Aaron or not

[Septic Blue]

Reasonable Doubt

My feeling is that there can't be any reasonable doubt that Macnaghten and Swanson were referring to Aron/Aaron. I wonder if anyone disagrees.

Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson

I. Macnaghten

From the so-called Macnaghten Memorandum, February 23, 1894:

"Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims - & 5 victims only - …"

Brazen conjecture !!!

"I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:"

...

"(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor … and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

"… said to be a doctor …"

Druitt of course, was a barrister and teacher !!!

"… and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

A lack of disclosure !!!

"(2) Kosminski - a Polish Jew - & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889."

"Kosminski"

Yet another lack of disclosure !!!

What was "Kosminski"'s first name; and why did Macnaghten refrain from disclosing it ??? Was he perhaps unaware of this particular detail??? Is it possible that Macnaghten's surname-reference lacked a certain degree of fidelity ??? Indeed, it is !!!

"… resident in Whitechapel"

Aaron Kosminski was not a resident of Whitechapel: Period !!! His Sion Square and Greenfield Street addresses both belonged to The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town. This is precisely why he was taken to Mile End Old Town Infirmary, Bancroft Road, Mile End Old Town as opposed to Whitechapel Union Infirmary, Baker's Row, Mile End New Town, which was actually much closer to each of his known places of residence. Put simply: Aaron Kosminski benefited from Right of Settlement in Mile End Old Town Poor Law Parish, but not in Whitechapel Poor Law Union, even though its infirmary was more conveniently located.

I am acutely aware of the fact that Sion Square and Greenfield Street were both within spitting distance of St. Mary's Church, St. Mary Whitechapel as well as Whitechapel High Street and Whitechapel Road. As such, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the general vicinity of these two thoroughfares was referred to colloquially as "Whitechapel", during the period in question.

However, we must be willing to acknowledge the fact that Aaron Kosminski's known residences in The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, had no tangible connection to anything "Whitechapel":

- The Civil Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel
- Whitechapel Poor Law Union ***
- Whitechapel Registration District ***
- The Whitechapel District of The Metropolitan Board of Works ***
- Whitechapel Division of The Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets ***

*** Consisting of the following:

- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- Holy Trinity Minories
- St. Mary Whitechapel (Middlesex portion)
- The Liberty of His/Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- The Liberty of the Tower
--- The Precinct of Old Tower Without
--- The Tower
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- St. Botolph Without Aldgate (Middlesex portion) (aka, "East Smithfield")

Again; Aaron Kosminski's known residences in The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, had no tangible connection to anything "Whitechapel". An exception – but one lacking tangibility – would be the inclusion of these domiciles in the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Police Force, H Division, Whitechapel. My suggestion that this connection lacks tangibility is born of the fact that the "Whitechapel" portion of H Division's nomenclature refers merely to the location of its Divisional Headquarters: Leman Street, St. Mary Whitechapel. In fact, while H Division had jurisdiction over certain areas that had no connection to anything "Whitechapel";

- St. John of Wapping
- St. George in the East
- St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- A very small portion of St. Leonard Shoreditch
- A relatively small portion of St. Matthew Bethnal Green
- A substantial portion of The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- A relatively small portion of St. Anne Limehouse

… it conceded jurisdiction over other areas that actually had connections to everything "Whitechapel". Specifically, to J Division, Bethnal Green:

- A very small portion of The Hamlet of Mile End New Town (east of Baker's Row)
- A very small portion of St. Mary Whitechapel (east of Baker's Row; north of Whitechapel Road) (including Buck's Row)

Admittedly; this connection between Aaron Kosminski's known residences and "Whitechapel", might have mattered more to Macnaghten than the lack of any tangible connections.

And of course, colloquialisms abounded then, as they still do today.

"This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices."

Victorian mindset !!! A sign of the times !!! But still, a divergence from reality !!!

"He had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies …"

Correct me if I am wrong; but this certainly doesn't seem to coincide with descriptions of Aaron Kosminski's behaviour, found in infirmary and asylum records.

"… he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889."

And of course, this plainly and simply does not coincide with the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

"(3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, … his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained."

"… his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained."

