Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Ok…..now the truth.

I have never once said that Lawende didn’t say that he had the appearance of a sailor. Why would I deny something that’s on record?

What I said, and what I stand by because it’s true, is that just ‘having the appearance’ of sailor doesn’t mean that he was a sailor. What I also said was that Lawende could easily have been influenced by the man’s cap and neckerchief. You ignore that a go for the jacket even though Lawende never specified as to how he came by his opinion.

When that I said that you had conjured up a detail I was again telling the exact truth. You claimed that sailors were known to have worn ‘salt and pepper’ jackets. This is untrue. I asked you then to prove this and I’ve asked you recently to prove this but you haven’t because we all know that there’s no such thing.

What you then tried to prove, amazingly, was that when someone (Lawende) describes a ‘loose fitting’ jacket that he’s naming an actual type of jacket. That you can go somewhere and ask for a ‘loose jacket’ because ‘loose jacket’ is somehow a style or make of jacket. Then you tried to tie this in to a quote about a sailor wearing a ‘loose fitting monkey jacket’ as if on some planet that backs up your argument!

And finally, we aren’t talking about his moustache, we are talking about his hair and I’ll make the same very obvious points that I made then. Lawende was viewing a suspect standing under a lamp. This is well known by all (probably with the exception of you) to cause issues when identifying colour….making some colours appear lighter. Ask Trevor as an ex-copper how cautious the police are over the identification of colours seen at night under street lighting…..not just hair colour can be wrong but the colour of cars and clothing. So, a) a man can have a moustache that’s a different shade to the hair on his head, and b) witnesses can easily be mistaken on the identification of colour at night under street lighting.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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?

Again nowhere does it say that Lawende's man had fair hair. Just your assumption.

I never claimed Kosminski had a fair moustache. It is you who are making claims .

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

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.'

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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