Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[RivkahChaya]

In another press report Sagar also endorsed the sighting of Macnaghten's City PC, who "met a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court [Mitre Square]". And, the last time I checked, Druitt wasn't Jewish.

What does "of Jewish appearance" mean? If it means that he had a full beard, peyos, was wearing a wide-brimmed, fur-trimmed hat, and had tzitzis (fringes) on his shirt, then no, I would not expect anyone who was not Jewish to look that way. However, if it just meant that he was olive-skinned, and had dark hair and brown eyes, there are lots of people who "look Jewish," but are not, and there are lots of people who are Jewish, but don't especially look it. That may have been less true 124 years ago, when there were fewer converts and intermarriages, but I'm sure there were people who were born English who happened to have darker complexions than was typical, and in the East End at the time might be mistaken for Jewish. In another part of London, they might be mistaken for Spanish, or something.

[Wickerman]

The implication seems to be that no murderer could have been convicted unless there was an eyewitness to the act of murder.

On the contrary, it's always been the case that suspects could be convicted on circumstantial evidence, and an identification of a suspect at the scene of the crime, close to the time of the murder, could certainly make the different between acquittal and conviction.

Most evidence, or in many cases, evidence is indeed circumstantial, but not one single instance, which this would be.
A series of circumstances are required to incriminate someone, not one circumstance alone.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Most evidence, or in many cases, evidence is indeed circumstantial, but not one single instance, which this would be.
A series of circumstances are required to incriminate someone, not one circumstance alone.

Regards, Jon S.

A DA will go to trial with nothing but an eyewitness, if the eyewitness is very convincing, and there is "negative" evidence, as it were, such as the accused having an unsupported alibi (eg, "I was at home, wayching TV"). This is especially true if the witness is the victim, or the witness knew the suspect prior to the crime. In some states in the US, unsupported testimony of a co-conspirator is not allowed-- you've got to have something else, even if is just an impartial witness who saw the accused fleeing the scene at the time of the crime, or a low-res videotape where you never get a good look at the person's face.

The public is getting more and more skeptical of victim IDs, though, and that's probably good, because lots of studies have shown them to be unreliable.

That said, just because a DA will go to trial doesn't mean he will get a conviction. I was on a jury where the case was pretty much victim testimony, and testimony of a co-conspirator. The co-conspirator, who had plea-bargained, either misspoke numerous times, or was just lying. It was all on little details, like whether he already had a weapon with him, or whether the accused suggested returning to his house to get a weapon-- he said one thing, then the other. The victim had not been able to pick the accused out of a line-up, or a stack of photos. It wasn't until he saw him brought into a court for a motion hearing, in a prison jumpsuit, when he was the only black person in the room, that the victim suddenly recognized him as the attacker. He apparently got hysterical, and had a pabic attack, and they brought his "victim counselor," or something in to testify to that.

The jury vote actually went back and forth for a while, and was eventually declared hung, because one woman was philosophically opposed to doubting anything a victim said, and nothing was ever going to convince her to vote "not guilty." That really should have come out in voir dire, when they dismissed someone who said his religion prevented him from passing judgment, and he would vote "not guilty" no matter what. As soon as he said that, some other guy, who was a college student with an exam later that afternoon, who had completely forgotten about his summons until the sheriff showed up and escorted him to court, suddenly remembered that he also belonged to the same religion. He got dismissed, and thank DOYC, because he would have been hell in the jury room.

So, if this witness had been an actual eyewitness to the crime, then yes, it might have been enough.

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.

[Wickerman]

What does "of Jewish appearance" mean? If it means that he had a full beard, peyos, was wearing a wide-brimmed, fur-trimmed hat, and had tzitzis (fringes) on his shirt, then no, I would not expect anyone who was not Jewish to look that way. However, if it just meant that he was olive-skinned, and had dark hair and brown eyes, there are lots of people who "look Jewish," but are not, and there are lots of people who are Jewish, but don't especially look it. That may have been less true 124 years ago, when there were fewer converts and intermarriages, but I'm sure there were people who were born English who happened to have darker complexions than was typical, and in the East End at the time might be mistaken for Jewish. In another part of London, they might be mistaken for Spanish, or something.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.