A Case of Misattribution?

[Bridewell]

I know this much about English legal history.
I know that the Home Secretary had no power to deport anyone until the passing of the Aliens Act in 1905.

The first formal extradition treaty between the UK and the USA was in 1794.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

I think the explanation is that he had no real suspect and in later years tried to pretend and even fooled himsf into believing he did and mixed up a whole load of different cases and suspects together.

[Jonathan H]

'Safely Caged'?

To Lechmere

Everything you have been arguing is entirely correct.

The British state has, of course, long bent the rules into a pretzel to defend the realm against the Irish, progressives, unions, leftists, et al.

And yet it does seem unfathomable, despite Anderson's whining about not having Napoleonic police-state laws, that Scotland Yard Yard would have released a prime suspect, whom the top cops believed was the Ripper, back onto the streets?

A simple explanation is given by Anderson himself in the first version of his memoirs: the suspect was already sectioned in an asylum by the time the police were investigating this poor, local, mad, Polish Jew for the Whitechapel crimes.

If you put all the pertinent sources together Sir Robert, by implication, has the failed witness identification happening very soon after the Kelly murder, hence the certainty that Mylett and McKenzie could not be victims of the same murderer.

The Polish Jew was only prowling the streets for 'mere weeks' and then the 'autmn of terror' was quietly over. Very soon after he was 'safely caged' the same suspect passed away.

Thus any identification could not have taken place in the 'Seaside Home' as it had not been built yet.

Sir Robert is writing about events which [allegedly] took place between November 1888 and early 1889. There is not the slightest suggestion by this source that the police investigation extended beyond that time in any signifiant way -- the fiend had been identified, was sectioned, and was deceased by then.

This is the basic timeline provided by Sir Robert's confidential assistant, Assistant Chief Constable [Sir] Melville Macnaghten, who places the incarceration of the Polish Jewish 'suspect' in March 1889.

This is one of the reasons the brilliant Martin Fido rejected Aaron Kosminski as Anderson's suspect; the timing of his incarceration, Feb 1891, is way too late and, furthermore, does not explain the cessation of the murders in Nov 1888.

Fido is right: the madman David Cohen is a better fit for the timeline and does die if not 'soon after' then at least not after the first World War.

[robhouse]

On the subject of Kosminski being identified as a Jew - you seem to suggest that in daylight - or at any rate in what was presumably a lit room in the 'Seaman's Home' , the witness was able to spot that Kosminski was Jewish. But when the witness saw the same person 'at night, on a dark street, in a fleeting moment' he did not realise he was Jewish but could still identify him nevertheless?

Yes, I do think it is possible. But it is also possible that the witness was simply told he was jewish.

[Lechmere]

Rob
I kn ow this much about English legal history.
I know that the Home Secretary had no power to deport anyone until the passing of the Aliens Act in 1905.
Oxford was acquitted of High Treason. He was therefore technically not guilty of anything.
He was not transported - the last transportation to Austrialia was by chance also in 1867 but Oxford went to Australia as a freeman.
There was no law to prevent him returning. Nevertheless the police took numerous photos of him and he was told he would be arrested if he came back.
It may have been a sensible precaution but is absolutely clear that the police exceeded their powers in doing this.
The simple fact is that on occasion they did act in this sort of manner in this period.

I raised the issue of Sadler as it illustates (and it isn't an isolated example) that if the police wanted to take a case then they did, even when evidence was lacking.
The South Afrtican example was given to show that the British state did not always play things in such a gentlemanly fashion as Andersoin suggests.

I would suggest that the police wpould have bent the rules much more quickly and would not have allowed Kosminski to roam the streets if they genuinely believed he was the Ripper.

On the subject of Kosminski being identified as a Jew - you seem to suggest that in daylight - or at any rate in what was presumably a lit room in the 'Seaman's Home' , the witness was able to spot that Kosminski was Jewish. But when the witness saw the same person 'at night, on a dark street, in a fleeting moment' he did not realise he was Jewish but could still identify him nevertheless?

[martin wilson]

Unlikely? or is this a modern sensibility and we need to acknowledge that a 19th century jew would think like a 19th century jew? to tell you the truth I dont know the answer to that.
Religious mania has its merits, but I am weirded out on it, nothing much found in orthodox Judaism, Kabbalah has some intriguing information but I am fed up reading up on Samael and Lilith.
I would probably attribute any weirdy beardy stuff to that Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn crowd, founded in March 1888 by a police surgeon a doctor and clubmate of Charles Warren and someone wiki describes as 'eccentric'.
Best not go there though,it will start that whole masonic thing up again......
All the best.

