Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let´s talk about that identification again

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    It was an arm chancer in my opinion.

    If it had have paid off, and I honestly think even if successful it wouldn't have, then its a nail in the cases coffin.

    Monty
    Excuse an ignorant Swede - but exactly what is an "arm-chancer" ??? My vocabulary does not cover that one.

    The best,
    Fisherman

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Hi Monty!

      In all honesty, I think you need to be a bit more discerning before you throw out accusations like this.

      When you write that Edward "stated Swanson was incompetent", is it not true that you forget to bring the whole story to the table? Edward says that IF Swanson accepted Aaron Kosminski at the probable killer, and if this Kosminski was the Kosminski that died in Leavesden, THEN it follows that Swanson failed to realize that Aaron Kosminski lived on until 1919 instead of dying shortly after having been transferred to Colney Hatch, as Swanson tells us. And if Swanson failed to realize this, then he could not have kept himself sufficiently informed about the destiny of the man he had accepted was the probable killer.

      I don´t think that anybody would disagree that if this was so, then we have a case of gross negligence on our hands. And much of the responsibility must of course fall on Swanson - not least so if he truly was in overall charge of the case! It would have left him the overall responsibility to keep track of the case development too.

      As for Swanson´s other virtues and capabilities, I fail to see that anybody has commmented on them in any negative shape or form.

      So, you see, what you do here is to present a case where Edward purportedly has stated that Swanson was an overall incompetent policeman. And he has not. He has posed an if/so scenario relating only to the built-in anomalies in the triumvirate of Swansons naming Kosminski as the suspect, his giving a time of death early after the transfer to Colney Hatch and our knowledge that Aaron Kosminski died in 1919.

      This accusation of yours becomes so much more regrettable in view of what you use it for: you claim that people would do better not to listen to this sort of accusation against Swanson - an accusation that you have actually formed yourself on behalf of Edward - and avoid listening to the ill informed with "agendas", perhaps implying (what do I know?) that Edward stated what you claim he stated (and which he never did state), because he has an agenda that benefits from dissing Swansons overall abilities.

      The picture that emerges if you are right on Edward having made some sort of overall claim that Swanson was an incompetent man, is one of you yourself as being very keen to keep these boards clean from vicious posters who come here to mislead and distort to serve their own chosen agendas.

      The picture that emerges if you are wrong on Edward having made some sort of overall claim that Swanson was an incompetent man is another one altogether, needless to say.

      Of course, if you can substantiate that Edward has pointed Swanson out as an overall incompetent policeman, then this discussion is moot. Then you are correct, and no further debate is of interest. So such a substantiation would be much welcomed.

      If you simply meant that since Swanson was so highly commended and praised by his contemporaries, he could not possibly have acted incompetently in relation to the Kosminski identification/incarceration/death issue, then it´s another thing. Then you are welcome to reserve yourself the right to be of that meaning. But you must surely realize that - given the surrounding circumstances - it is completely legitimate not to agree with you on this detail.

      A completely fair and gentlemanly discussion can easily be had on this issue, if we only try, each and every one of us.

      All the best, Monty!
      Fisherman
      Christer,

      You really need to read Edwards Swanson posts of recent months for you to understand what he is trying to do, rather than those of recent days.

      The fact Stewart Evans, who rarely posts today, felt the need to point out Swansons awards, is an indication of his feeling not only upon the matter of Swansons position but this absurd questioning based on no supporting evidence.

      Evidence has been shown in relation to Swansons capabilities, and more can be provided if you wish it. Whereas Swansons detractors have provided nothing but speculation and cheap talk. To state that Swanson wasn't perfect is fair enough, however his competence has supporting evidence, where the counter has nothing other than interpretation.

      If Ed wanted a "Gentlemanly' debate the Ed shouldn't have placed unsubstantiated accusations on a publice website. The tone was set from that moment and when refuted, continued.

      Your schoolmaster berating should really be directed elsewhere, as well as sorting you own house out before tidying mine up. Practice what you preach.

      As for chancing your arm, it means to take a risk in hope of being successful. Bit like you Cross theory...and that was a tongue in cheek comment I just could not resist, so apologies in advance.

