Maybe the police were pressuring them to assist in the ID?
Exactly. Perhaps the police said "We'll give you the opportunity of helping us to carry out an identification discreetly, or else we'll have to arrest the suspect in order to do it, and if that happens it will be difficult to guarantee the safety of his family or their property."
You just dont understand the reality of life do you ?
Would you have taken a relative given the same circumstances knowing that the outcome may be a hanging?
If the police came knocking at your door with such a request would you not want to find out more about it and not just go along for the ride, and when you found out more about it would you then agree. No you wouldn't nor would anyone else. So stop hypothesizing with ridiculous scenarios.
As a matter of fact I have a very good understanding of the reality of life. Your track records suggests that you don't. I did t least think you did your own reading even if you don't do your own research, but clearly you don't even bother with little bits of that. Have a try. Go on, Just go back a couple of posts and you'll see where I respond to your point about hanging. Read it. Stop repeating the same tiresome nonsense.
To spare you the bother of further patronising Trevor, let us put a few facts about the marginalia into context.
If you read Charles Sandell's 15th April 1981 letter and subsequent unpublished report sent to the News of the World you will find that it is riddled with errors. The date of publication of TLSOMOL is five years too early and Donald Swanson was not in possession of a copy signed by SRA. But most noticeable about Sandell's reporting of the marginalia is the absence of the name Kosminski. He is not mentioned once. The closing line—surely the consummate historical clincher "Kosminski was the suspect"—is conspicuous by its absence.
It was to make its first appearance in 1987 when the story was successfully sold to the Daily Telegraph.
Jim Swanson had to tell Charles Sandell that in referring to 'the suspect' his grandfather meant Kosminski. This is fascinating, for earlier in the article Jim Swanson was reported as saying that after his grandfather "had retired in 1903 he did reveal to members of the family that he knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but wild horses would not drag the name out of him . . . He thought he would take the name to the grave with him."
So in 1981 how, in the absence of "Kosminski was the suspect" on the endpaper of TLSOMOL, did Jim Swanson know to whom his grandfather was referring?
If he was always known as Cohen (say) in England, I'm not sure why the police would ever have heard his original surname. But if they had, I don't believe that Macnaghten, writing in an official memorandum, would have used that surname and omitted the one used in the official records. As the recipient of the memo, my question to him would have been, "This man is known as Cohen and appears as Cohen in all the records. Why on earth have you called him Kosminski (and not even Kosminski, alias Cohen) in your memorandum?"
As I suggested, Cohen may have immigrated to the UK as "Kosminski" and later anglicized his name to Cohen. Swanson and Macnaghten, emphasizing the fact that he was an Polish immigrant by referring to him by his uncommon last name, wouldn't have wanted to refer to him by a common name like "Cohen," if it might leak out and endanger the many familes surnamed "Cohen" in London. There were a dozen or so Kosminski families in London at the time, and thousands of families named "Cohen."