[robhouse]

Rob

The point I was making with respect to Oxford is that the rules were bent when necessary. His deportation and requirement not to return upon pain of arrest had no basis in law.
With Sadler a weak case was brought.
And so on.

Just prior to Anderson's making the remarks you quoted, Britain had locked up nearly 100,000 non cambatant Boers in concentration camps which resulted in 27,000 deaths brought on by malnutrition.

You produced some of Anderson's self serving propoganda which implied that such things never happened in this country
Arranging for a recent Jewish immigrant, who was already clearly,by July 1890 suffering form mental health issues, to be certified as insane and locked up in a secure unit would have been child's play - if he was seriously suspected of being Jack the Ripper. Indeed he had supposedly been 'mad' since 1885! Pressure could have been put on his family - there were many options.

One extra thing unrelated to the above issue - and maybe this point has been made before - if the witness didn't want to identify the suspect because he was a fellow Jew, then surely he would have known he was a fellow Jew when he first saw him. Eastern European Jewish immigrants in that period tended to have a distinctive look.

Again, I feel I have to disagree with almost this entire post. For example, how do you know there was no basis in British law for deporting Edward Oxford? Are you a scholar of British legal history? Against Sadler, yes, a weak case was brought, but there was a case... what is your point here?

I do not see how your example of concentration camps during the Boer war has anything to do with the quotes I posted. Nothing in those quotes implied that the British did not lock up non-combatants in times of war. The Boer war as far as I know, did not have much to do with British criminal law. The concentration camps were set up as a part of scorched earth war strategy from what little I know. What does any of this have to do with Anderson?

You said: "Pressure could have been put on his family - there were many options." Yes, you are right. And how do you know that this didn't happen?

You said: "If the witness didn't want to identify the suspect because he was a fellow Jew, then surely he would have known he was a fellow Jew when he first saw him. Eastern European Jewish immigrants in that period tended to have a distinctive look."

I have to disagree here. I have some photos of some Eastern European Jewish immigrants in Victorian London, and I think anyone would have a hard time determining if these people were Jewish or not. Especially given that the man was viewed at night, on a dark street, in a fleeting moment. The witness may have realized the man was Jewish either on seeing him again in daylight, at close quarters... or he may have been told the man was Jewish.

You know, incidentally, perhaps I have not been clear. I agree, the Police might have bent the rules a bit in this case. They might have either arranged for Kozminski to be put in the asylum, or more likely, put pressure on the family to have him put away. Then they might have monitored him there. What I do not agree with is the idea that the police could have either locked up Kozminski in prison, or put him in a criminal asylum without due process.

RH

[Lechmere]

Rob

The point I was making with respect to Oxford is that the rules were bent when necessary. His deportation and requirement not to return upon pain of arrest had no basis in law.
With Sadler a weak case was brought.
And so on.

Just prior to Anderson's making the remarks you quoted, Britain had locked up nearly 100,000 non cambatant Boers in concentration camps which resulted in 27,000 deaths brought on by malnutrition.

You produced some of Anderson's self serving propoganda which implied that such things never happened in this country
Arranging for a recent Jewish immigrant, who was already clearly,by July 1890 suffering form mental health issues, to be certified as insane and locked up in a secure unit would have been child's play - if he was seriously suspected of being Jack the Ripper. Indeed he had supposedly been 'mad' since 1885! Pressure could have been put on his family - there were many options.

One extra thing unrelated to the above issue - and maybe this point has been made before - if the witness didn't want to identify the suspect because he was a fellow Jew, then surely he would have known he was a fellow Jew when he first saw him. Eastern European Jewish immigrants in that period tended to have a distinctive look.

[Rubyretro]

I went via wiki under Anathema, which provides the additional information that a person punished with Herem;
Must not partake of any food except that necessary for sustenance.
Dr Houchins' medical certificate states 'He refuses food because he is told to do so'

They were also forbidden to bathe, and Jacob Cohen's testimony confirms Aaron refusing food and also 'He is very dirty and will not be washed'

Which is not to say Aaron was not seriously ill, but I am just suggesting that parts of his behaviour that have been cited as evidence of mental illness may have their origin in a rabbinical punishment.

All the best.

That is an interesting post, Martin. 'Religious Mania' can be a component of mental illness. Complying with religious punishments not to eat and not to bathe would be quite mad.

[Abby Normal]

What was a Jewish cigar salesman doing in a police rest home?

trying to ID a suspect

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.


How are we supposed to interpret "he knew", without some kind of admission from the suspect?

