Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Trevor Marriott]

They don’t because only you are obsessed with labels. To the rest of us, person of interest, suspect or prime suspect makes no difference whatsoever.

What criteria should we use to grade suspects? I know what should be top of the list Trevor….

1. The suspect must be PROVEN to have been in the same country in which the murders occurred and at the same time that they occurred.

That has to be the most basic criteria.

Instead of you trying to eliminate suspects who may or may not have been in the country at the time of the murders perhaps we should first eliminate those that we know were in the country at the time of the murders and let's start with Montague Druitt, didn't he commit suicide following the Mary Kelly murder so up until 1890 the police had no clue as to the identity of the killer, and to be brutally honest they never at any time thereafter had any idea who the killer was.

So this fact and this fact alone shows how unsafe the Magnaghten Memo is to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Hi PI
In order to answer your thoughts and questions I will attempt to surmise what I believe happened.

Thanks

Kosminski didn't become a serious suspect until early 1891 [ not 1889, MM ], Perhaps through a family, or near family informant and maybe after he threatened his sister in law with a knife.

That has the merit of coinciding with Kosminski's actual incarceration, but requires that Lawende have identified him 28 months after having seen him in London, after having said that he would not be able to identify the suspect if he saw him again.

It also requires him to have been able to identify someone who had by then certainly been eating from the gutter and refusing food for some time as a man of medium build whom he had seen two years before.


The ID was a confrontational one because of Kosminski's insanity [ with great difficulty, Swanson ], and I suspect it took place in Whitechapel at a Seamans home , mission [ Not seaside home, Swanson having worded it wrong ] . What better place to ID someone who had the appearance of a sailor than a sailors refuge ?
It would certainly give some credence to a positive ID if Lawende [ who I reason is the witness ] , was shown two or three sailors individually before Kosminski.

Swanson did not say that there was a difficulty in holding a parade rather than a confrontation!

He said the difficulty lay in transporting Kosminski from London to the coast.

Holding an identification parade in London would have been easier, not harder!

If Swanson got the name of the Home wrong, why did he use the definite article?

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski had the appearance of a sailor?

Neither Macnaghten nor Anderson nor Swanson mentioned Kosminski/the Polish Jew having had the appearance of a sailor.

Would the police have been able to find one Kosminski lookalike sailor let alone three to use in a line-up?

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentioned any lookalikes.



The City police watched him because he was most closely linked to the murder [ through the positive ID ], of Kate. They also watched him day and night because without Lawende's evidence they didn't have enough to charge him. Imagine the furore if they didn't, and another murder was committed ?

In February 1891 - 27 months after the murder of Kelly - the police would be worried that a man who had some 14 months before been arraigned for nothing more serious than walking a dog without a muzzle in a public place might suddenly start committing murder and mutilation?

And how long were the police prepared to keep up the surveillance - another 30 years, till Kosminski died?

How could Lawende's identification evidence have been necessary for a conviction to be secured?

Would there not have had to have been something more concrete than identification evidence in order to secure a conviction, which could presumably still have been used?

And if Lawende really identified him as a fair-haired man whom he had previously seen wearing a pepper and salt jacket, then where is the evidence that Aaron had fair hair or that a pepper and salt jacket was found among his belongings?




That's when the family decided to take him to the workhouse and then thought it would be safer if Kosminski was safely caged in an asylum. Or perhaps they had to obtain a certificate from the workhouse infirmary declaring he was insane.

But that assumes that the CID officers are prepared to watch the Kosminski residence for an indeterminate period almost 27 months after the murder of Kelly!

I believe Anderson either got his facts wrong writing twenty years later by a matter of days regarding the ID [ before or after Kosminski was put in an asylum ].

But Anderson did not give any dates!

As for Anderson being unsure whether the identification took place before or after the incarceration, does that not suggest that he is an unreliable witness?

Or perhaps he twisted it slightly IE If he wrote that the ID happened before Kosminski was incarcerated at Colney Hatch the reading public may wonder why he was allowed to enter said asylum without being charged.


But he said that the reason Kosminski was not charged was that the witness refused to testify against him!

I believe the reason he removed the reference to Kosminski's having been incarcerated by the time of the identification is that he realised that it would have been legally nonsensical to expect a certified lunatic to stand trial for the murders.


Anderson touches on this with his regrets that the Met didn't have the same powers as foreign police forces.

I don't think he ever explained what he meant by that.


As far as I am aware Anderson in 1892 in response to being interviewed said that JTR was not a sane man but a maniac revelling in blood. I don't see how this shows as Anderson was quite definite that the murderer had not been identified ?


The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes.

