Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[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]

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl.

I think the Swanson Marginalia were written by Swanson.

I think the reliability of their content is quite a separate matter.

I do not think that Kosminski was sent anywhere to be subjected to any identification procedure for the following reasons:


(1) Anderson states that he was already in an asylum when the identification took place

(2) Anderson must have meant that the identification took place in the asylum and this is the only way to explain why he mentioned no identification parade

(3) The authorities would not have authorised the transportation of the suspect from London to the coast in order to meet a witness who was also based in London

(4) There is, as Trevor Marriott has pointed out, no reason to suppose that the Whitechapel Murderer would have complied with a request to travel to the coast and there be subjected to an identification procedure

(5) As Trevor Marriott noted, in order for the identification evidence to be admitted in court, the prosecution would have been expected to justify not having held a parade.

If, as Anderson indicated, the suspect was already in an asylum, then that would have provided the justification.

If the suspect was not yet incarcerated, the prosecution could not have justified taking the suspect to the coast to meet a witness who was also based in London, instead of staging a parade in London.


I do not think Kosminski was watched by City Police day and night thereafter, until he was put in an asylum, either!

If he was, then it could not have been until long after the murders ended, in which case what would have been the justification for watching him?

I suggest that Swanson meant that these events took place in early 1889, based on Macnaghten's Memoranda, and was unaware that the Seaside Home had not yet opened.

That is the only explanation for round the clock surveillance.

I suggest that Swanson's account makes no sense and he does nothing to enable the reader to make sense of it.

He does not explain why, following the positive identification, Kosminski was allowed to go home, who tied his hands behind his back, nor why he was then taken to a workhouse.

He is, moreover, unaware of Kosminski's return three days later, presumably without his hands tied behind his back.

The round the clock surveillance makes no sense after the identification.

It is hardly believable that CID were prepared to continue it until Kosminski's death.

If they were not, what were they expecting to happen next?

If the police tied Kosminski's hands behind his back, why did they allow him to go home first and put him under surveillance?

Why would police arrest a person for the purpose of taking him to a workhouse?

If the police did not tie his hands behind his back, why would Kosminski's relatives do so and why, having treated him so badly, would they have taken him back three days later?

And why was Swanson unaware of Kosminski's return?


Anderson claimed in 1910 that Kosminski [i.e. according to Swanson] was unmasked as the murderer but in 1892 he had been quite definite that the murderer had not been identified.

It is not until the twentieth century that we see any mention of a Jewish witness having identified a Jewish suspect or having refused to testify against him.

Anderson in 1910 was describing events which took place prior to 1892 but of which he evidently had no knowledge in 1892.


I cannot see any reason to believe that Kosminski was ever a suspect prior to his incarceration in an asylum.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI
Why do you think that Kosminski was sent somewhere [ A seaside home at Brighton or wherever ? ], for an ID then ? And watched by City Police day and night thereafter, until he was put in an asylum ? Unless you are of the same mind as Trevor and believe the Swanson's annotations are fake.
Seems to me [ yes I do believe the marginalia to be genuine ] that they treated Kosminski as a serious enough suspect.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl.

I think the Swanson Marginalia were written by Swanson.

I think the reliability of their content is quite a separate matter.

I do not think that Kosminski was sent anywhere to be subjected to any identification procedure for the following reasons:


(1) Anderson states that he was already in an asylum when the identification took place

(2) Anderson must have meant that the identification took place in the asylum and this is the only way to explain why he mentioned no identification parade

(3) The authorities would not have authorised the transportation of the suspect from London to the coast in order to meet a witness who was also based in London

(4) There is, as Trevor Marriott has pointed out, no reason to suppose that the Whitechapel Murderer would have complied with a request to travel to the coast and there be subjected to an identification procedure

(5) As Trevor Marriott noted, in order for the identification evidence to be admitted in court, the prosecution would have been expected to justify not having held a parade.

If, as Anderson indicated, the suspect was already in an asylum, then that would have provided the justification.

If the suspect was not yet incarcerated, the prosecution could not have justified taking the suspect to the coast to meet a witness who was also based in London, instead of staging a parade in London.


