A Case of Misattribution?

[PaulB]

You are correct two witnesses required to establish guilt

For the benefit of Mr Begg my source the local rabbi !

Glad to see you are getting the hang of this and providing sources at last.

[Beowulf]

Lechmere,

I am sorry but this post is utter nonsense. Aaron ate food from the gutter because the voices in his head told him to do so, probably out of the paranoid belief that he was being poisoned. There is actually no indication of "public" masturbation. Aaron certainly may have masturbated in front of others... family members is the most likely probability. (But Dahmer did this also, and Dahmer was not mentally retarded.) But again, it is only stated that he practiced self-abuse... not that he did this publicly. ("He is melancholic, practises self-abuse. ") And violence toward family members can be a result of anything, including rage, hatred, psychopathy, etc.

Incidentally, I agree that his symptoms may "go beyond schizophrenia". That does not mean he was not schizophrenic... he almost certainly was. But he may have also been psychopathic, if the MM is to be believed. He quite possibly also suffered from depression. But there is certainly no indication that he was an imbecile, as you seem to be suggesting, and as others have stated in the past (Fido, Sugden etc). But these views are based on faulty interpretation of documents, and apparent lack of knowledge about what types of patients were housed in Leavesden asylum. Aaron's asylum documentation explicitly states that he was not an imbecile (effectively, anyway, by classifying him as one of the other classifications of insanity... specifically "person of unsound mind".) Moreover, the 1901 Leavesden census classifies Aaron as "Lunatic", as opposed to "imbecile", which was the other classification used for patients at that facility. If he actually was a mentally retarded person, he would have been classified as an "imbecile", as imbecile was the term then used for that condition.

RH

Rob,

I don't know if you ever will write another book in regards to this subject, but I constantly am hoping you will.

[robhouse]

And how exactly was Edward Oxford not treated with due process?

RH

[Lechmere]

Rob
You present a rose coloured spectacle version of 19th century British criminal justice as viewed through Andersons' distorting lens which was specially manufactured for public consumption.

Was there sound evidence against James Sadler - who was arrested for the Coles murder after giving a detailed interview to Swanson?
Did Anderson meddle in the proper procedures involving the post mortem of Rose Mylett?
Did the police act properly over the Cleveland Street Scandal?

People could be shunted away and treated without due process.
One of Queen Victoria's attempted assassins Edward Oxford was aquitted on the grounds of insanity in 1840 and sent to an asylum. But he was released as being no longer insane in 1867 but was made to emigrate to Australia (but he was not 'transported').

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Martin,

Highly relevant post. Under Torah, at least two witnesses are required to establish guilt - the trial of Jesus is interesting in that regard. I believe I'm right in saying that bearing false witness against a neighbour* was considered a capital offence. That brings to mind another thought. A devout Jew would not want to see another hanged solely on his own testimony; it would be a very real possibility, and contrary (I believe) to Jewish tradition. Perhaps if there was an identification at all, the (Jewish) witness might have been reluctant, not because he was unsure of his identification, as is sometimes argued, but because he did not want his evidence alone to be the cause of the death of another Jew. Is this perhaps what Swanson is referring to when he writes:
"...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...".
A 19th century Jew would think like a 19th century Jew. To his mind a refusal to testify as a lone identification witness (if such he was) might be entirely logical and ethical.

(* Torah applied, I think, only within 'the Camp of Israel', so the neighbour would, of necessity, have to be a fellow-Jew. Please, if there are any Jewish posters out there, correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

Regards, Bridewell.

You are correct two witnesses required to establish guilt

For the benefit of Mr Begg my source the local rabbi !

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Acknowledgement of being identified doesn't necessarily involve an admission, does it? Could it not equally involve a denial? For example:-

"I don't care whether he says it was me or not. He's wrong. It wasn't me!"

This scenario would have him acknowledging identification, denying guilt, but realising that he could not continue to offend.

Regards, Bridewell.

You make a good point, I was thinking of a different interpretation.

Taking that down to its very basic level then.
If the witness faced the suspect and said "it was him!"
Simply because the suspect saw and heard the accusation could mean the suspect "knew he was identified", but I did not think this was what Swanson meant.

I took Swanson to mean that the suspect did not contest the accusation, he resigned himself to being fingered. But, due to the witness refusing to swear to it the police could proceed no further.
It depends on how we interpret Swanson's words, "he knew he was identified".
In what way did the suspect respond to the accusation?

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Torah

Maybe the Torah can help;

Numbers 25.30
Whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses but one person shall not testify against any person that he die.

Deuteronomy 19.15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin ,in any sin at the mouthof two witnesses or at the mouth of three witness shall a matter be established.

Were Lawende or Schwartz devout?
All the best.