So be it !!! If Ostrog's incarceration in Paris, in 1888, was unbeknown to those involved in the investigations of the Whitechapel Murders, then Macnaghten should not be expected to have known any better. This does however, contribute to the overall reflection of the fact that the so-called Macnaghten Memorandum is not a completely reliable source of information.

I am inclined to believe that Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name.

II. Anderson / Swanson

From "The Lighter Side of My Official Life", Sir Robert Anderson, 1910:

- pg. 138:

"I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him."

From the hand-written margin notes purportedly scribed by Donald Swanson, in his personal copy of Anderson's book:

- pg. 138, bottom margin, as a continuation of Anderson's "… but he refused to give evidence against him.":

"because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind. DSS"

- pg. 138, left margin:

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London"

But a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was caged and identified (assuming JtR was Kosminski).

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin

Are you suggesting no witness has ever refused to testify in the entire history of legal proceedings? What alternative did the police have, particularly now that the suspect was locked away?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

What alternative did the police have, ...?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin

And force witness to say what?

Hypothetical statement of fairytale witness, drawn from hypothetical subpoena of said witness, following fairytale refusal to give testimony regarding fairytale suspect, during fairytale 'identification':

"That’s him !!!”


Colin

At this point, I should fully disclose the fact that I do not believe that any semblance of an identification - such as the one described by Anderson and then purportedly by Swanson -ever took place: i.e., one, in which a witness having potentially damning evidence was simply allowed to bow out, as a matter of personal preference. Bollocks !!!

I believe that Jason may be suggesting that a court of law, having Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum at its disposal, might still be at the mercy of the will of the witness. This is indeed the case !!!

However, I refuse to accept the ridiculous notion that in a case such as this, the authorities would have stopped short of issuing a subpoena, in hopes of achieving a positive result.

III. Swanson

From the hand-written end notes purportedly scribed by Donald Swanson, in his personal copy of Anderson's book:

- end page:

"Continuing from page 138. after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS"

PS: I shall henceforth initial all of my posts to this forum, so as to take precaution for the possibility that I might at some point, forget which posts are actually mine.

This should prove particularly useful in those instances, in which I confuse workhouse nomenclature, cite deaths which have yet to occur, and inexplicably refer to key suspects by surname only, when coincidentally no previous references to full name have been recorded.

CCR

At this point, I should fully disclose the fact that I do not believe that any part of the so-called Swanson Marginalia is of genuine provenance.

"after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, …"

Why, in God's name, would a suspect have been hauled from either "his brother's house in Whitechapel", a Poor Law Infirmary in the East End, or a lunatic asylum in Colney Hatch to a "Seaside Home", so that he might have been "confronted with" a witness who himself would have had to travel from either Islington (Lawende*) or perhaps Saffron Hill (Schwartz**) ????????????

* At some point prior to April, 1891, Joseph Lawende & family left their accommodations at 45 Norfolk Road, Dalston, St. John at Hackney, and moved to:

Registration District: Islington
Civil Parish: St. Mary Islington
Registration Sub-District: Islington South West
Ecclesiastical Parish: St. Mary
Enumeration District: 1
Page: 4
RG12_150_151-0340

23 Upper Street
Joseph Lavender
Head
43
Tobacconist & Commercial Traveler
Poland: Warsaw

** At some point prior to April, 1891, Israel Schwartz & family might have left their accommodations at 22 Ellen Street, St. George in the East, and moved to:

Registration District: Holborn
Civil Parish: The Liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents and Ely Place
Registration Sub-District: Saffron Hill
Ecclesiastical Parish: St. Peter
Enumeration District: 1
Page: 49
RG12_219_221-0565

126 Holborn
J. Schwartz
Head
31
Hairdresser
Hungary: Budapest

Taken over from another thread - thought it better to start a new one dedicated to tracking down our elusive witness.

I can't recall anyone pinning down Israel Schwartz in the Census, but I have strong reason to believe that this is because he dropped the name "Israel" in favour of "John" shortly after 1888 - if I have found the right man, that is.

A certain "J Schwartz", hairdresser (born Buda Pesht) was living at Saffron Hill, City of London, in 1891, with his wife Emilie. By 1901, "John Schwartz", still a hairdresser, "Emily" and their children are living at 218 Kingsland Road, Dalston - oddly enough, barely a stone's throw away from where Joseph Lawende lived in 1888.

