Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Paddy]

Many thanks Chris.
Sorry should have stated source...

What I was trying to say was could this be the difficulty encountered by the police...

If the identification was under some kind of Jewish supervision it could explain the witness's reluctance to point the finger? Being also a Jew?
Pat

[Errata]

Why only a single identification? Let's say he was talking to Kate Eddowes shortly before she died. This makes him neither killer no serial killer. So someone shows up to have Kos brought before him to say... well really all he can say is that he saw Kos talking to the victim before she died. Unless the witness saw the murder, he can't say that he saw the murderer. But whatever he said, and let's take the account at face value, the cops weren't screwed at that point. Other people had seen suspects at the other murder sites. Why don't you bring in anyone who described a person looking remotely like Kos at any other point. Someone's going to go for it. Someone will ID him even if he was never there. Maybe several people. They didn't have to let him go if they really thought they had the guy. If there was even the slightest doubt as to Kosminski's innocence, why let him go when they didn't have to? And even the most letter-of-the-law official would concede that he should be run by other witnesses. So why didn't they?

[Beowulf]

Any pictures of Kosminski?

[lynn cates]

no

Hello Barbara. Regretfully, no.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Many thanks Chris.
Sorry should have stated source...

What I was trying to say was could this be the difficulty encountered by the police...

If the identification was under some kind of Jewish supervision it could explain the witness's reluctance to point the finger? Being also a Jew?
Pat

That's tricky. In theory, there are only two figures in the Jewish community who could come in the capacity of asserting Kosminski's rights, and influence a Jewish witness into not identifying the suspect. The first would be a Rabbi, because there would be an assumption that if a Rabbi thinks the suspect is innocent, then he probably is. The second would be a gangster. For fairly obvious reasons. The third would be your own mother, in some confluence of events nightmarish in their coincidence.

I think that if everything they said happened in fact happened, then the real question is, why did the witness feed a load of crap to the cops about why he wouldn't identify the suspect? If the witness knew he was there to identify a murderer, first of all, why bother showing up? Clearly they want you to identify the guy you saw at the murder scene you were at. And clearly you knew the suspect was Jewish, because you knew the guy, at least on sight. So the guy knows who it is he is supposed to identify, and apparently he knows he isn't going to go through with it. Why bother?

Secondly, there is nothing, not a single thing in Judaism that prohibits someone from participating in an investigation, identifying a suspect, even having your testimony lead to the death penalty. Jews were big on the death penalty. They exercised it in their own villages and shtetls. Jews are commanded to seek justice. And at the time, Jews certainly had problems with the laws and citizenry of the land, but not the execution of those laws. They cooperated with police. So the whole "Gee I'd like to help, bu I can't because I can't be responsible for the death of another Jew" thing is crap. "Gee I'd like to help, but you are insane if you think I am going to involved in this freak show" would probably be more accurate. Bu again, why show up? Why not just tell the cops that they can parade all of London past you, and you aren't going to be able to identify anyone?

The only thing that makes sense is if they lied, or they were very misleading. If they called him in and told him they needed to identify a guy for stealing food or some such, and the witness said "Yeah, I know him. It's Kosminski." And then they told him that they needed the man's name because they thought he was Jack the Ripper, the witness might easily throw on some brakes at that point. Or if they told him they just wanted to find the guy talking to Eddowes, because they think he saw something. Or any number of slightly less than above board scenarios. If he thought he was identifying a man, literally supplying an identity to someone they had in custody, there's no way he's not going to back out of it once they tell him that he has identified the Ripper, when for all he knows the guy just talked to the wrong whore.

A bunch of things could cause his reluctance to testify, but Judaism just wasn't one of them. So the only Jews who could show up and influence him would either have to be someone in real authority perceived as being unlikely to be wrong on major issues, or someone of real violence. Because there is no reason to not identify a murderer just because another Jew is in the room. Unless the witness and the suspect were very good friends, there wouldn't be anymore external pressure on the witness than if he was Catholic or Protestant.

[Paddy]

Thanks for your detailed reply, of course you are right about Jewish people upholding the law. Anderson must have been talking about family and friends not giving up thier own to gentile justice then maybe?

A while ago I put forward another theory which could fit with part of your reply....That Jacob Cohen and Joseph Levy could both have been present at the identification.

