Tweet
Phuk! Wrong thread! Now he'll never know ...
-
-
When was the decision made not to proceed with the arrest of Kosminski,even though it has been claimed there was enough evidence to do so?
At this staghe we don't know.
That the officers present at the ID were the obvious people to do so,se ems to suggest they might have been under orders not to.
Seems to sugget - says it all. We simply don't know.
Sally's statemet that there was insufficent time elapsed to allow for memory failure on the part of Anderson and Swanson ,is one I totally agree with,which allows for a deliberate de cision by them to omit details which,had they been included,might have cleared the doubts so many are left with.
Since Swanson was not writing for publication (may not even have known anyone else would read his scribblings), I cannot see that he needed to say more than he did. he was, it appears, in the habit of annotating his books - he set down what made sense to him. things he knew, or ddi not consider relevent for his purpose he omitted. But Swanson at least I exhonerate from being deliberately misleading.
Before the marginalia emerged, we knew none of this. We now know more (though our knowledge is imperfect) than we did before and must work with that. I believe it is too easy to argue that writers were seeking to mislead (they may have been) but we must also look at what they did say.
It seems to me thast Swanson gave us much detail - the Seaside home (capitalised) existed at that time; we know the CITY police did stake-out a house on Met territory. We know a man called Araon KOSMINSKI existed and was put away at about the right time, but died later than the two policemen thought. We know there were difficulties in arranging an ID and that afterwards they could not - for whatever reason - take the case to trial. The marginalia is clearly and precisely written, and tells us in fact a great deal we ddi not know before. After some scepticism and testing the maginalia in my own mind, I am happy with what DSS wrote. I'd like more - that may come.
Anderson, I agree, is more complex. Partly because his words changed a bit over the years - though he is broadly consistent. We must remember that he was writing to entertain a general audience, not annotating the official file. I expect (unless what he and DSS were doing was wholly off the record) that somewhere there is (or at least was) a - probably confidential - file that includes more information - dates, arrangements etc. One day it may see the light of day again.
Phil HComment
-
What I find a bit hard to swallow are the combined statements of Anderson and Swanson, as per:
Anderson:
"...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 Swanson:
"...the suspect had been identified ... and he knew he was identified"
To begin with, identified AS WHAT? As Aaron Kosminsky? Or as the Ripper? Or as someone else altogether, like Sadler?
Lawende; if we try this on him we need to accept that he "unhesitatingly" identified Kosminski "the instant he was confronted with him".
How on earth could he do that? He was not certain that he would be able to identify the man he saw in Church Passage TWO AND A HALF YEARS EARLIER! Yet we are asked to believe that he could do so at a stage where Kosminski had sunk into madness and gone from a man who could confidently and violently kill out in the open streets to a person who ate out of the gutters and who gave the impression of a harmless lunatic, by the looks of things.
At any rate, Lawende couldnīt hang Kosminski. At best, he could profess to believing that he was the man he had been seen with a woman he had only seen from the back. The only action Lawende saw between the two was that the woman put her hand on the manīs chest. Hardly a crime, punishable by death!
And Swanson tells us that the suspect "knew he was identified". This speaks to me of a person with intact wits, a man that had held hopes, perhaps, to stay unidentified, but who knew the game was up after this super witness had given him away. And once again, as WHAT: Aaron Kosminski or the Ripper? Or ...?
Of course, if the identification only sought to establish the identity of the suspect, then the witness needed not be reluctant to point him out since it would have him hanged! Such a thing would only come into play if there was a certainty that the person X had done the killing, and an UNcertainty that the suspect WAS the person X was about. In such a case, a witness confrontation could establish THAT particular detail, and such an identification would - to me, at least - sound like the kind of thing that would cause the types of comments that Anderson and Swanson gave: the witness recognized the man the instant he laid eyes upon him (something that speaks of great certainty and perhaps a long-time connection), plus the suspect knew he had been made - he too understood that the man with whom he had been confronted had all the knowledge it took to pinpoint him; a relative, an old friend, a former employer; that sort of person. Not somebody who had (barely) seen him in a fleeting moment in a dark alley two and a half years earlier and never more.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 10-20-2012, 10:13 AM.Comment
-
Phil - your post pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. Darn it, you beat me to it!
The salient point being to bear in mind who each man was writing for when they commented on Kosminski. In Swanson's case, that appears to have been private comment, for himself only - thus he had no need to include anything which didn't suit his purpose. Anderson was writing for the public, and could presumably say only so much in that context.
Neither source is perfect, but it is what we have. I too hope for more in dues course.Comment
-
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....Comment
-
Fisherman - does Swanson not write 'Kosminski was the suspect?' That would seem to be pretty straightforward - Kosminski was the suspect.Comment
-
Fisherman - we would all lie answers to similar questions, but as historians (which is what I consider I am) we have to use what we have.
"...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he
was confronted with him"
"...the suspect had been identified ... and he knew he was identified"
These comments are not mutually exclusive. they simply see the situation one from the witness perspective and the other from the suspect's.
To begin with, identified AS WHAT? As Aaron Kosminsky? Or as the Ripper? Or as someone else altogether, like Sadler?