I do not think Kosminski was watched by City Police day and night thereafter, until he was put in an asylum, either!

If he was, then it could not have been until long after the murders ended, in which case what would have been the justification for watching him?

I suggest that Swanson meant that these events took place in early 1889, based on Macnaghten's Memoranda, and was unaware that the Seaside Home had not yet opened.

That is the only explanation for round the clock surveillance.

I suggest that Swanson's account makes no sense and he does nothing to enable the reader to make sense of it.

He does not explain why, following the positive identification, Kosminski was allowed to go home, who tied his hands behind his back, nor why he was then taken to a workhouse.

He is, moreover, unaware of Kosminski's return three days later, presumably without his hands tied behind his back.

The round the clock surveillance makes no sense after the identification.

It is hardly believable that CID were prepared to continue it until Kosminski's death.

If they were not, what were they expecting to happen next?

If the police tied Kosminski's hands behind his back, why did they allow him to go home first and put him under surveillance?

Why would police arrest a person for the purpose of taking him to a workhouse?

If the police did not tie his hands behind his back, why would Kosminski's relatives do so and why, having treated him so badly, would they have taken him back three days later?

And why was Swanson unaware of Kosminski's return?


Anderson claimed in 1910 that Kosminski [i.e. according to Swanson] was unmasked as the murderer but in 1892 he had been quite definite that the murderer had not been identified.

It is not until the twentieth century that we see any mention of a Jewish witness having identified a Jewish suspect or having refused to testify against him.

Anderson in 1910 was describing events which took place prior to 1892 but of which he evidently had no knowledge in 1892.


I cannot see any reason to believe that Kosminski was ever a suspect prior to his incarceration in an asylum.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi PI
Why do you think that Kosminski was sent somewhere [ A seaside home at Brighton or wherever ? ], for an ID then ? And watched by City Police day and night thereafter, until he was put in an asylum ? Unless you are of the same mind as Trevor and believe the Swanson's annotations are fake.
Seems to me [ yes I do believe the marginalia to be genuine ] that they treated Kosminski as a serious enough suspect.

Regards Darryl

Because the marginalia clearly is genuine Darryl.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If these so-called prime suspects were not considered by the police back then due to the lack of evidence I have to ask why 135 years later are researchers still discussing them as prime suspects.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I agree entirely.

The fact that Macnaghten indicated that if there was any case against Kosminski, it was entirely circumstantial, suggests there was no concrete evidence against him.

Elamarna suggests such evidence was uncovered, possibly during a search, but that records of it have been lost.

What, however, prevented Anderson and Swanson from mentioning that such a search had been conducted or even one iota of incriminating evidence that may have been found during it?

Neither mentions anything about Kosminski that would have facilitated his identification - no mention of his hair colour nor of a pepper and salt jacket having been found among his possessions.

Anderson indicated that the identification took place after Kosminski's incarceration, but mentions no prior arrest, search, nor any reason why Kosminski would have become a suspect prior to his identification, nor that he did become a suspect before his incarceration.

In spite of Anderson's and Swanson's failure to provide anything to explain why Kosminski would have become a suspect prior to his incarceration, researchers insist such evidence must have existed but been destroyed.

Anderson and Swanson are excused not only for having withheld their knowledge of the evidence against Kosminski from their contemporaries at Scotland Yard, but - in spite of their copious writings - from posterity too.

Hi PI
Why do you think that Kosminski was sent somewhere [ A seaside home at Brighton or wherever ? ], for an ID then ? And watched by City Police day and night thereafter, until he was put in an asylum ? Unless you are of the same mind as Trevor and believe the Swanson's annotations are fake.
Seems to me [ yes I do believe the marginalia to be genuine ] that they treated Kosminski as a serious enough suspect.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If these so-called prime suspects were not considered by the police back then due to the lack of evidence I have to ask why 135 years later are researchers still discussing them as prime suspects.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree entirely.

The fact that Macnaghten indicated that if there was any case against Kosminski, it was entirely circumstantial, suggests there was no concrete evidence against him.

Elamarna suggests such evidence was uncovered, possibly during a search, but that records of it have been lost.