If the witness points and declares, "thats him!"
And the suspect responds with some kind of acknowledgement, whether verbal, body language or expression, isn't that an admission of guilt?
As long as the suspect did not say, "yes, it was me", no-one can say he "knew" with any degree of certainty.
If the suspect did acknowledge his part, why do the police need the witness to swear to him?
The suspect has just admitted guilt, hasn't he?

How can anyone acknowledge his role as "identified" without admitting guilt?

So did the suspect really "know he was identified", or was this Swanson's preferred interpretation from a persistent denial? And, how are we to suppose Swanson could determine anything from his desk at Scotland Yard?
Which makes me question Swanson's claim that the suspect "knew he was identified", without a verbal acknowledgement, which would then render the need for a witness redundant.

Swanson's opinions came from reports handed to him. So who wrote those reports, who was involved, Abberline, Reid, Shore, Moore?

Regardless what we choose to believe, some unnamed detectives under Swanson were directly involved, yet none of them appear to have known or recorded anything about it.




That sounds more like it.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

How are we supposed to interpret "he knew", without some kind of admission from the suspect?

If the witness points and declares, "thats him!"
And the suspect responds with some kind of acknowledgement, whether verbal, body language or expression, isn't that an admission of guilt?
As long as the suspect did not say, "yes, it was me", no-one can say he "knew" with any degree of certainty.
If the suspect did acknowledge his part, why do the police need the witness to swear to him?
The suspect has just admitted guilt, hasn't he?

How can anyone acknowledge his role as "identified" without admitting guilt?

So did the suspect really "know he was identified", or was this Swanson's preferred interpretation from a persistent denial? And, how are we to suppose Swanson could determine anything from his desk at Scotland Yard?
Which makes me question Swanson's claim that the suspect "knew he was identified", without a verbal acknowledgement, which would then render the need for a witness redundant.

By swanson saying "and he knew he was identified" swanson is showing that he himself also beleives that Kos was IDed. As you say, other than a confession how could he really know that Kos Knew he was IDed? He cant so for Swanson to make that statement means that swanson thought he had been IDed.

That sounds more like it.

I think we generally agree, but perhaps just not on the extent that swanson also beleived in Kos's guilt. I think swanson was pretty much agreeing with Anderson-but just being more subtle and purposefully ambiguous (Unlike the blowhard Anderson).

[robhouse]

Rob
Edward Oxford was detained in mental asylums at Her Majesties pleasure for 27 years after being aquitted on the grounds of insanity. So far so good. However Oxford was later declared sane but would only be relased if he agreed to move to the colonies - which he unsurpringly did. He was told that if he returned he would be locked up for good - on what charge? Numerous pictures were taken of him by the police in case he did return.That is the sort of action the Victorian state could and did take against people it wanted out of the way.

So you are equating a situation where a person is known to have committed a crime, and went through the due process of a trial, was found insane, and put in a criminal asylum, then was offered (via the PM) to be released on condition that he never return to England, was escorted to the boat and seen off by an asylum official... you are equating this with the idea of taking a person against whom there is no evidence of a crime (or insufficient evidence), and putting him away in a criminal asylum secretly and with no due process at all?

I really don't see your point to be honest. What do you suppose the police could have done with Kozminski if they believed he was the Ripper but had insufficient evidence to prove it? Anderson was a lawyer, and was well aware of legal and criminal procedure, and he wrote specifically on this topic... in reference to the Ripper crimes no less.

RH

[martin wilson]

Apologies, I should have acknowledged sourced from Stewart P Evans' dissertation on casebook.
All the best.

[martin wilson]

Herem

Thanks for providing the link Bridewell, I will learn to play this piano one day.
I went via wiki under Anathema, which provides the additional information that a person punished with Herem;
Must not partake of any food except that necessary for sustenance.
Dr Houchins' medical certificate states 'He refuses food because he is told to do so'

They were also forbidden to bathe, and Jacob Cohen's testimony confirms Aaron refusing food and also 'He is very dirty and will not be washed'

Which is not to say Aaron was not seriously ill, but I am just suggesting that parts of his behaviour that have been cited as evidence of mental illness may have their origin in a rabbinical punishment.

All the best.

[Lechmere]

Rob
Edward Oxford was detained in mental asylums at Her Majesties pleasure for 27 years after being aquitted on the grounds of insanity. So far so good. However Oxford was later declared sane but would only be relased if he agreed to move to the colonies - which he unsurpringly did. He was told that if he returned he would be locked up for good - on what charge? Numerous pictures were taken of him by the police in case he did return.That is the sort of action the Victorian state could and did take against people it wanted out of the way.