There is a logical answer to this, although of course the correct one is that we do not know.
The witness (I now infer someone other than Lawende) appears to have seen a man with Kate, and identified the man in Brighton as such. Whether he also knew him as Araon Kosminski, I do not know. BUT, if, as I now conjecture, the witness (not Lawende) saw a man in or near Mitre Sq on the night of the murder, and then put a name to him during the Kosminski court case in 1889 - the witness might have known the man in Brighton's name.
we need to accept that he "unhesitatingly" identified Kosminski "the instant he was confronted with him".
Lawende might not have done, but another witness might.
And Swanson tells us that the suspect "knew he was identified".
Maybe a facial expression showed unmistakable recognition. If DSS was not present - and his use of the word "sent" suggests (to me at least) he was not - he would be going on what he was told.
if there was a certainty that the person X had done the killing, and an UNcertainty that the suspect WAS the person X was about. In such a case, a witness confrontation could establish THAT particular detail, and such an identification would - to me, at least - sound like the kind of thing that would cause the types of comments that Anderson and Swanson gave:
If a man (AK) was identified in 1889, is home had been staked-out and he had been followed (see Cox's reinisences) the police may have had more on AK than surmise, and the ID could have been to tie him in to Mitre Sq specifically.
All hypothesis.
Phil HComment
-
Phil - your post pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. Darn it, you beat me to it!
Sorry, Sally!!
PhilComment
-
Anderson's and Swanson's writings don't leave room for this idea.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
The witness learned the suspect was Jewish during the ID event. It follows that we can safely say that the witness was not a member of the family nor a friend.Originally posted by Fisherman View PostComment
-
The problem with Lawende is the nature of his evidence.Originally posted by Phil H View Post
I think we can infer that Swanson and associates wanted the witness to give evidence, and as he didn't they couldn't get him into a court.
It follows that in order to believe Lawende to be the witness, then you have to believe that his evidence was make or break.
Was it make or break? I don't think so. I can't imagine a scenario where they didn't have much on him apart from the usual "nightwalker, oddball, brandished a knife" and along comes Lawende to say that was the man, against whom I testified, the one I doubted I could recognise again; whom I saw chatting with a woman whom I identified by her clothes.
I just can't see how this was enough to confidently state 'murderer would have hanged'.
There is always the option, I suppose, that Lawende had successfully ID'd him, and was willing to give evidence; but there was another witness who refused to give evidence.
In terms of what the witness saw or heard, there are other possibilities such as: dropping the apron in GSG; suspect telling the witness he had had done them and providing details known only to the murderer and the police.
But, I think we can safely say that the witness and suspect were acquaintances at the very best, as one didn't know the other was Jewish.Comment
-
If you only had the Swanson Marginalia, Anderson's memoirs and both versions of the Mac Report you would never know that this Polish Jew, 'Kosminski' was sectioned as late as Feb 1891!
This is because these sources implicitly and explicitly backdate the timing to late 1888 early 1889.
They claim that the murderer was identified in that time frame.
Their murderer is not somebody out and about for over two years (which is why Cullen, Farson and Rumbelow initially thought Anderson must be talking about Pizer and Violena).
This is the Anderson-Swanson suspect:
He was 1. watched, 2. identified, 3. sectioned and 4. died -- all soon after Kelly.
Arguably three of those elements of the tale do not match the real Aaron Kosminski.
Sims in 1907 has the Polish Jew 1. formerly working in a hospital in Poland, 2. not identified by a beat cop witness, 3.not sectioned soon after the Kelly murder, and 4. not deceased soon after that.
Two of those elements -- from Macnaghten? -- that we know about fit Aaron Kosminski.Comment
-
Sally:
"does Swanson not write 'Kosminski was the suspect?' That would seem to be pretty straightforward - Kosminski was the suspect."
Thatīs pretty observant, Sally - and I will tell you that I have been just as observant!
But the gist of the matter is that we cannot reconcile what we know about Aaron Kosminski with what was said about the identification. And terein lies the rub.
Lawende did NOT get a very good look at the man in Church Passage. That is important, but even more important is that Kosminski - if he was the Church Passage man - would not have had any reason at all to allow the faces of Lawende, Harris and Levy to get burnt into his brain. The people you meet in the crowd today, the ones you look at on the bus, at the street corners, are people about whom you will forget. In two and a half years, if I was to bring forward the man from the buc, the man from the street corner, then you would look at them and say "I never saw him in my life".
It was said that the suspect in the Seaside home "knew he was identified". This can have meant one out of two things:
A/ He was told "You have been identified", or
B/ He knew HIMSELF that he had been identified - and nobody had to tell him this.
What would apply in the case at hand? Well, obviously B would apply. Swanson would not tell us that the witness got information that he had been identified, he instead - if I am correct - confirms what Anderson says, more or less: The identification quality was flawless, the witness immediately and without hesitation pointed the suspect out the moment he saw him. One glimpse and bang! And there was no reason at all for the suspect to deny the ID; this is what Swansonīs wording is about: He knew he was ID:d, or, putting it differently: He knew the game was up.