You said.... Because there is no reason to not identify a murderer just because another Jew is in the room. Unless the witness and the suspect were very good friends, there wouldn't be anymore external pressure on the witness than if he was Catholic or Protestant.

I wondered if Joseph Hyam Levy (a butcher) One of the witnesses at Mitre square, might know Jacob Cohen (also a butcher) See Rip128...New light on Kosminski..Who was Jacob Cohen...

Being likely family, Jacob Cohen could have accompanied Aaron to the identification.
The press hinted it was felt that Joseph Levy was holding back information in the Mitre square sighting. (maybe knew who he was?)

When Jacob Cohen was setting up shop in the city around 1890 with AKs brother Woolf Abrahams and Thomas C Davies, he could have often walked via Aldgate to visit family and could have stopped to chat to local butchers. He could have talked to Joseph Levy and even told him about Aaron having mental health problems and helping out watching the shop in Carter Lane, St Pauls.

Lots of mights and coulds I'm afraid, but only a theory for consideration
Does anybody know where Joseph Levy worked as a butcher out of interest?

Pat

[Fleetwood Mac]

If there was even the slightest doubt as to Kosminski's innocence, why let him go when they didn't have to? And even the most letter-of-the-law official would concede that he should be run by other witnesses. So why didn't they?

Errata,

I think the answer lies in Anderson's statement: "the only man who ever had a good view of the murderer".

The implication being that there was only witness worth his salt; the others unable to reasonably identify him due to not having had a good look at the murderer.

It also suggests that they didn't have enough on the suspect to hold him - whatever they had.

Looking at Swanson's October report:

It appears that he questions Schwartz's statement and answers his own question by saying: upon consideration this report throws no doubt upon Schwartz's statement. Also Swanson links Schwartz's man with the murder when comparing him with PC Smith's man.

The statement on Lawende is more matter of fact, but acknowledges Lawende's claim that he doubted he would recognise the man again.

Assuming Swanson and Anderson agreed on their choice of witness, and I feel Swanson was involved in the ID and so the implication is that Swanson and Anderson agreed on who the witness should be, then I'd say it was Schwartz.

Edited to add: when given a choice between Lawende and Schwartz that is.

[Errata]

Errata,

I think the answer lies in Anderson's statement: "the only man who ever had a good view of the murderer".

The implication being that there was only witness worth his salt; the others unable to reasonably identify him due to not having had a good look at the murderer.

It also suggests that they didn't have enough on the suspect to hold him - whatever they had.

And it gets a little morally dicey here, but in theory we have a very unique situation. As it stands, we have a witness who says "Yes, that is absolutely Jack the Ripper, no question about it. But I'm not going to testify." And clearly certain officials believed that this man was in fact Jack the Ripper. So in theory, they have him. They know it's him. And their best witness just caved on them. It occurs to no one that three middling to poor witnesses will serve to get this guy convicted perfectly well? Because three witnesses from other crime scenes would have identified him, just because they knew they were going to go identify a Jack the Ripper suspect. Unless it was three year old girl paraded before them, and I'm willing to bet at least one guy would have put the toddler at the scene. It doesn't build the world's best case against the suspect, but not the worst either. How do they just give up like that? It makes sense if you have no idea whether this guy has anything to do with it or not, but your evidence says he does, your witness says he does, in theory, they KNEW this was the guy. How do you not even try to see if someone else can ID him before letting him go?

[harry]

How did the witness show his dissent to give evidence against.By words or signs,and where and when did the witness refuse.Could the witness speak English,or did he give information through an interpteter?I understand Schwartz needed an interpreter.A lot of pertinent questions to be answered.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

A bunch of things could cause his reluctance to testify, but Judaism just wasn't one of them. So the only Jews who could show up and influence him would either have to be someone in real authority perceived as being unlikely to be wrong on major issues, or someone of real violence. Because there is no reason to not identify a murderer just because another Jew is in the room. Unless the witness and the suspect were very good friends, there wouldn't be anymore external pressure on the witness than if he was Catholic or Protestant.