      Monty




      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

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

      Comment


      • #48
        It's interesting to see the high percentage of people who simply cannot accept that Swanson relayed his experience of a positive ID and he believed this man was the murderer.

        All sorts of theories are then promoted in order to discredit the ID: Swanson was confused in later years; the Seaside Home doesn't make sense; and so forth.

        It doesn't make sense simply because Swanson does not give us a warts and all account of the events. It is a brief summary in a few lines as opposed to a book intended to convince you or I.

        In the event you accept that the marginalia is genuine, then it defies logic to suggest that the ID didn't happen or wasn't positive or Swanson didn't believe him to be the murderer simply because you don't have all of the information at hand that Swanson did.

        It seems as clear as day that Swanson believed a man known to him as Kosminski was the murderer, at least partly based on the ID. Whether you believe that Swanson was right to believe he was the murderer, is another matter altogether.

        In my view Swanson must have had something damning to believe him to be the murderer and that would lend toward Schwartz rather than Lawende, but I wouldn't rule out another witness.

        Comment


        • #49
          For what its worth, I have major issues with Andersons account and the identification as a process

          Monty




          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

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

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Monty View Post
            Christer,

            You really need to read Edwards Swanson posts of recent months for you to understand what he is trying to do, rather than those of recent days.

            The fact Stewart Evans, who rarely posts today, felt the need to point out Swansons awards, is an indication of his feeling not only upon the matter of Swansons position but this absurd questioning based on no supporting evidence.

            Evidence has been shown in relation to Swansons capabilities, and more can be provided if you wish it. Whereas Swansons detractors have provided nothing but speculation and cheap talk. To state that Swanson wasn't perfect is fair enough, however his competence has supporting evidence, where the counter has nothing other than interpretation.

            If Ed wanted a "Gentlemanly' debate the Ed shouldn't have placed unsubstantiated accusations on a publice website. The tone was set from that moment and when refuted, continued.

            Your schoolmaster berating should really be directed elsewhere, as well as sorting you own house out before tidying mine up. Practice what you preach.

            As for chancing your arm, it means to take a risk in hope of being successful. Bit like you Cross theory...and that was a tongue in cheek comment I just could not resist, so apologies in advance.

            Monty
            No apologies needed for the armchancing, Monty - and thanks for the English lesson!

            But I fear you are missing my point here, Monty. I am of the mening that Edward has in no way concluded that Swanson was any imcompetent policeman, other than if - and only if - he was of the meaning that Aaron Kosminski was the probable killer, and STILL managed to loose track of him, after he had been put away in the asylum(s).

            If Edward has posted any view that Swanson was incompetent all over, then surely you can provide it?

            Stewart Evans´contribution of Swansons commendments has no bearing on this particular issue, other than in a general meaning - it should be obvious to anybody that Swanson stood high in regard as a competent police officer! And I am of course grateful that Mr Evans provided the material, since it very much belongs to this general picture.

            And it IS obvious to me that Swanson had an overall good reputation. It is obvious to you. And I feel pretty certain that it is equally obvious to Edward too, although he of course must offer his own opinion before we can tell.

            But the issue at hand is one comparable to me saying that Luciano Pavarotti did not sing very well when he performed Radames in Aida in a 1994 performance.
            It is anybody´s prerogative to point out when we think that somebody has failed to live up to reasonable expectations. Pavarotti did not do so on that occasion, and critics all over the world agreed totally. His song was crappy.

            But one I´ve pointed that out, I have not made myself guilty of pointing Pavarotti out as a lousy singer!!! I think he is the best tenor I have ever heard; he was a fantastic singer, an amazing one.

            In Swanson´s case, we must allow for this thing to have happened too. He may well have been an incredibly skilled and reliable policeman - who botched the follow-up of the man who he believed to probably have been the Ripper totally.

