Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let´s talk about that identification again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
    Hello Abby

    These were decorous times. It's very doubtful if the police would have smuggled the suspect past the doctors and the staff. Such an attempted ID would, I believe, have been carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of those in charge of the home.

    Best regards

    Chris
    Hi Chris
    i guess I used a poor choice of words. I did not mean smuggle. Just the difficulty in getting the cooperation of those in charge of the home. maybe they didn't tell them the whole truth though?
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      ... and he had already unhestitatingly pointed out the Seaside Home suspect as his man the moment he saw him?
      Abby, if Lawende did just that, the why would they use him to ID Sadler? Why would Lawende agree to try and identify MORE people as the man he saw, when he had already fingered one man?

      All the best,
      Fisherman
      As I have said many times-because perhaps lawende did not actually positively ID the suspect at the time as much as Anderson and swanson would have us beleive. As in-"it looks like him, but i cant swear to it". later as the years went by it became more positive in Anderson and Swansons minds due to wishful thinking, faulty memory and perhaps a bit of ego.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        But I fear you are missing my point here, Monty. I am of the meaning that Edward has in no way concluded that Swanson was any incompetent policeman
        Christer,

        On another thread, also to do with the Swanson Marginalia, Edward dismissed Swanson as:
        a superannuated filing clerk for the whitechapel murders.
        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          As I have said many times-because perhaps lawende did not actually positively ID the suspect at the time as much as Anderson and swanson would have us beleive. As in-"it looks like him, but i cant swear to it". later as the years went by it became more positive in Anderson and Swansons minds due to wishful thinking, faulty memory and perhaps a bit of ego.
          It´s actually only Anderson that will have us believe things here, as far as I can tell... But if you are right, then the ID was of little or no value.

          The best,
          Fisherman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
            Christer,

            On another thread, also to do with the Swanson Marginalia, Edward dismissed Swanson as: a superannuated filling clerk for the Whitechapel murders
            I would not get too distressed by that. On that thread, Edward had all sorts of things flung after him, and kept his composure admirably just the same.
            Try and think of it this way:

            1. Swansons role was mostly that of a paper organizer, an intelligene officer, sort of, as far as Edward is concerned. That makes the comparison with a clerk viable.
            2. For a filling clerk, he would have been overaged, perhaps.

            Of course, Edwards was being provocative here. But others were - mildly speaking - just as provocative.

            Myself, I welcome a fresh take on things. I believe we need to change the angles at times, instead of getting caught up in old conceptions that may need a mis- in front of them.

            If A did not work, maybe B will.

            Myself, I have never regarded Swanson as top dog in the Ripper business. He does not fit the bill - people who have to ask permission before they act, are not on top of things.
            On the other hand, I have always held Swanson high in regard. And I don´t think that the quote above necessarily means that Edward does not do the exact same.

            Bedtime for me now, Colin! All the best,

            Fisherman

            Comment


            • Myself, I have never regarded Swanson as top dog in the Ripper business. He does not fit the bill - people who have to ask permission before they act, are not on top of things.
              Hi Christer,

              Do you know of an occasion when Swanson had to ask permission before acting during the course of the Whitechapel Murders? I take the point about Edward being provocative in posting what he did, but the description of Swanson as a "superannuated filing clerk" is not "a fresh take on things". It's an inaccuracy.

              Sleep well!
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

              Comment


              • Bridewell
                If you read the Warren memorandum – which specifically says that all incoming and outgoing paperwork must go through Swanson’s office and Swanson’s statement to a Parliamentary Committee about his work in 1889, then it is very clear that his primary function during the Ripper investigation, while that investigation was at its height, was to act as a species of filing clerk.
                Applying the term ‘superannuated’ to it implies that he was somewhat grand to be in that role.
                By the way the Parliamentary Committee that he reported to was the Departmental Committee upon Metropolitan Police Superannuation...

                Swanson got commendations for what could be described as a normal range of police work. The Ripper case was quite unlike any previous Scotland Yard investigation in scale, scope and range. Swanson’s capabilities in other lines of policing would not necessarily have any bearing on his ability to cope with the massive and unprecedented amount of paperwork that crossed his desk – while he was bogged down in his role as a superannuated filing clerk.

                It is common in hierarchical organisations for officers to be appointed to roles beyond their ability.
                I quoted something known as the ‘Peter principal’.
                It is commonly seen in the police and the armed forces.
                Officers who excel at their role are promoted until they reach a level at which they can no longer excel. A brilliant Colonel might not be a good Major General. Of course some gifted officers go on and become outstanding Generals or whatever.
                Because they do not excel at the role to which they were appointed due to their previous good work, does not invalidate their previous good work.
                I hope this is clear.

                Swanson held an important role during the Ripper investigation.
                He claimed (or at least the Marginalia does) that Kosminski was the suspect and that he died soon after being incarcerated. Only one Kosminski was incarcerated – Aaron Kosminski. He did not die soon after being incarcerated.
                Either the name is wrong or the date of death is wrong.
                For basic facts about the supposed no 1 Ripper suspect to be handled by a leading Scotland Yard officer in such a fashion can only be described as illustrating incompetence.
                Whatever commendations Swanson may have got before or after the Ripper investigation do not mitigate against this.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                  Hi Christer,

                  Do you know of an occasion when Swanson had to ask permission before acting during the course of the Whitechapel Murders? I take the point about Edward being provocative in posting what he did, but the description of Swanson as a "superannuated filing clerk" is not "a fresh take on things". It's an inaccuracy.
                  Do you know of an occasion when he did NOT have to ask permission, Colin? I think it will be very hard to tell in which cases he did and in which cases he did not. But the wording of the Warren letter about Swansons´s responsibilities and how far his command reached, is rather unambiguous: "... he should consult Mr Williamson, you (Bruce - my remark), or myself on every important particular before any action unless there is some extreme urgency."

                  In cases of "extreme urgency" - and that would mean if it was really totally impossible to reach one of the three men mentioned and time was running out - Swanson was at liberty to act, since Warren realized that situations could arise when time or circumstances did not allow for guiding Swanson´s decisions.
                  Otherwise, whenever there was any important particular - and they would have been very many, potentially, given the delicacy and magnitude of the Ripper case! - Swanson was obliged to ask permission first, before he acted. That was non-negotiable. No important decisions were to be made by Swanson on his own, if it could be avoided.

                  Please note that it does not say "any important particular" as if these particulars would not necessarily arise, but instead "every important particular", pointing to a certainty on behalf of Warren that the particulars would come along aplenty.

                  Now, I don´t think that Swanson (or anybody else) necessarily jotted down whenever he had had to seek the advice of Bruce,Williamson or Warren before acting. Therefore, I will not be able to produce any such annotations - as you surely will have realized yourself. But luckily, we DO have the Warren letter, showing us very clearly that Swanson was a marionette whenever an important issue demanded a course of action.

                  Since you wanted me to produce evidence that Warren meant what he said (or wrote), I will take the opportunity to ask you a question of my own: Do you know of any case where a person has been given the full responsibility and the overall command in any area of society: police work, business, politics, cultural enterprises, anything - and had it accompanied with a: but you may not take one single important decision yourself!

                  Well, do you, Colin?

                  The best,
                  Fisherman
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 03-01-2013, 08:09 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Or
                    Can we find any examples of Swanson giving orders or issuing instructions or to other officers during the Autumn of Terror?
                    During this period did he personally intervene to lead the investigation on the ground?
                    If so when?

                    Comment


                    • Yes, twice.

                      Monty
                      Monty

                      https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                      Comment


                      • Oh that proves it then

                        Comment


                        • Obviously

                          Monty
                          Monty

                          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • Railway carriages were generally compartmented in those days, (the new Pullman Limited train being an exception), and it wasn't unknown for a criminal to be transported in a reserved and locked compartment handcuffed to a policeman. This could probably be achieved in relative secrecy by prior agreement with the LBSCR.

                            I agree with Christer though that there'd have to be a damned good reason to transport someone that far, something more than merely conducting an ID away from the eyes of the media (which could, lets be honest, be achieved anywhere)...I suppose it's that fact, together with the "with difficulty" that makes the whole episode so puzzling...

                            All the best

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • Lawende or Schwartz?
                              I lean towrds Lawende as apparently they used him again as a witness, he was respectable, was English and spoke the language.
                              Lawende wasn’t English, Abby, and he certainly couldn’t have identified Kosminski during the City’s undercover operation otherwise we would have learned something about it via Major Smith. This to my mind is strongly suggestive that Lawende could not have been the unhesitating witness who had earlier identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home.

                              In terms the ID. I think the seaside home "difficulty" has, as you say, more to do with the police being wary because of the whole Pizer/leather apron fiasco(remember Pizer was suing for libel at the time also) than it does with AK's family being protective of him …
                              I tend to think that it was a little of both, Abby.

                              … By this point he had probably not only become such a burden to his family but perhaps a threat as well (threatening the life of his sister) that they probably wouldn't mind if the ID took place in Ireland.
                              We have no evidence that Kosminski inflicted actual violence on anyone, Abby, and nothing in the way of context for the alleged knife incident involving his sister.

                              I cant help but think that it was actually his family that were the catalyst for bringing AK to the attention of police and/or Drs initially as a way to get rid of him. And if it was in any way the family wanting to protect Kosminsky-I would say it was more the family name than Aaron!
                              Since Anderson claimed that the murderer’s family had been shielding him, Abby, I think it more than a little unlikely that this same family would have brought him to the attention of the police.

                              The difficult Seaside home ID probably had more to do with finagling him past the doctors and the press and the logistics involved.
                              Trusting to Swanson’s version of events, Abby, Kosminski was returned to his brother’s house immediately after the Seaside Home identification, which would tend to imply that he was not in detention at the time and thus not subject to medical supervision. On the balance of probability it looks to me as though investigators were attempting put as much distance as possible between the identificational venue and the London press as a means of appeasing a protective Kosminski family and averting a repetition of the Pizer affair. We need only recall Warren’s reaction to the Goulston Street message to discern the anxiety of those leading the manhunt at the prospect of a renewed upsurge of anti-Semitic feeling in and about Whitechapel. If Anderson and others really did view the Jewish Kosminski as a serious suspect, therefore, it should come as no surprise that the task of subjecting him to an eyewitness identification was a covert affair conducted with the utmost tact and diplomacy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                                I agree with Christer though that there'd have to be a damned good reason to transport someone that far, something more than merely conducting an ID away from the eyes of the media (which could, lets be honest, be achieved anywhere)...I suppose it's that fact, together with the "with difficulty" that makes the whole episode so puzzling...
                                Two thoughts, Dave. First, Brighton isn't that far from London. I don't know about 1888, but today the journey can be completed by train in under three-quarters of an hour. Secondly, we know that a number of journalists during the Ripper scare were tasked by their editors to follow detectives around London in the hope of scooping any investigational breakthrough. As such, finding a venue somewhere in London for the purpose of a highly sensitive identification might not have been as simple as it would appear.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X