Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[RivkahChaya]

So, as I said, in the case of Hutchinson "Jewish appearance" may not have intended ethnicity, but in the case of Sagar "Jewish appearance" does appear to intend ethnicity because it is repeated in three out of four reports.

So, it's pretty safe to say that whatever this meant, it did not mean a full beard with forelocks, and fringes on the corners of his shirt, with a kippah visible under his outdoor hat. It referred either to his being dressed for an occupation associated with Jews, or to his having olive skin, and dark hair and eyes, or possibly both.

[Chris]

I just noticed that both accounts use the word "court".

You may have a point there, particularly as one other version uses the odd phrase "coming out of the court near the square" [Daily News, 9 January 1905].

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Perhaps Robert Sagar was an avid reader.

Mysteries of Police and Crime, Major Arthur Griffiths, November 1898—

"One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylym. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him—the police constable in Mitre Court."

Sagar, Morning Leader, 9th January 1905—

" . . . just before her [Eddowes] body was discovered a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court."

I just noticed that both accounts use the word "court".

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

What other circumstance is alluded to by Swanson?

Swanson doesn't say anything about circumstances at all. That's the point I'm making. The whole business about "one circumstance alone" is coming from you, not Swanson.

Errata made no mention of Sagar, but of the "witness", Sagar was not a "witness".

Yes, Hutchinson intruded, as he tends to do. But we were discussing Sagar, weren't we?

If Sagar truly saw anyone leaving Mitre Sq. (Jewish or not), why was this not mentioned at the Inquest?

Sagar didn't claim to have seen anyone himself; supposedly it was another officer/constable. I'm not suggesting the story is accurate, but nevertheless it might tell us something interesting about what Sagar thought.

[Wickerman]

I'm not making any claim at all - you are the one making a claim, about "one circumstance alone". That simply isn't what Swanson wrote.

What other circumstance is alluded to by Swanson?

We're talking about Sagar, not Hutchinson, aren't we?

Errata made no mention of Sagar, but of the "witness", Sagar was not a "witness".

Specifically in the case of Sagar we should be wary to assume he mentioned seeing a "well-dressed" Jew at all, but a Jew yes.
As you know, three versions exist, he is reputed to have mentioned:
- a man of Jewish appearance (Morning Leader, 9 Jan).
- a well-known man of Jewish appearance (Daily News, 9 Jan).
- a well dressed man of Jewish appearance (Seattle Daily Times, 4 Feb).

So, as I said, in the case of Hutchinson "Jewish appearance" may not have intended ethnicity, but in the case of Sagar "Jewish appearance" does appear to intend ethnicity because it is repeated in three out of four reports. But, seeing as Sagar's interview came long after Hutchinson's Astrakan story, meaning Sagar was familiar with this suspect's description, we can only use caution in believing Sagar actually saw a Jewish suspect at all.

If Sagar truly saw anyone leaving Mitre Sq. (Jewish or not), why was this not mentioned at the Inquest?

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/nov/12/metropolitan-police-arrest-of-friedrich

It seems that Schumacher was arrested as a suspected person for being on the premises of Leman Street police station - like he was an intruder.
I don't think it had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders.

[Monty]

Hi Colin,

Good spot. As the arrest happened after Chapmans murder this may be connected.

I'm on my phone so cannot post the Parlimentry debate on this case however if you do a search on his name I'm confident you will find it.

Monty

[Bridewell]

AN EAST-END ARREST.

Mr. MATTHEWS informed Mr. Bradlaugh that Friedrich Schumacher was arrested on Sept. 13, at Leman-street Police-station, as a suspected person. He gave an explanation and voluntarily signed a paper, after which he was released. An inquiry had been held at Scotland-yard into the circumstances of the arrest, with the result that an inspector had been reprimanded and a sergeant reduced in rank.

Monty

Hi Monty,

As a 'Schuhmacher' was/is a cobbler, I'm left wondering if his 'crime' was being 'foreign' and wearing a leather apron!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris]

You must remember the police report is in Abberline's(?) words as well as Hutchinson's. It would only take Hutchinson to say "respectable" for the officer to ask, "in what way?", whereby he responds, "like a Jew".
In this way both adjectives could easily appear in the same sentence.
Regardless, given the antisemitism throughout the Eastend it is always possible that Hutchinson was expressing his own anti-semitic bias, we cannot say for sure, obviously, but it must be a consideration not to be overlooked.

We're talking about Sagar, not Hutchinson, aren't we?

[Monty]

Rivkah,

"But, here's another thought: didn't police ever try to bluff confessions back then? "Mr. Kominski, we have a witness who has identified you, and if a jury convicts you, you will hang. However, if you confess, and beg the judge's mercy, you may only go to prison for life." But there is no record of an interview."

This may interest you. It gives an insight into H Division and the way their CID operated. Basically Schumacher was arrest and pressured into signing a 'confession' at Leman Street station.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1888

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MONDAY.

AN EAST-END ARREST.

Mr. MATTHEWS informed Mr. Bradlaugh that Friedrich Schumacher was arrested on Sept. 13, at Leman-street Police-station, as a suspected person. He gave an explanation and voluntarily signed a paper, after which he was released. An inquiry had been held at Scotland-yard into the circumstances of the arrest, with the result that an inspector had been reprimanded and a sergeant reduced in rank.

