A Case of Misattribution?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

You probably didn't mean to suggest it but extradition is different from deportation

[Jonathan H]

Which Home Sec ...?

To Lechmore

Sir Robert Anderson is I think a sincere primary source but also sincerely, and self-servingly muddled. By self-serving I mean that a case which was eprceived to be unsolved by the contabulary, a P.R. debacle, in fact, was in fact solved. They just could not arrest, let along charge the miscreant.

Anderson mixes up the pipes from the Kelly and MacKenzie murders, and mixes up the Liberal Home Sec. of 1886, Harcourt, with the Tory Home Sec. Matthews, about which one exactly was putting him under pressure for the Whitechapel horrors.

That's very telling. In 1908, Anderson was pompously blaming a prominent Liberal, of the leftist party he despised, for giving him such unfair and spineless grief -- when really it was a Tory from his own party. Even more revealing is that Harcourt was a more major figure in Liberal politics in 1895, the same year which is the first time in the extant record that Anderson suddenly claims that the Ripper's identity is [probably] known to be a locked-up lunatic.

By 1910, Anderson has I believe sincerely confused the Salder non-identification with the permanent incarceration of Aaron Kosminski, and then backdated the lot, in his fading memory to late 188, early 1889. That Macnaghten redacted the incarceration to March 1889, yet knew that 'Kosminski' was not deceased -- and revealed this to his cronies in 1898 -- is also very telling. Anderson was manipulated, and Swanson, arguably, provides only repetition not confirmation of this marginal muddle.

[Garry Wroe]

Myself:-

The police to a large extent decided who was and who was not committed for trial, meaning that Swanson would have been experienced and knowledgeable in such matters.

Spiro:-

Not so, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General decided if and when a case progressed to trial or for anyone to be as you say 'committed' to trial.

During the period under scrutiny, Spiro, police made the decision to prosecute in all but a small minority of cases. Generally, authority was ceded to the Director of Public Prosecutions only for high profile or potentially controversial cases. Thus Swanson would most certainly have been experienced and knowledgeable in such matters.

As we know, this did not happen in the Whitechapel murders with any suspect because, as Macnaghten notes officially; "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murder, many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

Well, Spiro, the investigators who were actually engaged on the case believed that the killer had been seen. Why else was Lawende called in to view Sadler?

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.

But the police did believe that the killer had been sighted, both at Mitre Square and Berner Street, and possibly at Hanbury Street too.

There was no evidence, no trial, hence, a suspect who was deemed insane could not have been "caged in an asylum" legally despite Anderson's assurances and Swanson's beliefs.

Swanson named the suspect as Kosminski, and it is a historical reality that Aaron Kosminski was confined to an asylum where he lived out the remainder of his days.

[Garry Wroe]

Myself:-

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.

Dave:-

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).

He wasn’t the most reliable of sources, to be sure, Dave. But this is irrelevant with reference to the point I was making. The fundamental issue is that Kosminski appears to have become a person of interest as far as City investigators were concerned, to the extent that he was placed under round the clock surveillance. At the time Lawende was considered by Smith to have been a credible material witness. The surveillance operation wouldn’t have been abandoned merely because detectives failed to catch Kosminski ‘in the act’. It would have been terminated only once City investigators were satisfied that Kosminski was not the man responsible for Eddowes’ death. The simplest and most time-effective way of making such a determination would have been for the City force to have called upon Lawende to establish whether Kosminski was the man sighted with Eddowes shortly before the Mitre Square murder. Since Smith subsequently admitted defeat in the case it may be safely assumed that Lawende did not identify Kosminski as part of the City investigation. This means one of two things: either Lawende was not the witness who identified Kosminski as part of the Met investigation, or he was indeed Anderson’s witness and the identification was fundamentally flawed.

I suspect, therefore, that he [Smith] 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...

Trust the evidence, Dave. It says Schwartz.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

The commonly held assumption, Tom, is that Lawende was the only witness used for identifications because he was the only witness known to have viewed Sadler. My argument that investigators would have used all of the witnesses deemed credible is based upon standard police procedure.

[Michael W Richards]

To Lechmore

Sir Robert Anderson is I think a sincere primary source but also sincerely, and self-servingly muddled. By self-serving I mean that a case which was eprceived to be unsolved by the contabulary, a P.R. debacle, in fact, was in fact solved. They just could not arrest, let along charge the miscreant.

Anderson mixes up the pipes from the Kelly and MacKenzie murders, and mixes up the Liberal Home Sec. of 1886, Harcourt, with the Tory Home Sec. Matthews, about which one exactly was putting him under pressure for the Whitechapel horrors.

That's very telling. In 1908, Anderson was pompously blaming a prominent Liberal, of the leftist party he despised, for giving him such unfair and spineless grief -- when really it was a Tory from his own party. Even more revealing is that Harcourt was a more major figure in Liberal politics in 1895, the same year which is the first time in the extant record that Anderson suddenly claims that the Ripper's identity is [probably] known to be a locked-up lunatic.

By 1910, Anderson has I believe sincerely confused the Salder non-identification with the permanent incarceration of Aaron Kosminski, and then backdated the lot, in his fading memory to late 188, early 1889. That Macnaghten redacted the incarceration to March 1889, yet knew that 'Kosminski' was not deceased -- and revealed this to his cronies in 1898 -- is also very telling. Anderson was manipulated, and Swanson, arguably, provides only repetition not confirmation of this marginal muddle.

Hi John,

Lets not forget though that along with your mentioned faux pas, Monro never agreed with Sir Roberts assertion that the Times incident spawning the Parnell Commission was in effect approved by Monro, Anderson was mismanaging at least 2 double agents for Fenian causes the years up to and including the Ripper murders, and he is the only senior official who stated the killer was, for a fact, a Polish Jew.

He is someone to be wary of I think.

Best regards,

Mike R