A Case of Misattribution?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

Apparently, he was sent there "with difficulty".

[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.

[Lechmere]

Kosminsky’s symptoms go way beyond schizophrenia.

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Wickerman]

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

Lechmere, I tentatively suggest, IF, Kosminski was identified as described by Anderson/Swanson, then it was most likely during the four days (July 12-15, 1890) he was held at Mile End Workhouse, and subsequently was returned to his brother's house.

July 1890 is a good 21 months after Millers Court, so the killings had stopped long before this ID took place.
If the ID had occured before he was taken to Mile End, meaning, the police "knew" of his guilt before July 1890 then they would surely have taken this opportunity to incarcerate him permanently.

I still maintain that Swanson's words only indicate that he had suspicions but not that he himself was convinced Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. He is merely identifying who Anderson's "suspect" was, and why.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

So someone supposedly believed to be a likely candidate for Jack the Ripper was allowed to reside at his brothers in the crime zone - and other policemen Were not told as the higher ups wanted it kept secret?

[Wickerman]

So someone supposedly believed to be a likely candidate for Jack the Ripper was allowed to reside at his brothers in the crime zone - and other policemen Were not told as the higher ups wanted it kept secret?

Bare in mind, both Reid and Abberline were involved at the street level and as far as can be ascertained neither one of them thought this incident sufficiently significant to write about.
We have nothing written at the time (1888) by either Anderson or Swanson to suggest that either of them had a chief suspect who was a lunatic Jew.

We should also remember there were likely dozens of "lunatics" taken in for questioning, or detained by the authorities. This was just another among many.
Interesting though, Sagar of the City police also told a similar tale and Swanson did say it was City CID who were keeping the suspect under surveillance.

Perhaps the Met. were not directly involved with the Kosminski suspect, we only assume they were because they are the major player between the two.
Swanson does say "he was sent by us", but that might only mean "by the authorities", the City & the Met. were working together.

This "suspect Jew" was not Anderson's secret at the time of the murders, Anderson appears to have developed this belief in the years after the murders. We are left to question the accuracy of this belief.

Regards, Jon S.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Bare in mind

Is that the same as having nudity on the brain?

[robhouse]

Kosminsky’s symptoms go way beyond schizophrenia.

How do you mean?

[Cogidubnus]

Let’s look at Lawende from a different perspective, Dave. If Swanson was accurate when stating that City detectives mounted a covert round the clock surveillance on Kosminski, Major Smith would almost certainly have called upon Lawende to ascertain whether Kosminski was the man seen with Eddowes shortly before her death. The fact that Smith ultimately admitted defeat in the Ripper case is important, for it informs us that Lawende could not have identified Kosminski on behalf of the City force. Thus he either wasn’t Anderson’s witness, or he was and the identification was tainted courtesy of his previous exposure to Kosminski. If the latter, he would have been unusable in any criminal trial and therefore couldn’t have been the witness whose evidence would have convicted Kosminski.
Quick reply to this message

Hi Garry

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, but I've been doing some thinking (this is rare for me, hence my current state of exhaustion!).

Smith is generally full of bullshit and self-aggrandisement...at least that's the current interpretation ... contemporary feeling would've said merely that he was a good clubman...he certainly told a good story (rolling like a 74 etc).

I suspect, therefore, that he would've had huge difficulty in admitting a complete defeat...like a recalcitrant witness who'd defeated him...I still can't in all honesty decide which though...my heart says Schwartz and my brain says Lawende...

All the best

Dave