As Rob points out in his most excellent book (pp.156-7), on November 16th 1888, one week after MJK's murder, Dr. Hermann Adler (chief rabbi of the British Empire) gave a special Sabbath address saying "it was only necessary (Heaven forbid it) for an unconscientious person to make a false but terrible accusation, and a riot might ensue" and asking the assembly to "obey the directions of the police, especially in their house-to-house investigations"

I would take away two points from this passage. One, it implies that perhaps some Jews (as Rob says) "were being less than helpful to the police." Two, he is stressing how a false accusation could "raise the breath of calumny against their own homes".

So.....Anderson's witness might have been reluctant to make a positive I.D. not on religious grounds but out of a general unwillingness to cooperate. Or, far more likely, afraid of pinning it in on a fellow Jew for fear of the wrath it might bring down on East End Jewry in general and not the suspect in particular. So irrespective of what Anderson may or may not have believed, this might not have been a religious issue so much as an ethnic one.

FWIW, I find the title of this thread rather risible. How the heck could a suspect hinted at by Anderson, and named by Swanson, not be on anyone's Top Ten list of suspects, if not Top Five? Kosminski might not be "my" suspect but I'd never dream of excluding him.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for your detailed reply, of course you are right about Jewish people upholding the law. Anderson must have been talking about family and friends not giving up thier own to gentile justice then maybe?

I have a theory, and it's one that has received absolutely zero support from anyone else in Rippeology, but it's to the effect that Anderson, in a round about way, was referring to Jewish socialists/anarchists when he talks about there being a certain type of low class Jew who would shield a murderer from authorities. If he was referring to anarchists, he was absolutely 100% correct. And your recent find that Koz lived within a short walk from the Berner Street club doesn't exactly prove me wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I want to second Rob's sentiment regarding Phil H's excellent post.

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson:

"Anderson's witness might have been reluctant to make a positive I.D. not on religious grounds but out of a general unwillingness to cooperate. Or, far more likely, afraid of pinning it in on a fellow Jew for fear of the wrath it might bring down on East End Jewry in general and not the suspect in particular."

Tom Wescott:

"Anderson, in a round about way, was referring to Jewish socialists/anarchists when he talks about there being a certain type of low class Jew who would shield a murderer from authorities. If he was referring to anarchists, he was absolutely 100% correct. "

Both of these suggestions make a lot of sense to me. But only Sir Robert has an argument that definitely covers both aspects of the "reluctant Jews" musings. Tom may well be right that Anderson was referring to the certain low class Jews being identical with the anarchist Jews, but when it comes to the ID at the Seaside home, we can only employ the suggestion if we know that Kosminski was one of the anarchists - and the witness another anarchist. Of course, that would bring Schwartz into the picture, having been suggested numerous times to be a club member. Itīs clever enough; Israel Schwartz, a suggested member of the anarchist club in Berner Street, immediately recognizes his fellow Jew, Kosminski, ALSO a suggested member of the self same club, but neglects to give evidence against him.

The main problem is that what Schwartz saw - or claimed to have seen - was an altercation in the street, where a man may have pushed a woman onto the pavement. She may equally have fallen herself when breaking loose from the manīs grip. Nothing more. That is not an offense for which you hang. And in this respect, Schwartz is similar to Lawende; neither man saw anything of a truly incriminating character.
There is also the small problem of having to show that both Schwartz and Kosminski were members of the club ...

I donīt think any of these men were the witness. It does not add up all the way. Nor does the ID on the whole.

Sir Robert Anderson:

"How the heck could a suspect hinted at by Anderson, and named by Swanson, not be on anyone's Top Ten list of suspects, if not Top Five? Kosminski might not be "my" suspect but I'd never dream of excluding him."

True. Kosminski makes my top five list easily. And thatīs in spite of my not believing in him as the Ripper very much at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

How did the witness show his dissent to give evidence against.By words or signs,and where and when did the witness refuse.Could the witness speak English,or did he give information through an interpteter?I understand Schwartz needed an interpreter.A lot of pertinent questions to be answered.

We may NEVEr get those answers, harry.

So what would YOU do - throw out babay and bathwater? ignore Anderson and Swanson? That's neither good scholarship nor good history in my book.

We have textual criticism and study to use. those seem like good and useful methods to me.

Why be so negative?

Phil H

[Phil H]

In the other current thread on Kosminski, I posted the following, which might be relevent here:

There is one possibility that occurs to me that might reconcile the two views:

a) Ripper incarcerated;

b) police continue to hunt for Ripper.

