A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[The Baron]

With respect to the Identification witness who confronted Kosminski, he may have been a ruse -- someone the police planted to look at the suspect and say he recognized Kosminski to scare him and keep him from killing again.

Thus, there may never have been any actual eye-witness, just an actor.

And then he refused to swear to him because he was a fellow jew ?! That doesn't make sense.

But, he may have been one of the secret agents who the police planted in the streets at the time around the Eddowes murder.



The Baron

[Elamarna]

My take on the article is that it's being suggested that Cohen was JTR Steve , but that his real name was Kosminsky .
The hospital staff got the name wrong as he was violent on admission .
Doesn't seem the type to be whisked off to the seaside on that snippet

I am not so sure of that Nick, as I said on FB, I would rather wait for the actual book rather than a newspaper article.

Adam's commented on FB, and seems to be saying people have misinterpreted.
I will wait and see.
My view has not changed on who Kosminski was at this point.

Steve

[Scott Nelson]

I think the argument was that David Cohen was a Jewish version of John Doe.
Don't see how anglicising can come close from Kosminsky to Cohen

Perhaps "anglicising" is the wrong word here. Changing a complex European name like "Kosminski" to a more English-sounding Jewish name, like "Abrahams" is what I'm thinking of. There were literally thousands of immigrant families named "Cohen" in London at that time who had changed their European Jewish last names.

[Scott Nelson]

With respect to the Identification witness who confronted Kosminski, he may have been a ruse -- someone the police planted to look at the suspect and say he recognized Kosminski to scare him and keep him from killing again.

Thus, there may never have been any actual eye-witness, just an actor.

[packers stem]

Having read the newspaper article Adam is quoted as saying Cohen fits better on death than AK.
However later in the article he says


"But Donald knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification. He knew who the Ripper was."

Is he really naming Cohen?

I think we need to wait for the book, before passing judgement on Adam and his work.

It is becoming increasingly popular to attempt to reviews works we have not read.


Steve

My take on the article is that it's being suggested that Cohen was JTR Steve , but that his real name was Kosminsky .
The hospital staff got the name wrong as he was violent on admission .
Doesn't seem the type to be whisked off to the seaside on that snippet

[Elamarna]

The mistake is that as I have maintained Donald Swanson was not the author of all of the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is your opinion, which you are entitled to Trevor, and yes you have held it for a long time.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Having read the newspaper article Adam is quoted as saying Cohen fits better on death than AK.
However later in the article he says


"But Donald knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification. He knew who the Ripper was."

Is he really naming Cohen?

I think we need to wait for the book, before passing judgement on Adam and his work.

It is becoming increasingly popular to attempt to reviews works we have not read.


Steve

The mistake is that as I have maintained Donald Swanson was not the author of all of the marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[packers stem]

The argument has never been made by any reputable author that Aaron David may have simply anglicized his last name from Kosminski to Cohen.

I think the argument was that David Cohen was a Jewish version of John Doe.
Don't see how anglicising can come close from Kosminsky to Cohen

[Elamarna]

Having read the newspaper article Adam is quoted as saying Cohen fits better on death than AK.
However later in the article he says


"But Donald knew more about this case than anyone connected with it. He’s not going to make a mistake with a name or identification. He knew who the Ripper was."

Is he really naming Cohen?

I think we need to wait for the book, before passing judgement on Adam and his work.

It is becoming increasingly popular to attempt to reviews works we have not read.


Steve

[Scott Nelson]

The argument has never been made by any reputable author that Aaron David may have simply anglicized his last name from Kosminski to Cohen.

[PaulB]

Hold hard. Hold everything! Swanson was wrong. Kosminski wasn't the suspect. It was David Cohen.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tva...ld-swanson/amp

Let's hope Adam has a good case to back that up!

[PaulB]

You are being pedantic now in your interpretation, and you clearly dont read my posts thoroughly.

You wrote, 'The source refer to an ID parade' (my emphasis). Neither of the sources refer to an identification parade, so you are wrong. My argument to you from the beginning has been that the marginalia describes an informal identification which would not have conformed to the rules and guidelines that might have dictated how a formal identity parade was conducted.

I have repeatedly said that the marginalia describes an informal identification. You disagreed, writing 'The sources do not suggest an informal confrontation.' You went on to state that 'The source refer to an ID parade'. I read that thoroughly. It would be difficult not to.

What would the purpose be by staging some form of an Id parade/Confrontation if not to be able to identify the killer, and bring him to justice because by what was said that clearly was the intention and the reason for the ID. But this is all academic if this never took place at all, because this all stands or falls on the contents of the marginalia which to use your words is a source you seek to rely on, but a source I suggest is unsafe to rely on it because it has never been conclusively proved that Swanson was the author of all of that marginalia.

