Letīs talk about that identification again

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Is it reasonable to believe that 'Jews' do not give evidence against 'their own'? Lawende did at a murder trial in 1876. This smacks of Anderson's prejudice when in effect he states: "if only 'the Jews' were more like the upstanding, born here Englishmen, crime would be much reduced".

For further evidence of Anderson's prejudice, I refer you to #306.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Let me say yet again I have no faith in the accuracy of the Marginalia

I have said before that when it came to the alleged ID parade, it appears that from what was written a witness actually took part in the parade and allegedly identified Kosminski. My experience with ID parades is that the witness is only asked to point out the alleged perpetrator. There is no interaction between the witness and the suspect who has been identified, and according to Swanson the suspect knew he had been identified presumably because he had been pointed out

Given that according to Swanson the witness after the parade told police he was not going to give evidence, so the police had a positive ID but what could they have done or should they have done? The answer is quite simple we have no evidence that Kosminski was there under arrest so they then had the option to arrest him and put to him the positive ID, There would have been no need to tell Kosmisnki that the witness who had identified him was not prepared to go to court, after all if he knew he had been identified he might have made admissions, but we see nothing like this all we are told is that this now identified serial killer is taken back to an address which was supposed to have been watched day and night.

Those actions go against all known police procedures back then because the police had the power to arrest any person on suspicion. So how did the suspicion first fall on Kosminski for them to put him on an ID parade without even arresting him and why did they not arrest him after he had been identified

So you can see why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I revisited the Anderson/Swanson/Kosminski thing a few weeks back.

I reckon there is something badly wrong with it, although I'd stop short of claiming fraud (given JMenges more than likely would not appreciate libelous accusations on his website).

There are simply far too many mountains to climb to make it work.

I don't for a minute think Swanson was confused. This wasn't an innocuous bump against a fence when you've no reason to take notice: this was the most pivotal moment in Swanson's career.

When have the police ever not chased a court case because 'no public good would have come of it'? It's in the public interest to identify murderers.

And then, it was in the police's interest to make it known that the murderer had been locked up, out of competence reasons.

Is it likely that two people alone were aware of this event? I know that certain information in the Peter Sutcliffe case was kept from the rank and file, but a lot more than two people were privy to that information (among senior officers).

Is it reasonable to think that a witness travelled to an identification, identified the suspect and then refused to give evidence? Why not simply say it wasn't the man and save himself the bother of perverting the course of justice, which in this day and age carries a serious jail term.

Is it reasonable to believe that 'Jews' do not give evidence against 'their own'? Lawende did at a murder trial in 1876. This smacks of Anderson's prejudice when in effect he states: "if only 'the Jews' were more like the upstanding, born here Englishmen, crime would be much reduced".

And then of course, there are the inaccuracies within Swanson's supposed notes.

It's pretty much unbelievable and wracked with fault.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thats another question which leads to the suggestion that the marginalia is not what it seems.

But according to Swanson the ID did take place and the suspect knew he had been identified so we can assume that the suspect was identified by the witness. of course what we do not know is what the witness was actually identifying the suspect for a murder, several murders, being seen in the vicinity of a murder, being seen talking to a victim, and the lack of this information again causes me concern about the content of the marginalia.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, according to Anderson, whom Swanson was obviously supporting by writing his marginalia, the witness was

the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer.

and Swanson himself recorded:

It is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he [Lawende] saw was the murderer

As for Schwartz, who is favoured as Anderson's witness by Messrs Begg and Blomer, Swanson wrote:

it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer


It follows that Anderson's and Swanson's witness only saw the suspect with what was believed to have been the victim.

Neither Anderson nor Swanson ever mentioned any evidence against the suspect other than the identification.

The only search mentioned by Anderson was one which he admitted left the police without any clue.

It is inconceivable that he would not have mentioned a subsequent search instead, if that search had yielded a clue.

I am amazed that people read Anderson's memoirs so uncritically and credulously.

One fact leaps off the relevant page of his memoirs and that is the fact that he is unable to refer to any incriminating evidence against his suspect.

The same goes for Swanson.

The question is: how could Kosminski have come to the attention of the police in the absence of any incriminating evidence?

And how could Swanson have believed that

his [the witness's] evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged

in the absence of any corroborating evidence?

The answer to the first question is that it was only because of his incarceration in an asylum, following the incident with a knife, that the police became interested in him, and that is why Anderson is unable to refer to any incriminating evidence, and also why he has the suspect in an asylum at the time that the identification takes place.