That is, that if Anderson and Swanson were conducting their own enquiries, outside the normal procedures and using City police as their agents (hence the City watch on Met territory, the unusual ID etc - then Sir RA and DSS may have been satisfied that they had their man and he was locked away.

However, the Commissioner (by now Munro or Bradford) may have been unconvinced; or for political reasons unwilling to take the chance and thus he required close attention to each successive murder until Coles. I thuink this is specifically relevant to some of the discussion in THIS thread.

Now this is, I emphasise, purely speculation. But it might go someway towards explaining why Macnaghten had a different view and why Anderson and Swanson acted and wrote as they did. Macnaghten may have been wholly unaware of the "private" investigation; disapproved of it, or followed a wider Yard line.

It might also explain why the police were not inclined to follow through with the ID and "force" the witness to testify. Some of the wording of the marginalia might also be better understood if we assume that some such thing took place.

Expanded for this thread re the witness, while I am engaging in conjecture:

A man is seen near Mitre square on the night of eddowes murder. In 1889, the same man sees kosminski in court, recognises him and now has a name. He reports this. Kosminski's home is watched by City CID. They follow him, make other enquiries.

Now there are two alternatives:

a) the first witness is the one that goes to Mitre Square and is perhaps a Jewish City cop (but that seems unlikely and to have been dismissed); or

b) in the course of their further enquiries into Kosminski, the police come across someone else who is Jewish, knows relevant crucial details of Kosminski's movements and is taken to Brighton. I'm still struggling with the detail of this, so if anyone else latches on to where my mind is going, please chip in.

Our starting point HAS to be that the witness is Jewish, because that is what we are told, but what was he identifying: that a man was Aaron Kosminski? that it was the man he had seen somewhere incriminating? or were they looking for Kosminski's reaction to the witness?

That might make some sense as the police were surprised at the witness' response. If the witness did not KNOW he was to be confronted with Kosminski, it might explain his troubled response when he realised what had happened.

All speculation, and thinking aloud, of course.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"the Commissioner (by now Munro or Bradford) may have been unconvinced; or for political reasons unwilling to take the chance and thus he required close attention to each successive murder until Coles."

But WHY would the commissioner remain unconviced? If the ID was successful and enough to hang the suspect, why doubt it? Anderson and Swanson are adamant in combination: There was no doubt that the killer was taken off the streets and incarcerated, the witness never wawered for a second, the suspect knew he was identified, and if the witness had stood up in court, then the suspect would have hanged. He was thus a man fit to plead and responsible for his actions.
This is a clear-cut case, is it not? It leaves us with no doubt at all, so why would it do so with Monro or Bradford?

"what was he identifying?"

THAT is the pertinent question, I feel. Any certainty that he was identifying the Ripper falls flat on itīs nose.

One thing we may have to accept is that we may be mixing up the events that went down back then - if they went down at all. We keep (soundly) thinking that Lawende and Schwartz were both witnesses that could not be the Seaside Home witness, since this man could get the suspect hanged. And that calls for the existence of ANOTHER victim, one who had seen the Ripper kill, or had knowledge of something that incriminated the man much enough to drag him to the gallows.

Chances are that this should be looked upon from another angle: Aaron Kosminski (if i was him) was a man who Anderson and Swanson had already decided was the Ripper, BEFORE the ID. They would perhaps have relied on the same thing as MacNaghten did - hearsay. If we assume that Kosminski was given away by a relative or aquaintance who claimed to have heard Kosminski say that he was the Ripper, or even said that he had seen Aaron in a compromising situation, then the two sleuths may have thought that this was enough for them. But they would need to place Kosminski at one of the murder spots, at least, and so they brought in Lawende or Schwartz to get that business done.
If this was the order it went down in, then the witness would hang Kosminski not by having seen the act of murder but by confirming that a man against whom crucial evidence existed had been in place at one or more of the murder sites.

Thatīs as close as I can get - but it still calls for the witness being able to pick his man more than two years after the event, something that would not work well in todayīs courtrooms. But perhaps back then...? Or maybe this was what had Monro or Bradford realizing that the accusations were unsufficiently underbuilt - which would certainly have been the case.

The best,
Fisherman