(ANDERSON, June 1892)

[with thanks to Trevor Marriott, who provided this quote a few months ago]


But 18 years later, Anderson was telling a very different story:

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I may say at once that " undiscovered murders " are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper " crimes are not within that category.

(ANDERSON, 1910)

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi PI
In order to answer your thoughts and questions I will attempt to surmise what I believe happened.

Kosminski didn't become a serious suspect until early 1891 [ not 1889, MM ], Perhaps through a family, or near family informant and maybe after he threatened his sister in law with a knife.

The ID was a confrontational one because of Kosminski's insanity [ with great difficulty, Swanson ], and I suspect it took place in Whitechapel at a Seamans home , mission [ Not seaside home, Swanson having worded it wrong ] . What better place to ID someone who had the appearance of a sailor than a sailors refuge ?
It would certainly give some credence to a positive ID if Lawende [ who I reason is the witness ] , was shown two or three sailors individually before Kosminski.

The City police watched him because he was most closely linked to the murder [ through the positive ID ], of Kate. They also watched him day and night because without Lawende's evidence they didn't have enough to charge him. Imagine the furore if they didn't, and another murder was committed ?

That's when the family decided to take him to the workhouse and then thought it would be safer if Kosminski was safely caged in an asylum. Or perhaps they had to obtain a certificate from the workhouse infirmary declaring he was insane.

I believe Anderson either got his facts wrong writing twenty years later by a matter of days regarding the ID [ before or after Kosminski was put in an asylum ]. Or perhaps he twisted it slightly IE If he wrote that the ID happened before Kosminski was incarcerated at Colney Hatch the reading public may wonder why he was allowed to enter said asylum without being charged. Anderson touches on this with his regrets that the Met didn't have the same powers as foreign police forces.

As far as I am aware Anderson in 1892 in response to being interviewed said that JTR was not a sane man but a maniac revelling in blood. I don't see how this shows us Anderson was quite definite that the murderer had not been identified ?

Regards Darryl

Your post is full of conjecture,made up of "I suspect" "I Belive" "I think"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Instead of you trying to eliminate suspects who may or may not have been in the country at the time of the murders perhaps we should first eliminate those that we know were in the country at the time of the murders and let's start with Montague Druitt, didn't he commit suicide following the Mary Kelly murder so up until 1890 the police had no clue as to the identity of the killer, and to be brutally honest they never at any time thereafter had any idea who the killer was.

So this fact and this fact alone shows how unsafe the Magnaghten Memo is to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When you start using the word ‘unsafe’ I tend to switch off. What it actually means is - There’s a suspect that I want to dismiss or a particular suggestion or opinion that I don’t like so I’ll label everything connected to it as ‘unsafe’ as a tactic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your post is full of conjecture,made up of "I suspect" "I Belive" "I think"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why is it that you always object to the speculation of others but it’s fine when you do it? There’s so much that’s unknown or disputed in this case that we have no choice but to speculate based on our own interpretations. If we just discussed the undisputed the forum would be dead.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There was no Anderson witness. Get over it.

Robert Anderson, just like Little Jack Horner, put in his thumb and pulled out a plum [from Macnaghten's memorandum], and said, "What a good boy am I!"

Regards,

Simon

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi All,

There was no Anderson witness. Get over it.

Robert Anderson, just like Little Jack Horner, put in his thumb and pulled out a plum [from Macnaghten's memorandum], and said, "What a good boy am I!"

Regards,

Simon

I agree.

It is to Macnaghten's Memorandum that one must direct one's attention in order to understand where the Anderson / Swanson story comes from.

There one finds the incarceration of Kosminski taking place only a few months after the last murder, and speculation that the murderer was certifiable or died soon after the last murder.

And not only do both Anderson and Swanson have Kosminski dying about 30 years too soon, but Swanson's remarks that no more murders took place following the identification and that CID watched Kosminski's house night and day make sense only if he believed that the identification and incarceration took place about two years before the incarceration actually took place and around the time that Macnaghten claimed the incarceration took place!

One more consideration that suggests that Anderson himself was not entirely convinced by his own account is that he announced that he was tempted to name the murderer without showing the slightest concern that he might thereby expose himself to the possibility of being sued for defamation of character.

He had accused Kosminski's unnamed relatives of being accessories to murder.

It may be that he thought Kosminski was dead, but he had no reason to suppose that his siblings were not alive.

He would have had to be very sure of his case against the Kosminskis in order successfully to defend himself in court.

How could he have done so when, following the outcry that greeted the publication of his memoirs, no-one came forward to support his account, and perhaps most worryingly of all, when Inspector Reid practically accused him of having made up the story, Anderson could offer no defence of his own.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi PI
In order to answer your thoughts and questions I will attempt to surmise what I believe happened.