Hi Martin,

Highly relevant post. Under Torah, at least two witnesses are required to establish guilt - the trial of Jesus is interesting in that regard. I believe I'm right in saying that bearing false witness against a neighbour* was considered a capital offence. That brings to mind another thought. A devout Jew would not want to see another hanged solely on his own testimony; it would be a very real possibility, and contrary (I believe) to Jewish tradition. Perhaps if there was an identification at all, the (Jewish) witness might have been reluctant, not because he was unsure of his identification, as is sometimes argued, but because he did not want his evidence alone to be the cause of the death of another Jew. Is this perhaps what Swanson is referring to when he writes:
"...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...".
A 19th century Jew would think like a 19th century Jew. To his mind a refusal to testify as a lone identification witness (if such he was) might be entirely logical and ethical.

(* Torah applied, I think, only within 'the Camp of Israel', so the neighbour would, of necessity, have to be a fellow-Jew. Please, if there are any Jewish posters out there, correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Anderson makes two references to "his people" not giving him up to gentile justice, not specifically "his family". I have to wonder if these two remarks were not an indirect reference to the witness also being a low-class Jew.

"Low-class Jew" and "good view" are relative terms. There were certainly lower class Jews in Whitechapel than Schwartz or Lawende, I'm not sure they would qualify in our estimation. Anderson appears to have been designating a class of Jew lower than either Schwartz or Lawende.
He does say "people of that class will not give up one of their number.....", so he was not referring to race, but that particular class within that race. Both witness and suspect were low-class Jews.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

You make a good point here. I have always fallen into the ethnocentric trap of assuming that the reference to 'low-class' was in the context within the British social system. It could also be an allusion to low status within Judaism itself.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

But, if they had shopped him to the police, wouldn't this have been enough to convict him?

Hi Fleetwood,

Definitely not - unless he'd admitted it to them.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Or Denial

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?

Hi Jon,
Acknowledgement of being identified doesn't necessarily involve an admission, does it? Could it not equally involve a denial? For example:-

"I don't care whether he says it was me or not. He's wrong. It wasn't me!"

This scenario would have him acknowledging identification, denying guilt, but realising that he could not continue to offend.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Herem

Whilst we are on the subject of research,for an alternative explanation of AK's behaviour,have a read on the Jewish Encyclopaedia about Herem, or excommunication.
All the best.

Hi All,

Thanks for the above, Martin.

For those who've not already seen it this is the relevant link:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5933-excommunication

The following offences justifying excommunication (effectively isolation) seemed to me to be particularly interesting:
(20) omission by a "shoḥeṭ." (ritual slaughterer) to show his knife to the rabbi for examination; (21) self-abuse.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Kosminski's own - Jewish - family Dobbed him in. Maybe they didn't read the Torah or maybe the claim that a Jew wouldn't testify to a gentile about a fellow Jew is something of a myth.

[martin wilson]

Maybe the Torah can help;

Numbers 25.30
Whoso killeth any person the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses but one person shall not testify against any person that he die.

Deuteronomy 19.15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin ,in any sin at the mouthof two witnesses or at the mouth of three witness shall a matter be established.

Were Lawende or Schwartz devout?
All the best.

[Rubyretro]

Would they have had grounds to place him in an asylum? Why?

Because he was loony ?

[Wickerman]

As Anderson states their suspicions surrounding JTR being protected were proven correct, I think it's a fair bet to say his family knew of his guilt. But, if they had shopped him to the police, wouldn't this have been enough to convict him?

His family may have had suspicions, bloodstained clothing, absent on the nights in question, but short of actually finding human organs in his possession I'm not sure what they might have had by way of proof of him being responsible for any murders. Suspicions by family members should not be sufficient to convict.

Anderson makes two references to "his people" not giving him up to gentile justice, not specifically "his family". I have to wonder if these two remarks were not an indirect reference to the witness also being a low-class Jew.

The proof "that our diagnosis was right on every point" was supported by the witness refusing to swear to him. We are left to wrestle with problem of identifying a low-class Jew being the only person to have a good view of the murderer.

"Low-class Jew" and "good view" are relative terms. There were certainly lower class Jews in Whitechapel than Schwartz or Lawende, I'm not sure they would qualify in our estimation. Anderson appears to have been designating a class of Jew lower than either Schwartz or Lawende.
He does say "people of that class will not give up one of their number.....", so he was not referring to race, but that particular class within that race. Both witness and suspect were low-class Jews.

"Good view" is difficult to assign to either one, and yet both these terms could be simple overstatements by Anderson.

Rather than argue over whether Schwartz or Lawende could be considered as low-class Jews, and whether either of them had a good view of the killer it is more likely that Anderson is just overstating his case.

Regards, Jon S.