For the conspiricists amongst you - if this is the same Schwartz, and I believe it is, did he change his name simply to become more Anglophone, or was it perhaps because he didn't want "any trouble"?

A tremendous find, Gareth !!!

But, two points of clarification:

- If Schwartz had stepped off of the pavement directly in front of his residence, then he would have been in St. Andrew Holborn, City of London. His residence itself, however, was situated in The Liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents and Ely Place, County of Middlesex (pre-1889) / County of London (thereafter).

- 218 Kingsland Road was not in Dalston: It was in Haggerston, St. Leonard Shoreditch. And, it was approximately one mile (straight-line) from Lawende's 1888 turf in Norfolk Road, Dalston, St. John at Hackney.

"On suspect’s return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night."

Again; Aaron Kosminski was not a resident of Whitechapel: Period !!! His Sion Square and Greenfield Street addresses both belonged to The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.

An interesting caveat, regarding the City of London CID, is the fact that a tiny portion of St. Mary Whitechapel, consisting of a handful of dwellings at the southwest corner of Aldgate High Street and Mansell Street (i.e., the eastern end of "Butcher's Row", including The Hoop & Grapes) was actually situated within The City of London. As such, a suspect being "watched by police (City CID)", in this particular part of Whitechapel, would not have been an anomaly. --- I discussed this tiny portion of St. Mary Whitechapel in great detail, pre-crash; but unfortunately all is lost.

"In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse …"

There is an entire thread devoted to the issue of "Stepney Workhouse":

It would appear that the establishment of The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney in 1900, has provided a convenient explanation for one of the inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

However, we must avoid the temptation to push square pegs into round holes, when attempting to rationalize the obvious shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as "Stepney Workhouse".

The quote-prompt (white arrow) provides a link.

Aaron Kosminski of course, was admitted (twice) to Mile End Old Town Infirmary. While it is entirely possible that the complex of Mile End Old Town Poor Law Facilities (workhouse, infirmary, casual ward) on Bancroft Road, Mile End Old Town, was known to some by the vernacular reference "Stepney Workhouse"; it is infinitely more likely that Stepney Union Workhouse, St. Leonard’s Street, Bromley St. Leonard was known to most by the abbreviated reference "Stepney Workhouse". How many "Stepney Workhouses" can one metropolis accommodate ???*

* Indeed, there are examples of certain Poor Law Parishes/Unions having multiple workhouses, each having the same designation. However, this sort of anomaly was invariably internal to a single Poor Law Parish/Union. In this particular instance of course, the confusion is between an infirmary, belonging to Mile End Old Town Poor Law Parish (The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town) and a workhouse, belonging to Stepney Poor Law Union (St. John of Wapping; St. Paul Shadwell; The Hamlet of Ratcliff; St. Anne Limehouse).

If the reference "Stepney Workhouse", purportedly made by Donald Swanson, was in fact to Stepney Union Workhouse, then the suspect in question would have been required to prove Right of Settlement, i.e., residence in one of the following:

- St. John of Wapping
- St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- St. Anne Limehouse

… which would have flown directly into the face of the reference "his brother’s house in Whitechapel".

"… and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards …"

Aaron Kosminski of course, died at Leavesden Asylum, on March 24, 1919: Fully twenty eight years after his admission to The County of London Lunatic Asylum, Colney Hatch on February 7, 1891; and presumably eight-to-nine years after the execution of Swanson’s purported scribble.

"Kosminski was the suspect"

How remarkably coincidental !!!

The reference "Kosminski", in this case, is identical (surname only) to the only previously recorded reference to this supposed suspect: That of Melville Macnaghten, 1894.

"DSS"

Again;

PS: I shall henceforth initial all of my posts to this forum, so as to take precaution for the possibility that I might at some point, forget which posts are actually mine.

This should prove particularly useful in those instances, in which I confuse workhouse nomenclature, cite deaths which have yet to occur, and inexplicably refer to key suspects by surname only, when coincidentally no previous references to full name have been recorded.

CCR

Again:

- I am inclined to believe that Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name

- I do not believe that any semblance of an identification - such as the one described by Anderson and then purportedly by Swanson -ever took place: i.e., one, in which a witness having potentially damning evidence was simply allowed to bow out, as a matter of personal preference

- I do not believe that any part of the so-called Swanson Marginalia is of genuine provenance

As such,

My feeling is that there can't be any reasonable doubt that Macnaghten and Swanson were referring to Aron/Aaron. I wonder if anyone disagrees.

