A Case of Misattribution?

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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 !

[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').

[robhouse]

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

RH

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[martin wilson]

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

[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

[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).

[Abby Normal]

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

trying to ID a suspect