Mary Berkin

[Wickerman]

This point has been addressed a number of times already. For obvious reasons, murderers were usually convicted on circumstantial evidence rather than because someone had actually seen them committing the crime.

And, as previously pointed out, no-one is convicted on one single circumstance but after an accumulation of unrelated circumstances have been identified. As Swanson makes no claim to know of other circumstances 'some' will choose to fall back on the words of Macnaghten, that there were "...many circumstances connected with this man".

However, Macnaghten also said, "..no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.", and let us not forget also, "...No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer..", which flies in direct conflict with Swanson's claim that "he knew he was identified".

Now, as Macnaghten seemed to be aware of all the circumstances surrounding Kosminski he still concludes he was nothing more than a strong 'suspect'. And, in Macnaghten's view, no stronger than either Druitt or Ostrog, in fact it may be that because Mac. "has little doubt" that Druitt's family had suspicions about him that Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog were all strong suspects, actually Macnaghten's three strongest suspects.

Considering how weak Druitt and Ostrog are as suspects to us today, the fact that Macnaghten does not raise Kosminski above them also speaks to his candidacy not being particularly significant.

Why is that?

Because, so far as we know neither Lawende nor Schwartz could be described as "having knowledge of the suspects movements". In Lawende's case the suspect was stationary, in Schwartz case the suspect only staggered down Berner St., which carries no significance as evidence about "his movements".

Berkin's words appear to be describing a person who has knowledge of a sequence of movements by this suspect. Either this witness knew the suspects habits over several nights or, this witness followed the suspect through the streets, ie; from Berner St. to Mitre Sq. (as an example).

Berkin's words appear to be describing someone else, a third witness we have never heard of.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

It seems Mary suggests that the cessation was due to the killer "being sent away", she doesnt say "being locked away". Which to me suggests that she is saying the assumed killer was sent away by the authorities but was not charged or held for any great length of time for any of the crimes.

As Adam has said elsewhere, it's probably dangerous to place too much reliance on the exact wording of someone's recollections of something they were told nearly 80 years ago at the age of 10 or so, but of course there is the possibility that "sent away from London" refers to the suspect being "sent" (as Swanson puts it) to the Seaside Home.

[Chris]

But, is seeing this suspect "near to the scene of one of the crimes" sufficient justification for this suspect being hanged? (Swanson's words).

This point has been addressed a number of times already. For obvious reasons, murderers were usually convicted on circumstantial evidence rather than because someone had actually seen them committing the crime. Clearly, if someone had been seen close to the scene of the crime just before it was committed, perhaps in the company of the victim, that would be a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence, particularly if it was supported by other circumstantial evidence.

The witness was just as likely neither, if we accept the words of Mary Berkin.

Why is that?

[Wickerman]

That's not surprising, is it, considering that we know there wasn't an eyewitness to any of the Whitechapel Murders? But naturally it could include someone who saw the suspect near to the scene of one of the crimes.

But, is seeing this suspect "near to the scene of one of the crimes" sufficient justification for this suspect being hanged? (Swanson's words).
We must quite rationally answer "no", which then leads us to the conclusion that Donald Swanson is also dabbling in a little hyperbole himself. So, what else does Swanson write that might not be entirely accurate?

We are clearly looking for a Jewish (?) witness otherwise unnamed (or at least so far unrecognised) in the surviving papers.

That would appear to be the case.

That i think is a point worth noting.

And worth remembering when these "was the witness Lawende or Schwartz" debates take off again.
The witness was just as likely neither, if we accept the words of Mary Berkin.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

It seems Mary suggests that the cessation was due to the killer "being sent away", she doesnt say "being locked away". Which to me suggests that she is saying the assumed killer was sent away by the authorities but was not charged or held for any great length of time for any of the crimes.

That doesnt sound like the story of someone who was put away in an institution or home, it sounds like the suspect was put on a boat or train and sent somewhere away from London, without the presentation of any specific evidence against him.....something that I highly doubt myself.

A witness ID was not enough to convict anyone of anything.

Cheers all

[Phil H]

If any trust is to be placed in Mary Berkin's recollections, then it must surely and logically be concluded once and for all that the "Seaside Home" witness was NOT Lawende, either of his colleagues or Schwartz. Unless by having seen Kosminski in the Square or elsewhere they could place him - but that is not the inference I place on what she is reported to have said.

We are clearly looking for a Jewish (?) witness otherwise unnamed (or at least so far unrecognised) in the surviving papers.

That i think is a point worth noting.

Phil H

[Chris]

As was pointed out elsewhere, one who has knowledge of the suspects movements does not seem to imply an eye-witness to a particular crime.

That's not surprising, is it, considering that we know there wasn't an eyewitness to any of the Whitechapel Murders? But naturally it could include someone who saw the suspect near to the scene of one of the crimes.

[Wickerman]

Mary Berkin's words suggest that the police could not charge the suspect..

"..... without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements.

As was pointed out elsewhere, one who has knowledge of the suspects movements does not seem to imply an eye-witness to a particular crime.

The 'proof ' was that the crimes ceased when the suspect was sent away from London.

If the 'proof' really was, that the suspect knew he was identified, as opposed to Berkin's belief that it was due to him being "sent away", we apparently have further proof that recollections (Anderson, Swanson, Berkin) are not to be trusted.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

As a former Brighton inhabitant...

Who'd be alive to notice Robert?

All the best

Dave

[Robert]

Yes....I just hope there wasn't a murder in Hove.

[Chris]

OK, but the "proof" would have to be, not that the suspect was sent away from London, but that the suspect knew he had been identified.

And of course that is what Swanson actually says: "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London."

[Robert]

Hi Chris

OK, but the "proof" would have to be, not that the suspect was sent away from London, but that the suspect knew he had been identified. After all, if Aaron was indeed sent to a convalescent home or private mental home in March 1889, he had to be back in London by December to walk the dog. And as far as we know, he stayed in London thereafter. So he would have been able to recommence the crimes at any point after December 1889 (and maybe before) except for the period in 1890 when he was off the streets.

[Chris]

So was this a "I'm going to be sneaky and watch him while he doesn't know" kind of surveillance, or the "I'm going to stand here and let you know that I know what you did" kind of surveillance?

Cox's surveillance was definitely intended to be the former.

[Chris]

But if the identification occurred in early 1889, Aaron would not have been incarcerated soon afterwards.

No - I don't think there's really any way of reconciling Macnaghten's date of March 1889 with Swanson's statement that Kosminski was sent to the workhouse and Colney Hatch "a very short time" after the identification. But perhaps it's more likely that Swanson, post 1910 (and perhaps quite a bit later), could have been misremembering the sequence of events, than that Macnaghten in 1894 could have been mistaken about whether they took place several months before he joined the force, or a year or two after.

And isn't the whole idea about the cessation of the crimes being 'proof' that they had the right man a bit difficult if the date in question was early February 1891?

[Errata]

I can't imagine that those cops thought they were unnoticed while conducting such a surveillance. No Jew in the neighborhood would not instantly spot some random gentile that suddenly pops up wherever they go.

So was this a "I'm going to be sneaky and watch him while he doesn't know" kind of surveillance, or the "I'm going to stand here and let you know that I know what you did" kind of surveillance?