Kosminski didn't become a serious suspect until early 1891 [ not 1889, MM ], Perhaps through a family, or near family informant and maybe after he threatened his sister in law with a knife.

The ID was a confrontational one because of Kosminski's insanity [ with great difficulty, Swanson ], and I suspect it took place in Whitechapel at a Seamans home , mission [ Not seaside home, Swanson having worded it wrong ] . What better place to ID someone who had the appearance of a sailor than a sailors refuge ?
It would certainly give some credence to a positive ID if Lawende [ who I reason is the witness ] , was shown two or three sailors individually before Kosminski.

The City police watched him because he was most closely linked to the murder [ through the positive ID ], of Kate. They also watched him day and night because without Lawende's evidence they didn't have enough to charge him. Imagine the furore if they didn't, and another murder was committed ?

That's when the family decided to take him to the workhouse and then thought it would be safer if Kosminski was safely caged in an asylum. Or perhaps they had to obtain a certificate from the workhouse infirmary declaring he was insane.

I believe Anderson either got his facts wrong writing twenty years later by a matter of days regarding the ID [ before or after Kosminski was put in an asylum ]. Or perhaps he twisted it slightly IE If he wrote that the ID happened before Kosminski was incarcerated at Colney Hatch the reading public may wonder why he was allowed to enter said asylum without being charged. Anderson touches on this with his regrets that the Met didn't have the same powers as foreign police forces.

As far as I am aware Anderson in 1892 in response to being interviewed said that JTR was not a sane man but a maniac revelling in blood. I don't see how this shows us Anderson was quite definite that the murderer had not been identified ?

Regards Darryl

I see it similar. However I see it that:

- Kosminski becomes a suspect in July 1890 after threatening his sister(in-law) with a knife. This is reported to Police by someone concerned about him and his mental state.

- The Police thus decide that a foreigner living locally, threatening a woman with a knife and of a possible unsound mind is worth investigating.

- The best means available to Police at that time was an ID. It is difficult to have Kosminski transferred to the Seaside Home and the Police would also be hopeful of keeping the ID as low key as possible.

- Joseph Lawende was the witness.

- After the ID and with the workhouse releasing Kosminski the only option is to keep surveillance on him. This is undertaken by the City Police. Years later Swanson's confirmation bias sees him remember the events as the ID stopping the Ripper.

- Kosminski stays in the care of his brother in law. The workhouse documents show this. Swanson in the Marginalia remembered he stayed at his brothers. Not a massive error but hugely significant that it does match the events very well.

- February 1891 Kosminski's mental state has deteriorated and he is taken with hands tied behind his back to the workhouse and eventually declared insane and removed to an asylum.

- Swanson states he died soon after. An error repeated previously by McNaughten, some sort of miscommunication is the likeliest cause.

In the Aberconway version of the McNaughten Memo he states Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. How did McNaughten know what Kosminski looked like or that he strongly resembled the man seen near Mitre Square? He must have known about the ID. It's the only explanation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

In the Aberconway version of the McNaughten Memo he states Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. How did McNaughten know what Kosminski looked like or that he strongly resembled the man seen near Mitre Square? He must have known about the ID. It's the only explanation.

I refer you to my # 511 of The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

which I posted four days ago in response to your # 293 of the same thread, in which you wrote:

'I think we can be certain the ID took place. Anderson and Swanson both refer to it. McNaghten claimed in a draft of the Memorandum that Kosminski strongly resembled the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. How did he know what Kosminski looked like? How did he know who he resembled? He must have known about the ID.'

I replied as follows:


'Since you mention Kosminski and Mitre Square, I take it you think Lawende identified Kosminski.

Since you claim that Macnaghten knew what Kosminski looked like, I am curious to know how you would explain why no-one, including Macnaghten and Swanson, ever said what he looked like.

Why did they not mention his fair hair?

It would have been a key factor in the identification.

Kosminski's brothers and sister had dark hair.

Here is a man allegedly being shielded from Gentile Justice by his dark-haired relatives; the police have a description of a fair-haired suspect; and when they see Kosminski, he turns out to be the blond sheep of the family, and fits the description of the man seen by Lawende.

His belongings are searched and police find a pepper and salt loose jacket.

And that sets up the identification confrontation.

The question is: why is none of this mentioned by anyone?

The answer is that Aaron Kosminski did not have fair hair and consequently could not have been identified by Joseph Lawende.'

[Darryl Kenyon]

Here is a man allegedly being shielded from Gentile Justice by his dark-haired relatives; the police have a description of a fair-haired suspect; and when they see Kosminski, he turns out to be the blond sheep of the family, and fits the description of the man seen by Lawende.

PI
Please show me a description by Lawende of his suspect having fair hair.