The rest of your stuff is basically repeating the same question and argument expressing your OPINION that there was little or nothing to be gained from an informal identification, but avoiding the fact that an informal identification is what the sources describe.

Ok if you want to split hairs lets call it an Identification procedure,None of the sources are in sync with each other, which you would expect them to be given the result of the ID procedure

This is NOT splitting hairs and no we won't call it an identification procedure. It was important to you that it was a formal identification parade because the police would then have had to follow the rules and guidelines laid down for the handling of such a thing. I stated from the outset that the marginalia described an unconventional event, did not describe a formal identification parade, and that the police would nt have had to follow the rules and guidelines. This is the crux of the argument, not a matter of splitting hairs.

And now I have had enough. I have spent a lot of time replying back and forth on here, I am going to enjoy the evening sunshine and relax as I can say no more on this topic.

Right, well it must be obvious to all concerned that what the marginalia describes is an informal confrontation between the suspect and witness, not a formal identification parade, and that not following the rules and guidelines laid down for the latter does not in any way, shape or form suggest that what the marginalia describes could not have happened. On which note, enjoy the evening sunshine.

[Simon Wood]

Hold hard. Hold everything! Swanson was wrong. Kosminski wasn't the suspect. It was David Cohen.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4645810/jack-the-ripper-serial-killers-murders-london-scottish-donald-swanson/amp

[Trevor Marriott]

Neither the marginalia nor The Lighter Side mention an identification parade or anything like one. Anderson says only 'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...' and in the earlier Blackwood's serialisation he wrote, 'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him...' In the marginalia Swanson wrote, ‘the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...' and ‘After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified...'

Neither source mentions an identification parade.

You are being pedantic now in your interpretation, and you clearly dont read my posts thoroughly. What would the purpose be by staging some form of an Id parade/Confrontation if not to be able to identify the killer, and bring him to justice because by what was said that clearly was the intention and the reason for the ID. But this is all academic if this never took place at all, because this all stands or falls on the contents of the marginalia which to use your words is a source you seek to rely on, but a source I suggest is unsafe to rely on it because it has never been conclusively proved that Swanson was the author of all of that marginalia.

That the identification took place in an asylum or at the Seaside Home (depending on the source) and not at a police station further indicates that this was an informal identification. Why would the logistics of having someone take a suspect somewhere be unimaginable? In any event, Swanson says the suspect was 'sent' to the Seaside Home with 'difficulty', which accounts for any logistical problems.

You cant have an informal ID parade in such a high profile case, what would be the point and what would they gain from that? either there was or there wasn't, or the story is all made up

The rules, as you clearly state and I have highlighted, relate to identity parades. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that an identity parade was held.

But if it did happen in the way described what would be the point and what would the achieve by not doing it by the book

You are assuming that the case against Kosminski would actually go to court and that Kosminski would have a defence barrister. If the suspect was Aaron Kosminski, you have stated that he would not go to court but would be certified and committed. Otherwise, the police might have brought him before the magistrate and he would have been deemed unfit to plead and been certified and committed. Either way, there would not and never would have been any question of a defence barrister objecting to anything.

I was merely citing the problem the police would have by not conforming to the guidelines. Even in today's policing identification is closely scrutinized right from when a witness first makes a statement.

I don't know what purpose there would have been in an informal identification and since you dislike speculative scenarios so much I don't intend to suggest any, but the fact remains that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that a formal identification parade was held.

and no valid reason anyone can come up with to suggest why they would not conduct a parade within the guidelines as laid down


Who says there was no supporting evidence. The police wouldn't have gone to some 'difficulty' to arrange the identification just because it was a nice day and they felt like a day at the seaside. They must have had reasons and good reasons to have taken the trouble.

But did they, again I say did it happen at all?

None of this has any bearing on whether there was an identity parade or a confrontation.

You are right about that, but if it was a direct confrontation, the police would have known that without any supportive evidence to corroborate and support the identification the case would get thrown out, and we know there was no primary supportive evidence in any of these murders.

Again, this isn't relevant to the type of identification that took place, although it reinforces the view that whatever was going on it was informal.

There is no such thing in law now, or back then, that relates to an informal ID parade

No, it isn't. Anyway, Anderson states that an identification took place and doesn't indicate that it was a formal identification. In fact in Blackwood's he says it took place in an asylum.

And there lies the conflict from the different sources I highlighted, sources you seek to heavily rely on as being accurate and truthful, Swanson says Seaside Home !!!!!!