Had there been any incriminating evidence against the alleged suspect, then the identification attempt would hardly have been left until after he had been incarcerated in an asylum!

The fact that Swanson has Kosminski being released and allowed to return home simply because the witness would not testify against him also confirms that there was no incriminating evidence against him, because otherwise the police would surely have continued to pursue the case against him.

The answer to the second question is that Swanson could not really have believed it.

In the absence of any corroborating evidence, the identification evidence could not have resulted in the suspect being hanged, and Swanson must have realised that he had no right to call the suspect the murderer.

Incredibly, the very people who have complained so much about opinion being presented as fact have completely allowed Swanson to get away with doing it himself and condemning a man who was almost certainly innocent.

There never was any case against Kosminski / the Polish Jew.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the witness was able to identify the suspect as a fellow Jew, and was unwilling to help the police prosecute a fellow Jew, then why would he have identified the suspect to the police?

Thats another question which leads to the suggestion that the marginalia is not what it seems.

But according to Swanson the ID did take place and the suspect knew he had been identified so we can assume that the suspect was identified by the witness. of course what we do not know is what the witness was actually identifying the suspect for a murder, several murders, being seen in the vicinity of a murder, being seen talking to a victim, and the lack of this information again causes me concern about the content of the marginalia.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I can't see why the police would have informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish, but if they didn't, how would the witness have learned that?

He would not!

And even if the information was somehow leaked to him, how could it possibly happen before the police had a chance to place the suspect under arrest?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... we have no definitive idea as to how Kosminski looked at that time, maybe a jew can easily identify another jew?

If the witness was able to identify the suspect as a fellow Jew, and was unwilling to help the police prosecute a fellow Jew, then why would he have identified the suspect to the police?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I can't see why the police would have informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish, but if they didn't, how would the witness have learned that?

That would have depended on how the police formulated the ID parade, they are supposed to place between 6-8 people of similar appearance to the suspect on the parade. But of course, we have no definitive idea as to how Kosminski looked at that time, maybe a jew can easily identify another jew?

But I have to say yet again the content of the marginalia does not stand up to close scrutiny.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lewis C]

I am in complete agreement with you, especially on the matter of Kosminski not having been arrested.

Swanson is expecting readers - and I know that there are those who claim he did not expect his marginalia ever to be read, but no one writes anything in the expectation that no one else will ever read it - to believe not only that Kosminski was taken from London to the coast by force, but without having been arrested, but also that upon being positively identified as the Whitechapel murderer, he STILL was not arrested!

I quoted just the line above from your analysis, because I think it points to two of the key omissions from the story as told both by Anderson and Swanson: how long after the positive identification did the witness inform the police that he had changed his mind, and what could possibly have happened during that interval to make him change his mind?

I suggest that unless the police themselves, immediately following the identification, informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish - which would have been both improper and self-defeating - then the suspect would certainly have been placed under arrest, which evidently did not happen.

Yes, I can't see why the police would have informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish, but if they didn't, how would the witness have learned that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Given that according to Swanson the witness after the parade told police he was not going to give evidence ...

I am in complete agreement with you, especially on the matter of Kosminski not having been arrested.

Swanson is expecting readers - and I know that there are those who claim he did not expect his marginalia ever to be read, but no one writes anything in the expectation that no one else will ever read it - to believe not only that Kosminski was taken from London to the coast by force, but without having been arrested, but also that upon being positively identified as the Whitechapel murderer, he STILL was not arrested!

I quoted just the line above from your analysis, because I think it points to two of the key omissions from the story as told both by Anderson and Swanson: how long after the positive identification did the witness inform the police that he had changed his mind, and what could possibly have happened during that interval to make him change his mind?

I suggest that unless the police themselves, immediately following the identification, informed the witness that the suspect was Jewish - which would have been both improper and self-defeating - then the suspect would certainly have been placed under arrest, which evidently did not happen.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would expect that an ex senior police officer would be imbued with operational ethics and would possess a mindset acquired during his time/experience/development as a serving senior police officer.

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

After all, the ability to sift information objectively is pretty fundamental to his earlier position.



It's only impossible when you begin at the position that it's impossible.

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty. It has been known for centuries that most people will make a decision based upon the outcome for themselves, while the minority will make a decision based upon principle regardless of the outcome. A sane person certainly can choose principle as the over-riding factor in decision making.