… I emphatically disagree !!!

I do believe in fact, that there is a cloud of reasonable doubt hanging over the issue: "Aaron, or not".


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

The Swanson Marginalia was examined by an expert provided by Scotland Yard who concluded that it was written by SWANSON. FACT

'albeit using different pencils and possibly parts written some years apart (note: possibly)

The marginalia has an excellent provenance. And is almost certainly genuine.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater..just because you would rather Swanson had said something different..is NOT going to change the fact he said what he said...

Certainly there is some evidence to colaberated that the city police were watching someone as Swanson claims...

[Septic Blue]

The marginalia has an excellent provenance. And is almost certainly genuine.

Its provenance is about as genuine as that of Pirate Jack's posts !!!

Eh, Mr. Begg ???


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

No Colin only me

But thanks for the complement

[Natalie Severn]

First many thanks to Colin for providing such a detailed analysis of Aron Kosminski"s known addresses and the consequent "mismatch" between the catchment area of these, his "brother/brother-in -law's addresses and Stepney Work House .
This is a very significant revelation Colin, I know that the law then was very strict over "catchment areas", just as it can be today with regard to state schools.
I too find the "marginalia" most odd,especially for it to have suddenly "surfaced" after 'sleeping" nearly a hundred years.........and to have surfaced so opportunely as the centenary of the murders approached.

Cheers
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Yeah this is all very well but wasn't Mcnaughten talking about, what is generally refered to as the "Whitechappel murders"?

If you advance this theory several of the victims werent murdered in Whitechappel?

Are we not just dealing with generalizations here?

[Natalie Severn]

Thats also something that needs to be addressed because there were at least nine murders under that heading ,if you start when the police file was opened with the death of Emma Smith ,the day after Easter Monday in 1888 and finish with Frances Coles in February 1891.And that doesnt include the Pinchin Street torso murders.
Now Colin is getting down to providing very specific information about the unlikelihood of Aaron Kosminski having been taken to the particular workhouse Swanson is alleged to have named. This would seem quite important.

[Observer]

[

- I do not believe that any part of the so-called Swanson Marginalia is of genuine provenance




Colin [ATTACH]2162[/ATTACH]

But you'd agree that the book in question undoubtably belonged to Swanson?

You'd also have to agree that at least some of the annotation has become very, very faded implying extreme age.

You'd also have to agree that in the opinion of a home office expert the faded writing in all probability is the writing of Swanson.

The history of this book has impecable provenance, and if the annotion is a fake then it should not be hard to hazzard a guess as to who the faker/fakers might be. Surely the fakers would have relised this.

Remember one thing, a section of the marginalia was already very faded in 1987, to sugest that a faker was prompted by the 100 year anniversary to perpertrate the hoax is therefore ridiculous.

Another thing, when police officials mention criminals they invariably mention only their surname, Crippen, Sutcliffe, Haig.

all the best

Observer

[Chris]

Aaron Kosminski was not a resident of Whitechapel: [B]Period !!!

Of course, the fact is that we don't know where Aaron Kozminski lived at the time of the murders. One thing we can be sure of, though, is that he didn't live at 3 Sion Square, as Woolf Abrahams didn't move there until the second half of 1889 at the earliest.

I am acutely aware of the fact that Sion Square and Greenfield Street were both within spitting distance of St. Mary's Church, St. Mary Whitechapel as well as Whitechapel High Street and Whitechapel Road. As such, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the general vicinity of these two thoroughfares was referred to colloquially as "Whitechapel", during the period in question.[/FONT]

The addresses of the family in Mile End Old Town were in fact referred to as being in Whitechapel, not only colloquially but in a number of official documents, such as the naturalisation papers of both Woolf Abrahams and Morris Lubnowski Cohen and the order for Aaron's admission to Leavesden Hospital.

"This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices."

Victorian mindset !!! A sign of the times !!! But still, a divergence from reality !!!

But, of course, this was officially the "supposed cause" of Aaron's insanity, according to his medical records. Your issue in this case is with the Victorian doctors, not Macnaghten and Anderson.