Well, that's also irrelevant to the type of identification that took place. But there is no good reason to doubt that an identification took place.

There is every reason to suspect that it didnt take place where is the independent corroboration?

You are wrong that the sources refer to an identification parade. They don't. They clearly describe an informal identification. So all you've shown, really, is that your argument has been predicated on a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the source(s).

Ok if you want to split hairs lets call it an Identification procedure,None of the sources are in sync with each other, which you would expect them to be given the result of the ID procedure

And now I have had enough. I have spent a lot of time replying back and forth on here, I am going to enjoy the evening sunshine and relax as I can say no more on this topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Okay never let it be said that I duck out of answering questions and I like you do not duck and dive.

The sources do not suggest an informal confrontation. The source refer to an ID parade, and the sources even conflict with each other.

Neither the marginalia nor The Lighter Side mention an identification parade or anything like one. Anderson says only 'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...' and in the earlier Blackwood's serialisation he wrote, 'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him...' In the marginalia Swanson wrote, ‘the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...' and ‘After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified...'

Neither source mentions an identification parade.

The normal practice for staging ID parades was at a police station, there can be no plausible explantion for taking a suspect to a witness when it is usually the other way round. The logistics involve in such an excercise would have been almost unmanageable.

That the identification took place in an asylum or at the Seaside Home (depending on the source) and not at a police station further indicates that this was an informal identification. Why would the logistics of having someone take a suspect somewhere be unimaginable? In any event, Swanson says the suspect was 'sent' to the Seaside Home with 'difficulty', which accounts for any logistical problems.

I have set out and shown that there were rules to be followed by the police with regards to the use of Id parades, those rules are clearly set out in the police codes. If any of those rules were not adhered to it would jeopardize the case, because a defense barrister would object to the evidence of Id being used because the guidelines were not adhered, to or sharp practice were used by the police.

The rules, as you clearly state and I have highlighted, relate to identity parades. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that an identity parade was held.

You are assuming that the case against Kosminski would actually go to court and that Kosminski would have a defence barrister. If the suspect was Aaron Kosminski, you have stated that he would not go to court but would be certified and committed. Otherwise, the police might have brought him before the magistrate and he would have been deemed unfit to plead and been certified and committed. Either way, there would not and never would have been any question of a defence barrister objecting to anything.

What would be the point of having an informal ID. It would be of no evidential value, and clearly that was not the case if the police are to be believed when they said the witness would not testify, so that suggests that the police were looking to take the matter further to court had that witness agreed to testify and that the rules applying to ID parades had been adhered to.

I don't know what purpose there would have been in an informal identification and since you dislike speculative scenarios so much I don't intend to suggest any, but the fact remains that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that a formal identification parade was held.

But we know there were no witnesses to any of the murders.

Well, clearly there was.

A direct confrontation without any supporting evidence would never stand up in court

Who says there was no supporting evidence. The police wouldn't have gone to some 'difficulty' to arrange the identification just because it was a nice day and they felt like a day at the seaside. They must have had reasons and good reasons to have taken the trouble.

Lawende keeps getting put forward as the mystery witness, but it seems despite him being a city witness, they were not involved in this ID parade, especially as he was the only witness who researchers suggest might have been ale to identify anyone see with any of the victims, but he says in his inquest testimony" I doubt whether I should know him again" so with that in mind why would the police use him, any positive ID he made would not have stood up in court anyway.

No other police officials make mention of this ID parade and its result, why when such an important case had such a major development, surlei it would have been the talk of the yard.

MM makes no mention of such an ID when discussing Kosminski

Major Smith makes no mention of having any knowledge of this, or allocating his officers to keep watch on a house in another police district

None of this has any bearing on whether there was an identity parade or a confrontation.

Taking a suspect who had just been identified as the killer and leaving him at home, this would never happen, they would have wanted to find a way of getting him off the streets, and not be able to kill again. If he had not been arrested then they would have had grounds to do so at that point in time, and then get him locked up in an asylum.

Again, this isn't relevant to the type of identification that took place, although it reinforces the view that whatever was going on it was informal.

The marginalia is also suspect

No, it isn't. Anyway, Anderson states that an identification took place and doesn't indicate that it was a formal identification. In fact in Blackwood's he says it took place in an asylum.

So all in all can we believe this all took place as described, and for what ever reason you or others suggests it did?

Well, that's also irrelevant to the type of identification that took place. But there is no good reason to doubt that an identification took place.

I have nothing more to add. I hope this now answers all your questions you believe I keep ducking

You are wrong that the sources refer to an identification parade. They don't. They clearly describe an informal identification. So all you've shown, really, is that your argument has been predicated on a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the source(s).