Maybe Swanson was referring to Cohen. What if Cohen's non-anglicised name was "Kosminski"?
I think that was probably the case Scott. I would go as far as to say that, if Swanson's "died shortly afterwards" comment is correct (and why would he make something like that up?), then surely he can only have been talking about David Cohen?
He was a young, mad polish Jew from Whitechapel who was listed as dangerous to self and others. He fits Mac's "later developed strong homicidal tendencies" comment and Anderson's description of "maniac' to a tee. His incarceration was I think late December 1888 and that would explain the end of the murders (that is if you believe the Ripper murders ended with Kelly - which I do). Mac wrote "Incarcerated about March 1889" and that's not too far off. And as Swanson said, taken to Colney Hatch under restraint and died shortly afterward (the "died" part fits Cohen uniquely, Fido has checked the records). He was also the same age as Kosminski and I believe he was listed as 'Aaron' originally (Aaron Davis Cohen)? So I can see why Fido was convinced he'd found the real suspect. Or at least the joint-best suspect along with Kosminski.
But it should be noted that no other police officers who were involved in the investigation ever mention anything about this so called ID parade. Now to me I find that very strange. Who escorted the so called suspect to the seaside? Surely not Anderson and Swanson on their own. There is nothing recorded anywhere to show it actually happened other than in these two officers later ramblings.
It should also be noted that Macnaghten was Swanson's immediate superior yet he mentions nothing, and I would have expected him to have known. In fact he eliminates the suspect he named as Kosminiski.
Yes, it is indeed strange, although Mac does mention that Kosminski was said to strongly resemble the man seen by a City PC near Mitre Square. Do you think some records could have been lost or some information suppressed? Do you think there could have been some 'unofficial' goings on? Anderson said in his book he was almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter, and in relation to that Swanson wrote 'known to head officials at Scotland Yard', and Swanson underlined the word "head" twice. So could it be that this ID parade was a pretty secret affair?
Yes, Mac went for Druitt over Kosminski I believe? He got Druitt's age and occupation wrong if I remember correctly, and he favoured the 'suicide' explanation for the murders ending.
Look at the inquests again,who was the witness in the position to give a positive ID? Unless they had another witness who had a good look at the "suspect" and was not included in the inquests which I doubt,the inquests were clear enough and this was not the case.From those in the inquests only Mary Ann Cox said "I should know the man again, if I saw him.".PC William Smith could only say "but I did not notice him much." but perhaps he could.James Brown's man was facing the wall and Long saw the man fron the back.Schwartz (2 versions in one day,Sept.30) and Hutchinson were flaky witnesses and dropped.Swanson on Schwartz and Abberline on Hutch were wrong,at least on the day their opinions were written.
Lawende was used in Sadler's case and was their only witness - he had doubts and "Oh No" he could identify the man again and could not give a positive ID,Cohen or Kosminsky.
As posted before,What was the basis why the "suspect" was in the ID in the first place,if the "reasons" were masturbation,eating from the gutter and attack sister with a knife,or even roam at night,these are mild and not evidence.And they had all those years to mention the other evidence against him but always returned to those "reasons" which means there were no other reasons.Not really a positive ID.
Did the witness told Anderson' verbally he won't testify against the suspect because he was a fellow Jew or was it just a hunch/read?.
He did not say the witness verbally told him which would made it definite/unassailable proving his "detractors" wrong, so it was a hunch,
especially if Lawende was the witness.
So Anderson did not have a good basis for saying "positive ID" and "ascertained fact".
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).