I am inclined to believe that Macnaghten's reference to "Kosminski" stands every chance in the world, of being a corruption of the supposed suspect's actual name.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that 20 years ago Martin Fido made a very thorough search of workhouse and asylum records, with Macnaghten's date of March 1889 in mind. Obviously, he was open to the possibility that the surname had been inaccurately recorded by Macnaghten, but of course his conclusion was that "no East End or City pauper lunatic called K-anything-ski was held in a public asylum from 1888 to 1890".

[jason_c]

"I believe that Jason may be suggesting that a court of law, having Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum at its disposal, might still be at the mercy of the will of the witness. This is indeed the case !!!

However, I refuse to accept the ridiculous notion that in a case such as this, the authorities would have stopped short of issuing a subpoena, in hopes of achieving a positive result."


septicblue,

If the police had done there homework they would have known any subpoena would be problematic. The witness had previously told the Kelly inquest that he would be unlikely to recognise the suspect again. This would have been brought up in the witnesses defence.

How to square this with the ID(a supposedly positive ID at that) is difficult.

If i were to guess i'd say that the witness was put under police pressure to positively ID the suspect. After telling the police that the suspect only looked the same height and build he added that his conscience would not let him send a fellow Jew to be hung on such flimsy evidence. This leads to Andersons later claim.

I note Anderson was not the only policeman to make similar claims about ethnic groups in the area. Another police figure (who's name i cant now remember) claimed that ethnic groups in the area were all blaming each other and would lie to the police to attempt to prove other ethnic groups guilty(by this i primarily assume Jews and Gentiles).

[Scott Nelson]

"I think it's worth bearing in mind that 20 years ago Martin Fido made a very thorough search of workhouse and asylum records, with Macnaghten's date of March 1889 in mind."

Hi Chris,

I don't believe that Martin searched the complete Stepney Union records, as far as I'm able to determine from the listings in his book.

[Chris]

I don't believe that Martin searched the complete Stepney Union records, as far as I'm able to determine from the listings in his book.

I don't quite follow that. The relevant item in his "Sources" section says:
Greater London Archives: Pauper Lunatic Registers and Quarterly Returns, Workhouse Infirmary Creed Books, and Admissions and Discharge Books for Bethnal Green, Mile End, Poplar, Stepney, Whitechapel, as variously available 1888-1900.

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson

But you'd agree that the book in question undoubtably belonged to Swanson?
You'd also have to agree that at least some of the annotation has become very, very faded implying extreme age.
You'd also have to agree that in the opinion of a home office expert the faded writing in all probability is the writing of Swanson.
The history of this book has impecable provenance, and if the annotion is a fake then it should not be hard to hazzard a guess as to who the faker/fakers might be. Surely the fakers would have relised this.
Remember one thing, a section of the marginalia was already very faded in 1987, to sugest that a faker was prompted by the 100 year anniversary to perpertrate the hoax is therefore ridiculous.
Another thing, when police officials mention criminals they invariably mention only their surname, Crippen, Sutcliffe, Haig.
all the best
Observer

I don't think that anyone has ever questioned the fact that it belonged to Swanson.

Yes, but the main fading seems to have occurred between 1988 and 2000, if the photocopies of 1987 are anything to go by, in these the writing appears to be quite dark and clear. See the previous images posted.

As we know the handwriting examiners give expert opinion, not fact, which is why they are often questioned. A proper full examination has never been made of the annotations in the Swanson book.

The differences between the marginalia and endpaper notes should have been noted and come under proper scrutiny and testing in 1987 - they did not. Why didn't they?

Stating that 'when police officials mention criminals they invariably mention only their surname' is rather contradicted by Macnaghten's memoranda in which he mentions 'Thomas Cutbush, M. J. Druitt, Michael Ostrog and Thomas Sadler', which is why it is noteworthy that Kosminski's forename is omitted in both Macnaghten's memoranda and the Swanson notes.

[Septic Blue]

I am acutely aware of the fact that Sion Square and Greenfield Street were both within spitting distance of St. Mary's Church, St. Mary Whitechapel as well as Whitechapel High Street and Whitechapel Road. As such, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that the general vicinity of these two thoroughfares was referred to colloquially as "Whitechapel", during the period in question.