            That means we would have an overall competent man acting incompetently in a singled out incident. And I agree with Edward that normally, keeping track of who you believe to be the most prolific killer in a country´s history is not a hard thing to do, not once that killer had been incarcerated and we KNOW that reprots are written about him, giving his name etcetera, for decades! Therefore, if qwe want to keep on believing that Swanson did his work properly on this occasion, then we must take leave of the traditional view of the identification and who was involved and when it went down - or at least parts of it.

            But please don´t talk about "schoolmaster berating" - I of course must react when you make a schoolboy error, pointing somebody out as being responsible of something that somebody never has said!

            All the best,
            Fisherman
            Last edited by Fisherman; 02-24-2013, 12:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Monty View Post
              For what its worth, I have major issues with Andersons account and the identification as a process

              Monty
              Any soundly thinking person MUST have, Monty. It does not add up. Believing in it requires patchwork, more or less desperate such to my mind.

              The best,
              Fisherman
              Last edited by Fisherman; 02-24-2013, 12:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                It seems as clear as day that Swanson believed a man known to him as Kosminski was the murderer, at least partly based on the ID. Whether you believe that Swanson was right to believe he was the murderer, is another matter altogether.

                In my view Swanson must have had something damning to believe him to be the murderer and that would lend toward Schwartz rather than Lawende, but I wouldn't rule out another witness.
                It may seem clear as day to you, Fleetwood - but I think it is very obvious that we may be dealing with Swanson reiterating Andersons stance, not necessarily giving his own opinion. So I think it´s Anderson´s belief we are dealing with - and only potentially also Swanson´s.

                At any rate, Anderson took it upon him to claim that a Jew who went to an asylum was the killer, and he spoke of an ID process, not mentioning the name Kosminski. And once we got that name, it was infected with information that does not tally with Aaron Kosminski.
                This means that it is perfectly reasonable to argue that there was an ID at the Seaside Home, but it is also reasonable to argue that there was not - or that the information about it is hopelessly muddled.

                And no, Swanson did not have anything damning on any suspect pointed out by Schwartz. A bad temper and something that may have been a push is not damning at all. Nor was that incident ever positively tied to any exact TOD. And one person took specific care to point out the shortcomings of a propostion of a damning Berner Street scenario for BS man. And that person was Swanson himself.

                All the best,
                Fisherman
                Last edited by Fisherman; 02-24-2013, 12:35 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  procedure

                  Hello Neil.

                  "For what it's worth, I have major issues with Anderson's account and the identification as a process."

                  Actually, it's worth a great deal. I take it that the bulk of your objections rest on breach of accepted procedural grounds?

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I have a question.

                    If the identification is after the fact, then the witness must have given a statement.

                    So the means by which the suspect would be hanged, must be in the witness statement.

                    Then the witness states - he's the murderer but I'm not giving evidence in court.

                    So why doesn't section 8, 1861 AA act + 'joint venture' apply?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mr Lucky View Post
                      I have a question.

                      If the identification is after the fact, then the witness must have given a statement.

                      So the means by which the suspect would be hanged, must be in the witness statement.

                      Then the witness states - he's the murderer but I'm not giving evidence in court.

                      So why doesn't section 8, 1861 AA act + 'joint venture' apply?
                      I dont have any idea what "section 8, 1861 AA act + 'joint venture' " means legally speaking but the problem with your logic is the statement "the witness states - he's the murderer but I'm not giving evidence in court." We do not know that this is what happened. You cannot infer as much from what Anderson or Swanson wrote.

                      RH

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Hiyah Neil
                        I would suggest that the cases for which Swanson was commended were quite unlike the Whitechapel Murder investigation in scope and range.
                        I said this case was quite unlike other cases that the Met had experienced up to that date.
                        I said that to them (eg Warren) Swanson seemed to be the best guy to put in charge of the paperwork, writing consolidated reports and be his eyes and ears and liaison man with the City Police - due no doubt to his record – his tact, discretion and zeal.

                        I have suggested that in the Whitechapel Murder investigation Swanson was given two specific roles: to marshal the vast amount of incoming and outgoing paperwork and information; and to liaise with the City Police.
                        After the Autumn of Terror and following the canonical five murders, he was also occasionally delegated to make specific investigations.
                        If we follow Fisherman’s proposal here, this later task may well have been to close off these subsequent cases as being Ripper related. As they thought they had their man.
                        Hence the Sadler ID may have been to prove their case that the man they already thought had done it (Cohen) was the culprit – by getting a negative ID for Sadler.

