have revolved around the identification by a witness at a seaside home.He was already a suspect,though on what evidence, has never,to my knowledge,been disclosed.So I ask, what additional evidence might have been supplied by the witness,by identification,so as to convivce Anderson that the suspect was the ripper,The only logical answer seems to be that witness had seen Kosminki,(named by S wanson) as the suspect,commit a Ripper killing.But that answer leads to another mystery.If the witness had seen the suspect clear enough to remember and identify him at a later date ,as being a Jew,why hadn't the witness been able to identify the suspect as being a Jew at the scene of the crime,and if he had,why,if he would not give evidence against another Jew,leave it untill the seaside home visit,to say so?.

[Phil H]

Harry,

Or are we, today, somehow misreading what was written - either because we have the wrong perspective, or because we lack thefull range of evidence/files and personal aknowledge available to them.

Either independently, or in corroboration of each other, Anderson and Swanson meant to convey something!

Leaving a deliberate intent to mislead or conceal aside, that means that they must have believed in what they said, even if they got things slightly wrong in terms of detail or chronology (though I take the view that one day additional evidence will probably show they were right and we wrong to a large extent).

What makes me say that - well, in this very case, the correlation between Anderson's Polish jew and Macnaghten's Kosminski was missed until we got the marginalia. The evidence was always there, we just did not put the pieces together correctly.

Further than that I will not conjecture - what you say in your post "may" be correct, but there are an awful lot of "it is inconcievable to me", "I do not believe", before conclusions are drawn. But if that satisfies you, it is not for me to convince you otherwise.

Phil

[harry]

Phil,
Whether the witness approached the police stating he had information on the Ripper killings,or the police approached the witness believing he had information that would help,it is inconcievable to me that some dialogue would not have taken place as to whether the witness was willing to cooperate.it would be counter productive to a prosecution case if force had to be used,and I do not believe police of that day or this,would have resorted to that practice.So no,I do not have it the wrong way round.
The question should be,what sort of information did the witness possess,that neccessitated him having to make an identification.It surely would not be to identify the suspect as a person named Kosminsky,the police would have already been aware of this,and would in itself not be incriminating.Plus it would be odd if the witness had not recognised the suspect as a Jew earlier than the Seaside home visit.He must,if he were to make an identification,which identified the suspect as the Ripper,have seen the suspect in an incriminating situation,and known at that time he was a Jew.So the reason given,that the witness would not incriminate another Jew,seems illogical.Still,another mystery is,who made the observation that the witness recognised the suspect and would not give him up,and on what basis was this claim made.Was it an oral declaration by the witness,or an incredible piece of mind reading on the part of someone present?Or perhaps,the great detective,sitting in his study and telling the world,that he alone had solved the world's greatest case.

[jason_c]

The Convalescent Police Seaside Home in Hove was opened in March 1890.

One other Seaside Home with connections to the City Police was the Morley House Seaside Convalescent Home for Working Men near Dover. Unlike the Hove Home it was intended mainly for civilians, so it would have been possible for Aaron Kozminski to have been sent there as a patient:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=310

Thanks for that Chris. I couldnt remember which year exactly it opened.