Mary Berkin

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[jason_c]

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".

Except the authorities must have had some reason(however slight) to ID the suspect in the first place. The police were hardly pulling random Jews off the streets for identity parades.

[Chris]

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".

You're not being serious, are you?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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".

In the event the only thing they had on Kosminski was the ID, then what was it that made it a good idea to take him to the Seaside Home?

Did they really simply pluck him out of thousands of 'low class Polish Jews' on the off chance? Was it a miraculous freak of nature in that they drew lots on the entire Jewish community and the wheel stopped at Kosminski; and it just happens that a 1 in 200,000 chance came to fruition with a successful ID?

Clearly, they had something on him that made it a good idea to take him for an ID, but not enough to get him into a court of law. It happens.

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.

The difference being that Swanson and Anderson championed Kosminski. Making it a pattern rather than an anecdote.

[Chris]

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".

The point is that Swanson doesn't say anything either way about other evidence. In particular, he doesn't say the witness's evidence alone would have convicted the suspect, as some have tried to make him. If he said that, your argument would be valid. As he doesn't, it isn't.

And yes, obviously Macnaghten's opinion of the strength of the case against Kosminski was very different from Anderson's, and apparently also from Swanson's. That's obvious, and has been well known for decades.

[Phil H]

Swanson's marginalia, do not, IMHO, rule out his knowing of MM's "many circs". Those circs may not have been enough to mkake the basis of a case, as MM's own opinion indicates.

We do not know enough to know whether MM and DSS are complementary or not. We cannot rule out that they agreed on facts but drew different conclusions.

Phil H

[Wickerman]

Except the authorities must have had some reason(however slight) to ID the suspect in the first place. The police were hardly pulling random Jews off the streets for identity parades.

In the event the only thing they had on Kosminski was the ID, then what was it that made it a good idea to take him to the Seaside Home?
Did they really simply pluck him out of thousands of 'low class Polish Jews' on the off chance?

Neither of you seem to remember that the police never claimed to pick Kosminski up, he was brought to their attention by his family admitting him.

The police were informed of new 'insane' arrivals as a matter of procedure.

Kosminski was already sitting in Mile End with a target on his chest. It was possibly after the release from his admission in July 1890 that he was put under surveillance. Remember Anderson's claim that about 300 people were investigated, most likely he was among those.
For whatever reason Kosminski was brought back to Mile End, not by the police in handcuffs, but by his family - hands tied.

Swanson places the I.D. chronologically before he was returned to his brother's house, therefore the I.D. may have taken place over those four days he was first admitted to Mile End.
We have no indication the police had anything on him at that early date. For all we know involving incarcerated suspects with witnesses may have been a more common occurrence than records permit.

The difference being that Swanson and Anderson championed Kosminski. Making it a pattern rather than an anecdote.

It's not a pattern when Anderson is relying on reports handed to him by Swanson.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Neither of you seem to remember that the police never claimed to pick Kosminski up, he was brought to their attention by his family admitting him.

We don't know how or when Aaron Kozminski was brought to the attention of the police.

[Paddy]

When I read Mary Berkins comments
couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements. That someone was a fellow Jew who declined on religious grounds.

It immediately seemed to me that he had been identified, but someone who knew his movements gave him an alibi. My bets on a family member !

If the person who identified him was not a credible witness they would need more than just their word.

Pat Marshall

[Wickerman]

We don't know how or when Aaron Kozminski was brought to the attention of the police.

Houchin was a police surgeon.
It was due to the actions of Kosminski's family that he eventually showed up in front of a 'H' Division surgeon - Houchin.
Whether the ID took place earlier is only our assumption.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Houchin was a police surgeon.
It was due to the actions of Kosminski's family that he eventually showed up in front of a 'H' Division surgeon - Houchin.
Whether the ID took place earlier is only our assumption.

That's what I'm saying. Your statement that "he was brought to their attention by his family admitting him" is only speculation. We don't know either way.

[Robert]

Houchin seems to have attempted to enter the Law, but passed in Constitutional Law and Legal History only (Middle Temple 1897).