No Lawende, no Schwartz would be enough to ensure this immediate, clear and stron reciprocal identification process, thatīs what I am saying.
And therefore, Sally, I also say that whoever the men at the Seaside home were, they were NOT Aaron Kosminski and Lawende OR Schwartz.
We also need to recognize the fact that we supposedly have a man who hear voices, who eats out of the gutter, who will not work and who most probably cared not about his personal hygiene and such things - a lunatic, if you will, at one end of this identification. And such a man, Iīd suggest, would not be somebody about whom you could unanimously say that he knew he had been identified. Aaron Kosminski was in a parallel university, in Cukoo land, in 1891. How would anybody know that he recognized that he had been faced with a witness who could nail him for the Ripper deeds - something we know that neither Lawende nor Schwartz could do?
None of it comes even close to adding up, and therefore it will be wrong. Aaron Kosminski was not faced with Lawende or Schwartz in 1891 and beyond doubt proven to have been the Ripper in the process. We know that the material never allowed for it from the outset, and much less so in 1891 when time would have eroded away the worth of any identification.
Itīs all good and well to profess to being able to read, and claiming that Swanson said Kosminski. But being able to read many times precedes being able to understand, and there is no rational way that Kosminski as the Ripper fits the bill of the Seaside home ID, given what we have.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Phil H:
"These comments are not mutually exclusive. they simply see the situation one from the witness perspective and the other from the suspect's."
Yes. AND they describe a situation where the witness is either one that is very fresh or one that KNEW the suspect very well. If Lawende had noticed that the Church Passage man had three eyes or a nine-inch nose, then we would know this. But he did not - the man therefore in all probability displayed no traits that made him stand out very much. Two and a half years will do things to your propensity to ID such a man instantaneously and with no doubt. It canīt be done.
"The witness (I now infer someone other than Lawende) appears to have seen a man with Kate"
Why?
"Lawende might not have done, but another witness might."
Like who? Levy? If he really ID:d Kosminski as his relative, then that could explain the total lack of doubt. But it would NOT explain why he did not speak up from the outset, would it? And it would most certainly allow for a scenario where Levy had to be told that Aaron Kosminski actually was a fellow Jew.
"Maybe a facial expression showed unmistakable recognition. "
With a mad man, a schizophrenic or whatnot - how can we "read" ANY expression in his face as "Bugger; this man has ID:d me"? How do we know that the expression should not be read: "Oh my! Thatīs God!" How, Phil?
With a SANE man, however, a look of defeat and realisation of a game lost may be something we can pick up on with some sort of confidence. But it wonīt come anywhere near a true confirmation anyway!!
"If a man (AK) was identified in 1889, is home had been staked-out and he had been followed (see Cox's reinisences) the police may have had more on AK than surmise, and the ID could have been to tie him in to Mitre Sq specifically."
But that does not change the semantic phrasing of Andersons and Swansons claims, does it? They describe a meeting between two men where a ppositive ID could obviously not go wrong.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
I think we could also add to the above that Swanson did not entertain the idea that this man was a lunatic, nor did the witness. According to Swanson, the man would have hanged, and by implication the witness thought so too as he did not want that on his mind.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
So, whoever the suspect was, it's a fair assumption to say that he didn't display the characteristics that would lead to a lunatic accusation - at the time of the ID - and I think this is supported by "knew he was identified, no such murders occurred in London again" - clearly, Swanson's man was capable of rationality and self-control.
The suspect could quite easily have been Aaron Kosminski, and the witness could quite easily have been Lawende or Schwartz. I'm not convinced with either Lawende or Schwartz, but that's due to quite a few assumptions on my part - such as Liz Stride moving from being thrown down on the pavement into the dark corner. The identity of the witness is merely guess work at this juncture, and stranger things have happened and all that.Comment
-
Fleetwood Mac:
"Anderson's and Swanson's writings don't leave room for this idea."
Not if we accept all they say, perhaps. But we can clearly see that what they say is very questionable, and does not fit in with a man in the kind of condition that Aaron Kosminsky was.
And why would we work from the conception that the ID needs to be fit into the Kosminski frame? Maybe Kosminski is what needs to be fit into the ID frame - and he does not fit there, since no man ever got a good look at the Ripper. The Seaside home witness had all the knowledge he needed to do the ID. No hesitation there! Two and a half years after the case, with an arguably much changed suspect, he pulls it of, just like that! I donīt buy that for a second.
"The witness learned the suspect was Jewish during the ID event. It follows that we can safely say that the witness was not a member of the family nor a friend."
If the witness did not know this before, then yes, the family can probably be discounted, as most of his friends. What I am saying is that the type of evidence Anderson speaks of, an immediate and totally unhesitating identification, points in the direction of these types of people generally. It must have been somebody who had no reason at all to wawer, and that discards anybody who saw Kosminski two and a half years earlier and never since. A very fresh witness who had a very good l9ook could also do the trick, somebody who Kosminski recognized and was able to verify that he had recognized - without which we do not have jigsaw puzzle piece number two: the suspect knew that he had been ID:d.
The best,
FishermanComment
Comment