The addresses of the family in Mile End Old Town were in fact referred to as being in Whitechapel, not only colloquially but in a number of official documents, such as the naturalisation papers of both Woolf Abrahams and Morris Lubnowski Cohen and the order for Aaron's admission to Leavesden Hospital.

"... not only colloquially but in a number of official documents, ..."

Regardless of where such references were recorded; they were either colloquialisms born of complacency, or mistakes born of ignorance.

I believe that Jason may be suggesting that a court of law, having Writ of Subpoena ad Testificandum at its disposal, might still be at the mercy of the will of the witness. This is indeed the case !!!

However, I refuse to accept the ridiculous notion that in a case such as this, the authorities would have stopped short of issuing a subpoena, in hopes of achieving a positive result.

If the police had done there homework they would have known any subpoena would be problematic. The witness had previously told the Kelly [sic] (Eddowes) inquest that he would be unlikely to recognise the suspect again. This would have been brought up in the witnesses defence.

How to square this with the ID (a supposedly positive ID at that) is difficult.

If i were to guess i'd say that the witness was put under police pressure to positively ID the suspect. After telling the police that the suspect only looked the same height and build he added that his conscience would not let him send a fellow Jew to be hung on such flimsy evidence. This leads to Andersons later claim.

"If i were to guess i'd say that the witness was put under police pressure to positively ID the suspect. After telling the police that the suspect only looked the same height and build ..."

Again; "If i were to guess ..."

But, that is precisely what you are doing, Jason: Guessing !!! You are basing your argument on a set of hypotheses.

I can easily accept a scenario, in which a witness was asked to identify a suspect; whereupon he insisted that he couldn't be sure. Of course, in this hypothetical instance, a subpoena would have been utterly useless. And Anderson of course, might have been ever so tempted to candy-coat his description of this turn of events, in the years that followed.

But again; this all hypothetical, and just short of being conjectural.

Anderson stated quite brazenly: "that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him."

While the author of the so-called Swanson Marginalia, stated quite clumsily: "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind. ... after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified."

... I should fully disclose the fact that I do not believe that any semblance of an identification - such as the one described by Anderson, and purportedly described by Swanson - ever took place: i.e., one, in which a witness having potentially damning evidence was simply allowed to bow out, as a matter of personal preference.

I will not believe for a solitary second, that suspect and witness alike, were inexplicably hauled off to some distantly removed "Seaside Home"; merely for witness to then refuse to give testimony, on the basis of personal preference; and for authorities to then simply call it a day. No Way !!!

This whole shebang is a massive Red Herring. And Aaron Kosminski is probably having a bigger laugh, than Jack the Ripper.


Colin

[Chris]

I will not believe for a solitary second, that suspect and witness alike, were inexplicably hauled off to some distantly removed "Seaside Home"; merely for witness to then refuse to give testimony, on the basis of personal preference; and for authorities to then simply call it a day. [B]No Way !!!

I don't know what the truth may have been behind the "Seaside Home" story, but let's not put words into the author's mouth in an attempt to make it look less plausible. The marginalia say nothing about the witness being hauled anywhere. One obvious possibility would be that the witness was in the home and the suspect was taken to the witness.

On the wider point, I'm afraid I don't find your argument that the marginalia are a fake very coherent. These apparent errors, inconsistencies and implausibilities have been known about, and argued over, for decades. But they don't point to a fake in themselves.

They point to a fake only if there is reason to believe that a faker would be more likely to produce them than Swanson. That's what I just don't see. Why should a faker, with Martin Fido's book in front of him, introduce these errors? Why talk about Stepney Workhouse when Fido talks about Mile End Workhouse? Why say that Kozminski died shortly after being committed to Colney Hatch in 1891, when Fido records his transfer to Leavesden 3 years later?

And if the omission of Kozminski's forename is considered significant, it seems to me that this fits better with Swanson as the author rather than a faker. Swanson may not have known, or may have forgotten, Kozminski's forename, but a faker with Fido's book in front of him would know it perfectly well.

And even if you believe that "Kosminski" in the Macnaghten memoranda is likely to be an error for another name, why shouldn't the same be true of "Kosminski" in the marginalia? Why shouldn't a common source, and a common mistake, lie behind both these statements?