What, however, prevented Anderson and Swanson from mentioning that such a search had been conducted or even one iota of incriminating evidence that may have been found during it?

Neither mentions anything about Kosminski that would have facilitated his identification - no mention of his hair colour nor of a pepper and salt jacket having been found among his possessions.

Anderson indicated that the identification took place after Kosminski's incarceration, but mentions no prior arrest, search, nor any reason why Kosminski would have become a suspect prior to his identification, nor that he did become a suspect before his incarceration.

In spite of Anderson's and Swanson's failure to provide anything to explain why Kosminski would have become a suspect prior to his incarceration, researchers insist such evidence must have existed but been destroyed.

Anderson and Swanson are excused not only for having withheld their knowledge of the evidence against Kosminski from their contemporaries at Scotland Yard, but - in spite of their copious writings - from posterity too.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

(SWANSON)


If the identification took place in July 1890, 20 months after the murder of Kelly, why would Swanson have noted that no more murders took place following the identification?

I again post an extract from the Ho document I previously posted which shows the extra manpower drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders and how senior officers were concerned about the expense this extra manpower was costing.

In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a complement of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions from outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

So it would be fair to say that up until March 1890, the police still did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer, which as I have said before must eliminate some of the previously named prime suspects who have been suggested by some researchers based on nothing more than spurious comments made by some officers from 1888 and beyond.

If these so-called prime suspects were not considered by the police back then due to the lack of evidence I have to ask why 135 years later are researchers still discussing them as prime suspects.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the witness was Joseph Lawende and the location was used to keep the whole thing 'in house' and away from London, where it would be impossible to keep from the media. I also think it is most likely the ID occured around July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse.

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

(SWANSON)


If the identification took place in July 1890, 20 months after the murder of Kelly, why would Swanson have noted that no more murders took place following the identification?

[Sunny Delight]

This has probably been discussed a million times but as far as the Seaside Home is concerned surely the simple answer is that as the Home was used by Police Officers resting perhaps after illness or injury then the witness at the Home was a Police Officer and the suspect was taken there for the identity procedure. Would any local archive or police archive have details of residents at the Home at the time. Do we have an injured/sick officer who we know at the time of the identification. Please be gentle with me.

Regards all

I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the witness was Joseph Lawende and the location was used to keep the whole thing 'in house' and away from London, where it would be impossible to keep from the media. I also think it is most likely the ID occured around July 1890 when Kosminski was first admitted to the workhouse.

[Bridewell]

Welcome to Casebook, NW. I’m always gentle on here as every single poster will testify to.

The married ones may tell a different story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This has probably been discussed a million times but as far as the Seaside Home is concerned surely the simple answer is that as the Home was used by Police Officers resting perhaps after illness or injury then the witness at the Home was a Police Officer and the suspect was taken there for the identity procedure. Would any local archive or police archive have details of residents at the Home at the time. Do we have an injured/sick officer who we know at the time of the identification. Please be gentle with me.

Regards all

Welcome to Casebook, NW. I’m always gentle on here as every single poster will testify to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I think that it’s a kite worth flying Colin. It’s one of those intriguing possibles in the case that’s just too out of reach to add weight to. Harvey wouldn’t have been dismissed for a triviality but we have no way of knowing what it was. Perhaps he saw someone or something but was somewhere he shouldn’t have been when he did so?

[Bridewell]

This has probably been discussed a million times but as far as the Seaside Home is concerned surely the simple answer is that as the Home was used by Police Officers resting perhaps after illness or injury then the witness at the Home was a Police Officer and the suspect was taken there for the identity procedure. Would any local archive or police archive have details of residents at the Home at the time. Do we have an injured/sick officer who we know at the time of the identification. Please be gentle with me.

Regards all

Hi New Waterloo and welcome to Casebook.

I've been flying this particular kite for some years now and it would explain the anomaly of the Metropolitan Police carrying out an ID procedure in Sussex. Pc James Harvey was a Sussex man but it can only be conjecture that he was the witness. He wasn't Jewish as far as I'm aware though - but he was dismissed for reasons unknown.

Your "please be gentle with me" sign off reminds me of a well-known (and much missed) contributor to this forum.