                        I haven’t described Swanson as an error strewn clerk.
                        I have pointed out that his statements regarding ‘’Kosminski’ display incompetence.
                        I can see no other explanation whichever way you look at it.
                        I have pointed out that his muddle was understandable as he was snowed under with paperwork and also expected to work into the small hours liaising with the City Police.
                        But as he was commended for various fairly standard police work then he cannot have ever shown incompetence? Is that it?
                        I think he was given a role in the Ripper investigation that was beyond his abilities and knowledge.
                        After the Ripper investigation he went back to standard police work – back to his comfort zone, where he no doubt was an efficient constable.

                        You keep saying that my stance on Swanson is to bolster my own suspect theory. Have you ever shown how this is the case?
                        In fact the whole Swanson-Anderson-Seaside Home-Kosminsky rigmarole, whichever way you cut it, is ‘Heads I Win, Tails I Lose’ for ‘my theory’.
                        I just like to see this case discussed in an accurate and realistic manner.
                        When a proponent of a suspect theory discusses any other matter relating to this case, resorting to the playground chant of ‘you only say this to bolster your own theory’ is the last refuge of those scoundrels who have no counter argument to make themselves.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          It may seem clear as day to you, Fleetwood - but I think it is very obvious that we may be dealing with Swanson reiterating Andersons stance, not necessarily giving his own opinion. So I think it´s Anderson´s belief we are dealing with - and only potentially also Swanson´s.
                          Nonsense.

                          Swanson tells us his views.

                          At no point does he tell us these are the views of Anderson.

                          You are making assumptions, or jumping through hoops, take your pick; which are in no way reflected in Swanson's notes.

                          Some have a vested interest in diluting Swanson's notes, of course.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I find it slightly curious that Monty gets all hot under his collar when I point rather obvious things out about the conclusions that can fairly be made from what we know about Swanson’s opinions on this case (as expressed in the marginalia anyway), and that Stewart Evans has several times now felt motivated to come to Swanson’s defence, yet nary a word is said about, for example, Jonathan’s masturbation theory and his claim that Macnaghten oh-so-easily pulled the wool over Anderson and Swanson’s eyes. This theory makes them both foolishly credulous and grossly incompetent. Presumably Macnaghten made up the Seaside Home ID just to add further spice to his fictitious story and they just swallowed that in one gulp as well.

                            Fleetwood
                            If you do not want to dilute Swanson’s annotations then he was grossly incompetent.
                            Also I think Fisherman was being less than dogmatic in what he said, and was if anything proposing a possible excuse for Swanson’s lack of clarity and the oddness of his statement about the Seaside Home.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                              Nonsense.

                              Swanson tells us his views.

                              At no point does he tell us these are the views of Anderson.

                              You are making assumptions, or jumping through hoops, take your pick; which are in no way reflected in Swanson's notes.

                              Some have a vested interest in diluting Swanson's notes, of course.
                              Ah, good - then you will be able to supply the quotation where Swanson lais down that the annotations he made in his book are all grounded in his own sentiments and beliefs and not in Andersons, and I´ll stand there all humiliated and nonsensical!

                              Waiting ... waiting ... waaaiiiittiinggg.

                              The best,
                              Fisherman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Ah, good - then you will be able to supply the quotation where Swanson lais down that the annotations he made in his book are all grounded in his own sentiments and beliefs and not in Andersons, and I´ll stand there all humiliated and nonsensical!

                                Waiting ... waiting ... waaaiiiittiinggg.

                                The best,
                                Fisherman
                                No Fisherman.

                                The burden of proof rests with the accuser.

                                They are Swanson's notes and therefore Swanson's thoughts, until the accuser can tell us otherwise.

                                The burden of proof rests with you my friend.

                                And, I'm not into emotional sadism so have no desire to humiliate you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X