All I see is descriptions giving a fair moustache .

Question on Google - Can you have different colored hair and beard?
For example, many men have beards that are a completely different color than the rest of their hair. That is because the hair follicles on your body have different colors and textures in them. Some hair follicles on your body produce a darker color than others.29 May 2021

And another - In fact, having a different colour of hair to your beard is quite common and it's all down to the levels of pigmentation and melanin in your hair follicles.11 Nov 2022



Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

- Kosminski becomes a suspect in July 1890 after threatening his sister(in-law) with a knife. This is reported to Police by someone concerned about him and his mental state.

The evidence we have, from the asylum record, suggests that that incident occurred months later.


- The Police thus decide that a foreigner living locally, threatening a woman with a knife and of a possible unsound mind is worth investigating.

The evidence we have, from the asylum record, is that the incident was of interest to his family, and not the police.


- The best means available to Police at that time was an ID.#

The best means would have been an identification in London, which is where both the witness and suspect were situated.


It is difficult to have Kosminski transferred to the Seaside Home and the Police would also be hopeful of keeping the ID as low key as possible.

Transferring the suspect 50 miles and then putting convalescents at risk of being attacked by him is not, I suggest, low-key.


- Joseph Lawende was the witness.

In that case, why is there no record of Aaron Kosminski having had fair hair, and of a pepper-and-salt coloured loose jacket being found among his belongings?


- After the ID and with the workhouse releasing Kosminski the only option is to keep surveillance on him.

That is not what Swanson related!

Swanson has him being identified at the seaside, returning to Whitechapel, being taken to the workhouse, thence to an asylum, and dying soon after.

He mentions no release and, in his sequence of events, there is no possibility of a release.


This is undertaken by the City Police.

Not according to the City Police's top man.


Years later Swanson's confirmation bias sees him remember the events as the ID stopping the Ripper.

Anderson, Swanson, Cox and Sagar all made the same claim.

I suggest they are all boastful, unreliable witnesses, along with Inspector Du Rose.

I suggest further that Swanson thought the identification and incarceration took place in early 1889, just as Macnaghten thought the incarceration took place in March 1889.



- February 1891 Kosminski's mental state has deteriorated and he is taken with hands tied behind his back to the workhouse and eventually declared insane and removed to an asylum.

After being watched by the police for six months?

Swanson implies that the surveillance was for a 'short time', not six months!

How much longer would the CID have been prepared to watch him?

Until 1919?

Why would Kosminski's hands have been tied behind his back and by whom?

Why is there no mention of that in his records?




- Swanson states he died soon after. An error repeated previously by McNaughten, some sort of miscommunication is the likeliest cause.

The miscommunication is from Macnaghten to Swanson.

Macnaghten did not say that Kosminski died, but he - like Swanson - had the incarceration taking place soon after the last murder.

Anderson thought Kosminski had died early.

These three officers made elementary mistakes.

Anderson has Kosminski being subjected to an identification procedure with a view to putting him on trial for murder, even though he is in a lunatic asylum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Here is a man allegedly being shielded from Gentile Justice by his dark-haired relatives; the police have a description of a fair-haired suspect; and when they see Kosminski, he turns out to be the blond sheep of the family, and fits the description of the man seen by Lawende.

PI
Please show me a description by Lawende of his suspect having fair hair.

All I see is descriptions giving a fair moustache .

Question on Google - Can you have different colored hair and beard?
For example, many men have beards that are a completely different color than the rest of their hair. That is because the hair follicles on your body have different colors and textures in them. Some hair follicles on your body produce a darker color than others.29 May 2021

And another - In fact, having a different colour of hair to your beard is quite common and it's all down to the levels of pigmentation and melanin in your hair follicles.11 Nov 2022



Regards Darryl

The evidence we have is that Lawende's suspect had fair hair, not dark hair.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They had dark hair.

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski had a fair moustache?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence we have is that Lawende's suspect had fair hair, not dark hair.

We have photographs of Kosminski's brothers and sister.

They had dark hair.

Where is the evidence that Aaron Kosminski had a fair moustache?

I thought he’d said brown?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I thought he’d said brown?

In case readers are unaware of this, I will mention that a few months ago you alleged that I was wrong and that Lawende had not described his suspect as having had the appearance of a sailor.

You alleged further that I had conjured up that detail in order to support my theory that the murderer was a sailor.

I recall further that you referred to other reports of Lawende's description of the suspect and thereby questioned my description of the suspect's hair colour.

I see you are doing it again.

Anyone can look up Swanson's record of Lawende's description of the suspect and see that he had a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Anyone can look up Swanson's record of Lawende's description of the suspect and see that he had a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

Yes ,nothing about his hair