Letīs talk about that identification again

[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.

[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.

[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

[Wickerman]

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

[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.

[Garry Wroe]

Fair enough, Jason. But the person alleging that the Kosminski family suspected Aaron of being the Whitechapel Murderer yet still shielded him from the authorities was Anderson himself. What if the Kosminski family didn't suspect Aaron of being implicated in the murders? What if they knew that he couldn't possibly have been the killer? What if, in the certain knowledge of Aaron's innocence, they felt that a very sick and thus vulnerable Aaron was being fitted up for a series of crimes in which he had no involvement? Under such circumstances it isn't difficult to imagine why the Kosminski family would have proved resistant to an identity parade, especially one held in London which might have led to Aaron being linked to Jack the Ripper by a voracious and often irresponsible press.

There are two sides to every story and thusfar we've heard only one: Anderson's. But this is a version of events that I cannot personally buy into. There again, neither did Abberline, Macnaghten, Littlechild, nor seemingly anyone else who was in a position to have seen the 'evidence' against Kosminski.

[jason_c]

Fair enough, Jason. But the person alleging that the Kosminski family suspected Aaron of being the Whitechapel Murderer yet still shielded him from the authorities was Anderson himself. What if the Kosminski family didn't suspect Aaron of being implicated in the murders? What if they knew that he couldn't possibly have been the killer? What if, in the certain knowledge of Aaron's innocence, they felt that a very sick and thus vulnerable Aaron was being fitted up for a series of crimes in which he had no involvement? Under such circumstances it isn't difficult to imagine why the Kosminski family would have proved resistant to an identity parade, especially one held in London which might have led to Aaron being linked to Jack the Ripper by a voracious and often irresponsible press.

There are two sides to every story and thusfar we've heard only one: Anderson's. But this is a version of events that I cannot personally buy into. There again, neither did Abberline, Macnaghten, Littlechild, nor seemingly anyone else who was in a position to have seen the 'evidence' against Kosminski.

Yes, Abberline etc disagreed with Kosminski as the killer. This does not mean they felt there was no evidence against him. Simply that they are alleged to have believed others as being more likely to be the killer. Very few of them specifically commented on the evidence against Kosminski(apart from perhaps Major Henry Smith). If we are having difficulty in accurately interpreting Anderson's comments, our difficulty is tenfold in interpreting others silence on the matter.

[Garry Wroe]

Well, Jason, Abberline reportedly stated that ‘we’ have never believed the story that the killer had been caged in an asylum. And Macnaghten, a man who certainly appears to have assessed the case files, was of the opinion that Druitt was a far likelier Jack the Ripper than Kosminski, and this despite the fact that his case against Druitt was gossamer thin. Let us not forget either that, according to Swanson, Kosminski became the object of a round the clock undercover City investigation, an operation that demonstrably uncovered little or nothing to convince Major Smith of Kosminski’s guilt.

The issue here is that if Anderson alone was convinced that Kosminski and Jack the Ripper were one and the same, there is every reason to suppose that Aaron’s family would have defended him from what they perceived as unfounded and possibly even malicious suspicion. This would explain both Anderson’s accusation that the murderer’s family shielded him and Swanson’s observation that the suspect was sent to the Seaside Home ‘with difficulty’.

This latter point is important. Had there been any kind of case against Kosminski he could have been arrested and subjected to identification with no difficulty whatsoever. Yet we learn from Swanson that Kosminski was returned to his brother’s home immediately after the Seaside Home identification. In other words Kosminski wasn’t under arrest at the time. This is not only curious, it is suggestive that the identification was an elective procedure conducted with the consent of Kosminski and almost certainly his family. Under such circumstances it would have been natural for what was a clearly close and loving family to have looked out for Aaron’s best interests, insisting that Aaron’s participation in the identification be conducted either in absolute secrecy or not at all. So could this situation, one which necessitated the need to find an appropriate out of the way identificational location as a means of appeasing a protective family, be the ‘difficulty’ to which Swanson referred in his margin notations? Might it also explain Anderson’s assertion that the murderer’s family refused to hand him over to Gentile justice?

If so, Anderson has a great deal to answer for.

[Errata]

It strikes me that any of the officials involved could have a very valid claim on the truth. All of them had either access to or had paid attention to something none of the others had. And someone in a position more likely to have the pertinent information isn't necessarily the person who actually absorbed the pertinent information. Endless paperwork results in a state not unlike that of eyewitness testimony. It all depends on what you paid attention to, what your prejudices are, and how much you are guessing at. Just because paperwork means you can go back and check something doesn't mean that you do.

Most people these days in the West have been taught the theory of evolution. And god knows the have endless opportunities to look it up if they feel a need for a refresher. Yet the majority of Americans believe evolution to be something that it is not. Many believe that it means that all species are evolving towards being like us, bipedal, community oriented, creative, etc. Some believe that it means that "nature" is fulfilling requirements for a balanced environment. Say, filling a need for an apex predator, or reliable winter food for predators. And many believe that evolution means advancement. The hominid that survives is the smarter, more cultured, more technologically sophisticated hominid. None of that is true. Or none of it is necessarily true. The human form is not the best out there. It's ego to think it is. Nature doesn't do anything. It doesn't control environments, and it doesn't select species to do anything. And sometimes the dumber less sophisticated species wins because it has thicker fur, or is the color of the environment. So why do the majority of Americans who were in fact taught evolution have no idea what it really is? Sure they read it. They were tested on it. And then they just decided it was something else. Maybe they misunderstood, maybe they are projecting, maybe what they were taught simply doesn't fit in to their belief system. But despite having every opportunity to be right, they are still wrong. And the same can be said of any of the major players in the Ripper case. Not that we know who is wrong and who is right, but clearly some, or all are wrong. They certainly can't all be right.

[Fisherman]

Had there been any kind of case against Kosminski he could have been arrested and subjected to identification with no difficulty whatsoever. Yet we learn from Swanson that Kosminski was returned to his brother’s home immediately after the Seaside Home identification. In other words Kosminski wasn’t under arrest at the time. This is not only curious, it is suggestive that the identification was an elective procedure conducted with the consent of Kosminski and almost certainly his family. Under such circumstances it would have been natural for what was a clearly close and loving family to have looked out for Aaron’s best interests, insisting that Aaron’s participation in the identification be conducted either in absolute secrecy or not at all. So could this situation, one which necessitated the need to find an appropriate out of the way identificational location as a means of appeasing a protective family, be the ‘difficulty’ to which Swanson referred in his margin notations? Might it also explain Anderson’s assertion that the murderer’s family refused to hand him over to Gentile justice?
]

Apart from the odd discrepancies in the timings as given by the men involved, and apart from the very intimidating description of Kosminski the homicidal maniac, this works like clockwork, Garry.
I may even consider boarding the Brighton train with you, given these premises...
If the family requested it, I guess Anderson WOULD have taken his suspect to Rio ...

Not a bad effort, Garry. Not a bad effort at all!

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

Most people these days in the West have been taught the theory of evolution.

Bad example. Many science teachers skip that chapter, so the one crazy Christian parent won't call her up at home in the evening and tell her she is corrupting his son's immortal soul.

There is a lot of deliberate misinformation in the US, because creationists love strawmen. They love to say things like "Why isn't evolution still happening?" with the insinuation being that their god is done with creation, but what non-believers who are standing on the sidelines, and only partially informed, because they skipped that chapter in high school, take away, is that evolution is finished, because it had the goal of bipedalism, an apex predator, an intelligent species with language, and once one emerged, evolution was "done." Creationists act like it's a personal insult to say "We came from monkeys" (which, or course, no one who really understands evolution says), as though someone has suggested that just yesterday that particular creationist was picking lice off his wife and eating them. But the undereducated agnostic, who doesn't really have a horse in the race, takes away the idea that monkeys and apes existed millions of years ago in exactly the form they are in, and some of the cleverest ones managed to improve upon themselves through selective breeding, to become human. They've never heard of Sivapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, or punctuated equilibrium.

One thing that does compare, though, is the reluctance to say that something is BS. All ideas, for some reason must scrupulously be given equal consideration, whether they are that a deity created the world and every species on it in 6 days, we were originally Martians, or that evolution explains only speciation, and not the origin of life, so what the heck are we arguing about anyway?

[Garry Wroe]

Apart from the odd discrepancies in the timings as given by the men involved, and apart from the very intimidating description of Kosminski the homicidal maniac, this works like clockwork, Garry.

Thanks, Fish. Remember, however, that the depiction of Kosminski as a homicidal maniac emanated from Macnaghten – the man who also cast Ostrog as a homicidal maniac without any foundation whatsoever.

If the family requested it, I guess Anderson WOULD have taken his suspect to Rio ...

Context is everything, Fish. Investigators would have sought to avoid a repetition of the Pizer debacle, and the Kosminski family wouldn’t have welcomed the prospect of facing the same lynch mob that had threatened to tear Pizer to pieces. Given such a situation it would have made perfect sense to conduct the identification in secret and at a venue well out of the orbit of the same journalists whose lurid stories had fanned the flames of the Pizer affair.

Not a bad effort, Garry. Not a bad effort at all!

Thanks again, Fish. It’s just a shame that we’re unlikely to know the full truth of the matter.

[Fleetwood Mac]

to protect the Jewish community from a pogrom.

Not sure why it's so hard to believe.

After all, the police are a law enforcement agency.

Pretty much just doing their jobs a) they are paid to prevent disorder on the streets b) they are paid to support the administration of justice.

I'm a policeman - there's being a load of aggro over false starts, lynch mobs and groundless cases - I know what I'd do and that would be keeping it on the quiet.

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood
It's hard to believe because of the context.
The police and the establishment were not that politically correct back then.
The police would have to weigh up the contempt they attracted by their failure to catch the Ripper against the potential for civil disorder.
My guess is they would have preferred to get a public conviction and deal with the consequences afterwards.
Furthermore English society in the late 19th century was, in my opinion, more ready to stand up for what was right (i.e not hush up a case to possibly protect a small community) and was confident enough in its power and inate legitimacy to face the consequences.

In any case, Anderson then went and blurted out the Jewish angle in his memoirs. If he was a party to the cover up to protect the Jewish community from attack then it is a bit contradictory for him to later name and shame.
Anti-Alien agitation in the East End grew in scale in the 1900s compared to the 1880s and 1890s so there was logically more reason for Anderson to keep quiet.

[robhouse]

Nice post Fleetwood. Points taken.

Or perhaps the witness was simply recuperating in a convalescent home on the coast, and that was why the police had to go there.

RH