A Case of Misattribution?

[Cogidubnus]

I for one would contend that Kosminskis identification (if it were indeed he) took place earlier rather than later...he was subsequently returned to the care of his brother, and this was clearly NOT the case in 1891...

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd add that Anderson gives us a clue as to why the identification took place at a location that remains a secret.

"No public good would come from making his identity known".

Clearly Anderson wanted it kept secret in 1910.

It follows thus there's a decent chance he wanted the identification kept secret.

In order to do this, the local nick would not have been a good place for such an event.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The trouble is the reason kosminsky couldn't carry on committing crimes was that he was detained in an asylum - not because he was positively identified.

Not necessarily so.

The clue is in Anderson's 1910 book.

Something like: "we came to the conclusion that his own people knew of his guilt, and upon identification our diagnosis was proved to be correct".

I think what Anderson tells us in his book is that they concluded he must have lived with people and these people must have known of his guilt. And this was proven correct.

So, in relation to your post:

He was positively identified by his family first and foremost.

Anderson goes on to say that the Mckenzie murder was deemed to be by another hand.

So, whoever this Polish Jew was, he was at large between the Kelly and Mckenzie murders. Enough time to do a few more. If Anderson is to be believed, there must have been another reason as to why he stopped killing - not that he was caged in an asylum.

I wonder what measures the family could have put in place to keep him off the streets at night?

In my view, Anderson's version of events make a lot of sense and actually is a very consistent piece of literature in that it all fits together quite well.

[Lechmere]

Kosminsky’s symptoms go way beyond schizophrenia.

Wickerman
Are you suggestion the so called identification took place before February 1891?

[Wickerman]

The trouble is the reason kosminsky couldn't carry on committing crimes was that he was detained in an asylum - not because he was positively identified.

But Kosminski was taken to an asylum in Feb. 1891, I think we can all agree the murders had stopped long before that time.

Also he was severy mentally impaired - so how likely would it have been that he realise he had been positively identified.

Severe enough to be committed, so who determined his responses, whatever they were, came from a man of sound mind?

The whole thing is inaccurate recreated memory.

Something is very wrong with these partial recollections.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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

Apparently, he was sent there "with difficulty".

[Stephen Thomas]

my view is that Kos didnt come to their attention until at least a couple of years after the murders as did the ID, Lawende was probably the witness, and the outcome of the ID grew in Andersons mind(and probably Swansons) over the years as being more positive than it actually was.

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

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

Hi Wicker
Not only does swanson say that no other murder take place after- he says (twice I think) that the suspect "knew he was identified'. That to me would indicate that Swanson also thought that this was the man who was seen by the witness.

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.

Of course, my view is that Kos didnt come to their attention until at least a couple of years after the murders as did the ID, Lawende was probably the witness, and the outcome of the ID grew in Andersons mind(and probably Swansons) over the years as being more positive than it actually was.

That sounds more like it.

Regards, Jon S.

[martin wilson]

Hello Rob. You are absolutely correct. I have known a few schizophrenics who were both intelligent and rather clever. And, as you say, a bit of research will bear this out.

Cheers.
LC

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.

[lynn cates]

schizophrenics

Hello Rob. You are absolutely correct. I have known a few schizophrenics who were both intelligent and rather clever. And, as you say, a bit of research will bear this out.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

He may have thought everyone was watching him - which would include the police.

[robhouse]

The trouble is the reason kosminsky couldn't carry on committing crimes was that he was detained in an asylum - not because he was positively identified. Also he was severy mentally impaired - so how likely would it have been that he realise he had been positively identified.
The whole thing is inaccurate recreated memory.

You seem to be confusing schizophrenia with mental retardation. As far as I have read, despite the fact that schizophrenics experience delusional thinking, that does not mean that they are completely unaware of what is happening. In my opinion, it is likely that Kozminski was fully aware he had been identified AND that the police were watching him.
RH

[Lechmere]

The trouble is the reason kosminsky couldn't carry on committing crimes was that he was detained in an asylum - not because he was positively identified. Also he was severy mentally impaired - so how likely would it have been that he realise he had been positively identified.
The whole thing is inaccurate recreated memory.

[Abby Normal]

I would not call it corroboration Garry. Swanson falls short of calling this suspect the killer. What Swanson was doing was essentially filing in some background.

In the footnote (p.138) Swanson is explaining why the witness refused to identify the suspect. Whether Swanson also believed this suspect was the killer is not even mentioned. He is however being diplomatic in agreeing (in the margin) that after the 'identity' no other murder of this kind occured.

This would have meaning if we knew when precisely this ID took place. If this ID took place in July 1890 (Kosminski, in Mile End Workhouse), one year and 9 months after Millers Court, then this statement is meaningless.

Swanson then provides more background (on endpapers) on the man Anderson believed was the killer. At no point does Swanson confirm Anderson's belief that this was indeed the Whitechapel murderer.
Swanson terminates this expose by declaring "Kosminski was the suspect", in other words he is saying, "Kosminski was Mr Anderson's suspect".

Swanson's notes to my mind do not convince that he himself believed Kosminski was the Whitechapel murderer. He is only being diplomatic because, in my opinion, Swanson realizes that the police simply "did not have a clue", so he is being professional to the end.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
Not only does swanson say that no other murder take place after- he says (twice I think) that the suspect "knew he was identified'. That to me would indicate that Swanson also thought that this was the man who was seen by the witness. To my mind then Swanson is (subtly and diplomatically) corroberating Andersons claim that the man was the killer.

Of course, my view is that Kos didnt come to their attention until at least a couple of years after the murders as did the ID, Lawende was probably the witness, and the outcome of the ID grew in Andersons mind(and probably Swansons) over the years as being more positive than it actually was.

[Tom_Wescott]

This leaves only one simple explanation for Swanson's beliefs. In the absence of any direct sighting of the Whitechapel murderer at either Mitre Sq or Berner Street, the police were mindful of extracting a confession to support their trial application, which again did not happen.

Hi Spiro. You mean to say that the police planned to confront the suspect with a witness and their evidence in hopes they could use this to extract a confession? That makes good sense.

Hi Garry,

I agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or whatever, but it's pretty tough to make the suggestion you're making without ANY evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott