Letīs talk about that identification again

[jason_c]

You may well be right, Monty. But then Anderson stated that the murderer had been shielded by his family, contending that low-class Jews of the type to which the killer belonged don't hand over murderous family members to Gentile justice. This to my way of thinking is Anderson telling us that Kosminski's family remained loyal to the end. In fact, I rather suspect that, had Kosminski been handed over to the authorities by his family, Anderson would have inflated his 'moral certainty' still further by stating that even the suspect's family believed him to have been the killer.

The wording from Anderson makes it all problematic. I can just as easily interpret Andersons statement as meaning the family did not come forward quickly enough with their suspicions. Shielding Kosminski for six months of murder does not necessarily mean they shielded him indefinitely. Plus, some members of his family may have felt hostile to Aaron while others did protect him. Does "not coming forward with your suspicions" equate to protecting Aaron?

The Kosminski family would not be the first or last to have suspicions about a family member yet manage to convince themselves of his innocence. Does "not coming forward with your suspicions soon enough" equate to protecting Aaron? I'd suggest, yes.

[Wickerman]

Swanson's private notations only clarify Anderson's suspicions, they do not confirm them.

[Ben]

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.

This is precisely how I see things, Abby.

Hi Fleets,

Swanson is unequivocal when he says that the witness was a Jew and did not want it on his conscience. He is giving you the answer right there, and it's not that the witness was unsure.

But however "unequivocal" he may have been, it can only have been an assumption that the witness refused to testify because he "was a Jew and did not want it on his conscience". The witness was hardly going to admit that this was the reason for his refusal to swear to the identification, as he knew full well that it wouldn't wash with the police. He'd have been compelled to swear to the identification or risk being in seriously deep water with the police for obstruction of justice. If the suspect's fellow Jewishness had anything to do with his refusal to swear to it, the witness would certainly have concealed it and pretended instead that he was unsure.

Anderson and Swanson evidently came to believe that Jews protecting Jews was the reason, but given the passage of time that elapsed since the original sighting, it is far more likely that the witness wasn't remotely sure.

In order to believe your version of events, you have to believe that Swanson was incompetent at best and criminally negligent at worst, i.e. he willfully misrepresented proceedings in order to convince himself that they had the right man

No, that's absolutely not the case at all. He was at liberty to write whatever he wanted in the margins of a personal copy of a former colleague's memoirs. He could have written "Jack the Ripper was me, haha" and that still wouldn't have made him "criminally negligent".

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

RivkahChaya
Regarding your proposition that Kosminski may have been sent to the asylum under a different name, various senior and experienced researchers , whose competence in such matters I would not doubt (although I may well doubt a lot of what passes as 'accepted wisdom' in this case), have thoroughly checked the relevant records - being alive to the possibility of different potential names (eg cohen) and already narrowed down the field - and it is not a wide field.
It is pretty much reduced to Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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 doesn't wash though, Abby.

Swanson's notes were not intended for public consumption. Who exactly was he kidding? Himself?

Swanson is unequivocal when he says that the witness was a Jew and did not want it on his conscience. He is giving you the answer right there, and it's not that the witness was unsure.

In order to believe your version of events, you have to believe that Swanson was incompetent at best and criminally negligent at worst, i.e. he willfully misrepresented proceedings in order to convince himself that they had the right man, and it is fair to assume Swanson would have sought a conviction in the event the witness was willing to give evidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

I wouldn't agree with this.

From what Anderson has told us, he began with the position that they had checked out everyone living alone and so concluded that he lived with people. From there he concluded the family must have known and it follows thus he was being protected.

There are an awful lot of assumptions in there.

It simply does not follow that the family knew. There have been all sorts of serial killers living with a family and the family did not know.

I have a sneak that it wasn't the family, but for different reasons.

[Monty]

You may well be right, Monty. But then Anderson stated that the murderer had been shielded by his family, contending that low-class Jews of the type to which the killer belonged don't hand over murderous family members to Gentile justice. This to my way of thinking is Anderson telling us that Kosminski's family remained loyal to the end. In fact, I rather suspect that, had Kosminski been handed over to the authorities by his family, Anderson would have inflated his 'moral certainty' still further by stating that even the suspect's family believed him to have been the killer.

I have posted this link in a reply to Rivkah (apologies for being vague in my response Rivkah) which I posted on forums some months back.

Kinda supports your post above Garry.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17414&page=3

Monty

[Monty]

Without addressing whatever specifics may have been the case here, that we aren't really sure about, the actual situation is that a couple thousand years of pogroms, shtetls, inquisitions, scapegoating, libeling, and general abuse, taught Jews to be highly suspicious of gentile authority.

If the police came round and said "Hand over Aaron, we've identified him as the murderer of several gentile women," and while you know Aaron may be a little odd, and not too bright, he has never hurt anyone to your knowledge, so this has a very, very familiar and ominous ring.

I'm sure there were some genuine cases of thieves, and even muggers who were Jews, who were shielded by families, but only because the family didn't realize that after centuries of false accusations, this time, it was true.

And then, there were probably some gentiles who made false accusations against Jews, or falsely identified criminals who were Jews, but without malice (that is, identified the wrong guy in a yarmulke, black hat, overcoat, shirt fringes, and long beard).

Since England did not have the history of pogroms and shtetls of other countries, and had an entirely different class of Jews (Sephardic to begin with, who had been there rather longer, and were more assimilated) who got along pretty well with authorities, the attitude of East End Jews fresh from abuse in Eastern Europe probably seemed unprovoked and unwarranted, so I understand the frustration. But I think that the police had no idea what they were up against, or that they were paying for the sins of the Tsar, and the Pope, so to speak, in their difficulties.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm trying to be fair to everyone, because I've looked at authority from both sides, now, if Joni Mitchell will forgive me, and while I understand how the side came to be, I still really don't know how to express myself very well.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17414&page=3

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Hi Garry

We mustn't forget the times...In 1888 Jim Selby and the "Old Times" set a new record for coach, (viz road), travel between London and Brighton, and back again...it was (wait for it) 7 hours and 50 minutes...and let's not forget horse-drawn coaches ran on, not just into the 1880s, but as late as 1914 (cf Vanderbilts) ...

I think typical (rather than exceptional) journey times between Victoria and Brighton in the 1888 period were well over the hour...still a great deal faster than horse-drawn coach, but hardly express as we know it today!

The contemporary (built 1860 if my memory serves) LBSCR Victoria station (as opposed to the Chatham line on the immediately adjacent site) had, I think, six platforms, and was served by ten lines...I'm not sure exactly how possible it was to approach any particular platform discreetly by private road...later (post the 1898 rebuild), some platforms could certainly be approached very discreetly via underground passage)...does some more specialised gricer than myself have any more definite info?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

But then Anderson stated that the murderer had been shielded by his family, contending that low-class Jews of the type to which the killer belonged don't hand over murderous family members to Gentile justice.

Without addressing whatever specifics may have been the case here, that we aren't really sure about, the actual situation is that a couple thousand years of pogroms, shtetls, inquisitions, scapegoating, libeling, and general abuse, taught Jews to be highly suspicious of gentile authority.

If the police came round and said "Hand over Aaron, we've identified him as the murderer of several gentile women," and while you know Aaron may be a little odd, and not too bright, he has never hurt anyone to your knowledge, so this has a very, very familiar and ominous ring.

I'm sure there were some genuine cases of thieves, and even muggers who were Jews, who were shielded by families, but only because the family didn't realize that after centuries of false accusations, this time, it was true.

And then, there were probably some gentiles who made false accusations against Jews, or falsely identified criminals who were Jews, but without malice (that is, identified the wrong guy in a yarmulke, black hat, overcoat, shirt fringes, and long beard).

Since England did not have the history of pogroms and shtetls of other countries, and had an entirely different class of Jews (Sephardic to begin with, who had been there rather longer, and were more assimilated) who got along pretty well with authorities, the attitude of East End Jews fresh from abuse in Eastern Europe probably seemed unprovoked and unwarranted, so I understand the frustration. But I think that the police had no idea what they were up against, or that they were paying for the sins of the Tsar, and the Pope, so to speak, in their difficulties.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm trying to be fair to everyone, because I've looked at authority from both sides, now, if Joni Mitchell will forgive me, and while I understand how the side came to be, I still really don't know how to express myself very well.

[Garry Wroe]

The knife incident could have been upon his Sister in law. That may have been the final straw for the family.

You may well be right, Monty. But then Anderson stated that the murderer had been shielded by his family, contending that low-class Jews of the type to which the killer belonged don't hand over murderous family members to Gentile justice. This to my way of thinking is Anderson telling us that Kosminski's family remained loyal to the end. In fact, I rather suspect that, had Kosminski been handed over to the authorities by his family, Anderson would have inflated his 'moral certainty' still further by stating that even the suspect's family believed him to have been the killer.

[Garry Wroe]

Are you suggesting that these investigative reporters would not buy a train ticket to Brighton, Garry?

To be honest, Fish, I'm not sure what, if any, restrictions were placed on such newsmen. I was simply responding to the point that there were plenty of places in the Capital that would have facilitated the Kosminski identification.

[RivkahChaya]

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.

I (almost) hate to bring this up again, but Polish is not spelled exactly like English, so "Kosminski" could also be spelled "Cazminsky," or "Kaczminski" (yes, that would be pronounced "Catch"-min-sky in Poland, but English speakers, at least in the US, never got the hang of the Polish "cz"; cf, "Theodore Kaczynski," whose last name American newscasters unfailingly pronounce "Kuh-ZIN-sky.")

Then, Yiddish uses a whole different alphabet. I can think of 5 different ways off the top of my head to spell "Kosminski," and none of them would automatically come back the same way, if another person were asked to transliterate them back to English. I even tried it with Google translate just for fun, and what do you know: entering "Kosminski" got me קאסמינסקי, but re-entering קאסמינסקי as a Yiddish word, and asking for an English word resulted in "Kasminski."

So, it's entirely possible, if you ask me, that a "Kosminski" got lost somewhere just by having his name spelled in such a way that someone going through records didn't recognize it as the name he was looking for.

Also, we don't know what "Aaron" Kosminski's given name really was. "Aaron" is an English spelling, taken from the English bible, but I doubt his family called him that. They probably called him Aharone, or Ahron, or Ari. If he took an English name, it probably was "Albert," or something else appropriately Englishy. Aaron may have been assigned to him at whatever the UK equivalent of Ellis Island was, but if he were ever asked to give his name (say, when arrested), he would probably say "Aharone" (assuming he understood the question), and so who knows what someone would have written down.

From what I understand, the best evidence is that in Poland, his name was "Aron Mordke." That's the Yiddish way of pronouncing "Aharon Mordechai." That means his family probably called him "Aron," but the way a Yiddish speaker would say it, more like "AH-rone." If he were ever called to Torah, it would still probably be "Aharone."

I'm pointing it out because I think it's easy to miss when you are expecting something to be spelled a certain way.

[Observer]

Two bloodhounds short of a pack?

[Monty]

Whereas only one Bloodhound on your leash Edward.


Gary,

The knife incident could have been upon his Sister in law. That may have been the final straw for the family.

Monty