Let me say yet again I have no faith in the accuracy of the Marginalia

I have said before that when it came to the alleged ID parade, it appears that from what was written a witness actually took part in the parade and allegedly identified Kosminski. My experience with ID parades is that the witness is only asked to point out the alleged perpetrator. There is no interaction between the witness and the suspect who has been identified, and according to Swanson the suspect knew he had been identified presumably because he had been pointed out

Given that according to Swanson the witness after the parade told police he was not going to give evidence, so the police had a positive ID but what could they have done or should they have done? The answer is quite simple we have no evidence that Kosminski was there under arrest so they then had the option to arrest him and put to him the positive ID, There would have been no need to tell Kosmisnki that the witness who had identified him was not prepared to go to court, after all if he knew he had been identified he might have made admissions, but we see nothing like this all we are told is that this now identified serial killer is taken back to an address which was supposed to have been watched day and night.

Those actions go against all known police procedures back then because the police had the power to arrest any person on suspicion. So how did the suspicion first fall on Kosminski for them to put him on an ID parade without even arresting him and why did they not arrest him after he had been identified

So you can see why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Marginalia

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, if we take the "face value" approach, the witness can't have been too concerned about the "personal liberties" of Jack the Ripper's defenseless victims in being the deciding factor in enabling the murderer to walk free, and his "personal ethics" must have been all over the place - very much in favour of maintaining solidarity with fellow Jews, even if it means getting a mutilating serial killer off the hook. It's one thing to harbour such a warped mindset, but quite another to actually admit to it, and the latter cannot possibly have occurred because the police would not have tolerated it.

It is not as though this is the only murder case in which Anderson alleged that Polish Jews perverted the course of justice in order to protect a Polish Jewish murderer.

In both cases, he described witnesses who he alleged refused to cooperate with the police as low class Polish Jews.

And in both murder cases, he alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew, even though he knew that according to the best eyewitness evidence, the murderer in both cases had fair hair.

[Ben]

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

I wouldn't, Fleets, especially not with regard to Anderson and Swanson, who we know didn't act on their assumption that the witness was withholding the true reason for his refusal to swear to the identification. They would only have been guilty of bad policing or unethical practices had they confronted the witness with their suspicions and demand that he stick to his original positive identification (which is something they would have been compelled to do had the witness stated outright that he was retracting his ID because the suspect was a fellow Jew).

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty

Well, if we take the "face value" approach, the witness can't have been too concerned about the "personal liberties" of Jack the Ripper's defenseless victims in being the deciding factor in enabling the murderer to walk free, and his "personal ethics" must have been all over the place - very much in favour of maintaining solidarity with fellow Jews, even if it means getting a mutilating serial killer off the hook. It's one thing to harbour such a warped mindset, but quite another to actually admit to it, and the latter cannot possibly have occurred because the police would not have tolerated it.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

So people's memory of past events can't change over time?

Clearly memory can mislead you. Plenty of people think past summers were 3 months of red hot weather.

But, you'd have to go some to believe that a pivotal event in your career was nothing like it actually was.

[Abby Normal]

I would expect that an ex senior police officer would be imbued with operational ethics and would possess a mindset acquired during his time/experience/development as a serving senior police officer.

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

After all, the ability to sift information objectively is pretty fundamental to his earlier position.



It's only impossible when you begin at the position that it's impossible.

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty. It has been known for centuries that most people will make a decision based upon the outcome for themselves, while the minority will make a decision based upon principle regardless of the outcome. A sane person certainly can choose principle as the over-riding factor in decision making.

So people's memory of past events can't change over time?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Swanson wasn't conducting any "police" work when he annotated a copy of his boss' memoirs years after the murder investigation.

He cannot, therefore, be accused either of "gross incompetence" or bad policing.

He was free as a bird to write whatever liked about the identification

I would expect that an ex senior police officer would be imbued with operational ethics and would possess a mindset acquired during his time/experience/development as a serving senior police officer.

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

After all, the ability to sift information objectively is pretty fundamental to his earlier position.

It is impossible - completely and utterly impossible - to accept that a witness "unhesitatingly identified" a suspect, but then retracted that identification after admitting himself that the reason for this retraction lay in the fact that the suspect was a fellow Jew. No sane person would undermine his credibility and risk prosecution so brazenly, foolishly, and illogically. If the witness had truly identified the suspect, and was truly anxious to avoid that suspect hanging after realising that he was a fellow Jew, he'd have lied about it. He's have said "actually, wait a minute, I don't think this is the guy after all".

It's only impossible when you begin at the position that it's impossible.

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty. It has been known for centuries that most people will make a decision based upon the outcome for themselves, while the minority will make a decision based upon principle regardless of the outcome. A sane person certainly can choose principle as the over-riding factor in decision making.