Monty

[Chris]

As Swanson makes no mention of anything else but this eyewitness testimony then we cannot claim there were any other circumstances which connected Kosminski to a murder, before the date of the ID.

I'm not making any claim at all - you are the one making a claim, about "one circumstance alone". That simply isn't what Swanson wrote.

[Wickerman]

A DA will go to trial with nothing but an eyewitness, if the eyewitness is very convincing, .....

Eyewitness to what?
Would a DA go to court with an eyewitness who saw the suspect in an adjacent street with the "possible" victim 10-15 minutes before the body was found?

A lot can happen in 10 minutes, especially in the backstreets of a city.

As best I can tell, East Enders did not have delicate enough sensibilities to develop whole new euphemisms for things they already had words for.

You must not be familiar with Cockney rhyming slang then..

And he already said well dressed, so there's no need to come up with a euphemism for a phrase you used not a second earlier.

You must remember the police report is in Abberline's(?) words as well as Hutchinson's. It would only take Hutchinson to say "respectable" for the officer to ask, "in what way?", whereby he responds, "like a Jew".
In this way both adjectives could easily appear in the same sentence.
Regardless, given the antisemitism throughout the Eastend it is always possible that Hutchinson was expressing his own anti-semitic bias, we cannot say for sure, obviously, but it must be a consideration not to be overlooked.

The man Hutch describes in his testimony sounds for all the world like a Turk. Astrakhan coat, heavy gold, horseshoe, carnelian...

The Astrakan coat was popular among east Europeans in the 19th century, but then who is to say the coat was not bought locally by an Englishman?

Of course, but who said anything about one circumstance alone? Macnaghten wrote that in Kozminski's case there were many circumstances.

Indeed he does Chris, but those circumstances are nothing to do with the suspect on the night of the murder.

Circumstantial evidence is by its own definition ambiguous, and we cannot hang an accused on one piece of ambiguous evidence.

Had Kosminski been stopped on the night of one of the murders (Mitre Sq?), and found to be carrying a knife of the style consistent with the wounds on the body, - that would also be circumstantial.

Had there been blood stains on his clothing, yet he had evidently cut himself, therefore, could be his own blood, - that would also be circumstantial.

Sooner or later the pendulum is notably swinging in Kosminski's direction too many times, these circumstances begin to pile up. Then there may be a case to answer.
As Swanson makes no mention of anything else but this eyewitness testimony then we cannot claim there were any other circumstances which connected Kosminski to a murder, before the date of the ID.

Macnaghten was clear that "no-one ever saw the murderer" so any circumstances associated with Kosminski "which made him a strong suspect" must have arisen after the murders, ie suspicions about his social conduct, which may be linked to the City surveillance. And, as a consequence nothing directly to do with the murders.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Reading anything more into those footnotes is pure conjecture.

Fine.

What does Swanson state: "Murderer would have hanged".

Now, either you believe the Marginalia is fraudulent; you believe Swanson meant what he said; or, you go down the road of.......conjecture....and start coming up with all sorts of theories about interchange of words such as suspect/murderer, it was Anderson's theory etc.

Seems to me, Jon, that I'm taking Swanson at face value, and you're the one who is assuming.

They are Swanson's words; he wrote them. Ergo, in Swanson's view he was the murderer and he would have hanged in the event the witness gave testimony.

[Chris]

A series of circumstances are required to incriminate someone, not one circumstance alone.

Of course, but who said anything about one circumstance alone? Macnaghten wrote that in Kozminski's case there were many circumstances.

[Errata]

Given that there were so many Jews in the East-end, and a number of those were wealthy by East-end standards, an English Eastender may well have used the euphemism, "of Jewish appearance" to describe a respectably dressed man. The euphemism was likely not intended to suggest ethnicity but only social status.

Regards, Jon S.

As best I can tell, East Enders did not have delicate enough sensibilities to develop whole new euphemisms for things they already had words for. That and I don't think in the history of ever has anyone ever said "of Jewish appearance" using air quotes. They meant what they said. That the person in question looked like a Jew to the witness. Not like a toff, not well dressed, not respectable, not learned, not refined, a Jew. And he already said well dressed, so there's no need to come up with a euphemism for a phrase you used not a second earlier. And since there is no such thing as a stereotypical Jewish appearance, clearly no one "looks" like a Jew. The witness does not agree. The witness thinks there is such a thing as looking like a Jew. So the only questions are a: what does that look like, and I think anyone who has ever seen a Punch cartoon knows the answer to that and b: does that mean the person in question was in fact Jewish, or was it a false assumption?

So the guy looked like Iago in a terribly culturally insensitive play. Does that mean he was in fact Jewish? No. If he had not been described as well dressed, I would think the man actually could have been Jewish, since the other cultures that exhibit that phenotype typically lived elsewhere in London. But since he was well dressed, he likely was not local, so I have no idea. But there were not a whole lot of wealthy Jews in London at that time. Maybe a couple hundred. I mean, I can only think of one, but I'm sure there were others, most of whom had probably intermarried at that point. Or converted like Disraeli.

The man Hutch describes in his testimony sounds for all the world like a Turk. Astrakhan coat, heavy gold, horseshoe, carnelian... Turkish or Persian I would think. Given that Turks and Persians have characteristics similar to just about everyone who comes out of the Middle East, including Jews, I sort of wonder how many people were assumed to be Jews who were merely Semitic.