|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Why the Polish Jew is a very shaky theory
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Cohen, David:
Why the Polish Jew is a very shaky theory
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 01:51 am |        | Anderson's thought process is easy to follow. It's right there in the records. In the report he filed in October, 1888, directly after the failure of the house-to-house search, he remarks how he is "puzzled" that the search didn't lead to the arrest of the murderer.
He puzzles it over. He tries to come up with some explanation for this curious failure.
The solution he ultimately reached is in his autobiography:
"During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews..."
In other words, shortly after Oct, 1888 Anderson was primarily looking for a Jewish suspect...it was the only explanation that made sense to him; certain "low-class" denizens had to be hiding the murderer. Indeed, he's so convinced of this theory, that when a witness [probably years later] "unhesitantingly identifies" the suspect---but then back down---he comes to the conclusion once again that it is because the Jews are 'protecting their own.'
Shake it, rattle it, or roll it, all we have is Anderson's own interpretation of what was going on. nowhere is this identification a "definitely ascertained fact"...except, perhaps, in Anderson's mind. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 02:41 pm | | Dear RJ,
And what are we to conclude about Mr Anderson?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 06:48 pm | | Rosemary:
My interpretation is "rabid anti-Semite".
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 08:27 pm | | RJ,
An identification is an identification. Anderson said he had an identification. Something happened to lead him to believe the murderer had been identified. This is enough to justify the 'definitely ascertained fact' even with the pre-existing judgement, made years before, that the murderer was a low-class Polish Jew and his people shielded him.
There is no reason to disbelieve or doubt Anderson. He did in fact have reason to believe he'd found the murderer.
David |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 12:00 am | | And Macnaghten in his Memor. said "there were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect.'" And what about City Inspector Sager's account of the surveillance of a suspect destined for the asylum, and the journalist George R, Sim's revelations about Anderson's suspect, including his nocturnal habits? And the possibility that Anderson could have convinced Det. Insp. Swanson, who had overall charge of the day-to-day investigations, that he had identified the Ripper, when, in fact, "he only thought he knew"? Too many unanswered questions IMO, to say that it was Anderson's "own interpretation" of what was going on. He may, of course, have been delusional and was certainly opinionated, but we simply don't have enough data to come to any kind of conclusion as to what Anderson "knew" or "only thought he knew"
I can see Stewart jumping in here, but he's probably so tired of the circular arguments that go nowhere, then get resurrected again, and then disappear again until brought up by new discussions. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 02:50 am | | David-- it's very tempting to agree with you in general, the troubles come when anyone attempts to move from the general to the specific in regards to the Polish Jew theory. Almost immediately one feels the steel shank underneath the tasty skin.
At some point Anderson must have had a general theory of the murders, and this colours his thinking. He doesn't merely accept the Jewish witness's identification of the suspect, he excludes all other witnesses: "the only person who ever saw the murderer"....unhesitatingly indentified him.
At the very least he is saying that there is only one murderer, and that the witness at one crime scene is identifying the murderer of the entire series.
Why is Anderson elevating one witness above all others? Because he made an identification? But PC Barrett also made an identification in regards to one of the murders. [At least in a way that is not much worst than Lawende's i.d.] If Lawende is your witness, what do you do with Schwartz? With Elizabeth Long, or Hutchinson?
It's the specifics of the Polish Jew theory that gives one doubts. David Cohen had 'no known relatives'...he couldn't be the man released to his brother in Swanson's marginalia. Lawende wasn't sure he could identify the man again. Kosminski was 71/2 stone [107 lbs]...a runt...probably lacking the strength and the state of mind to overpower a street-wise prostitute.
I certainly don't dismiss the Polish Jew as a suspect. But certainly it must be obvious that Anderson is overstating his case. Cheers. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 09:33 am | | Anderson may have paraded all known witnesses in front of his suspect and only got one witness to identify him; Anderson may have therefore concluded that only that particular witness had actually seen the murderer. The other witnesses would have been saying "Gee, I just can't be sure that was him," and Anderson could have interpreted this to mean they hadn't had a clear view of the murderer at the crime scenes.
I think you have to rationalize emending the evidence if you want to accept the David Cohen theory. You have to say that the police got information garbled in communication, and this is what explains Swanson's mentioning of Kosminski. But if you emend the evidence, you aren't predicating your solution on the evidence as-is. It seems to me the reason why people want to emend the evidence is because they can't solve the case on its existing evidence. They should try emending themselves instead IMHO, and leave the evidence as it is.
I think the weight given above for Kosminski was the weight recorded at the asylum after he had been ill for some time. He may have been losing weight. I think he must have been stouter than 107 pounds in 1888. |
Author: Diana
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 10:33 am | | | I believe it was said that the only witness to get a clear view of JTR was a city PC who spotted him near Mitre Square. Most of us discount this because our list of witnesses does not include such a person. Would it be possible that there was a witness we know nothing about, all other records of him having been lost? It would not be the first time a person hid their race or religion in order to get a job. In my country we are working hard to undo 300 years of injustice to African Americans. There was a time when exceptionally light skinned individuals here would attempt and sometimes succeed in "passing" for white. Perhaps there was a Jewish individual who did not look very Jewish and who badly wanted to be in the police. So he passed himself off as a Gentile and became the City PC who got a good look at Jack near Mitre Square. Later he was overtaken by an injury or disease and was at the Police Convalescent Home. He was willing to hide his Jewishness to get a job but was not willing to send another Jew to his death. Rather than assuming a whole galaxy of errors by Anderson/McNaughten/Swanson is it possible that there is a witness we know nothing about? |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 11:55 am | | Well, at 107 pounds, it's clear that Kosminski was 'one of the little people'. Wasn't it said that Pan was born on Kos? Next stop Arcadia?
Rob |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 03:17 pm | | | It is possible that the "City PC who got a glimpse of Jack near Mitre Square" (Sims) was PC James Harvey, who was on his beat south along Duke Street opposite the King St. entrance to St. James Place, a little before 1:40 am. Did he see someone emerge from this court , but only take notice of the "height and build" [of the Pole]? Harvey testified that when he reached the bottom of Church Passage into Mitre Square, he "saw no one and I heard no cry or noise." Harvey was dismissed the following year. He may have been Jewish. I believe another poster a while back found a former PC, "James Hay" boarding at the Police Seaside Home in Hove around 1891-2, but he would likely have been a MET retiree, instead of a sacked City PC. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 08:28 pm | | Now that PC James Harvey has been mentioned, I'd like to humbly request further discusion on this issue with my colleagues. What are the chances that McNaghten's mention of "the City PC" has got anything whatever to do with Anderson's witness? There are apparently no records of any Jewish policeman in the City at the time. To what extent do we have confirmatory data on this sighting? Apparently, McNaghten told Sims about this--but where did McNaghten get his information? Since it appears that McNaghten got his information about Kosminski from Anderson, should we say he got his information about the City PC from him also as well? Does the fact that McNaghten makes several obvious mistakes in his memorandum entitle us to kiss off the City PC altogether? The Seaside Home would in fact be a place that a policeman would go--but Harvey had been fired by the time of the identification, and likely wouldn't have the right to reside there.
So what have we got? Anything? I've got the questions, so let's see some answers, please.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 12:36 am | | Rosey--And what are we to conclude about Mr. Anderson?
Hmm. Is that a trick question? I can only give you my opinion--but I'm sure you must already know what it is.
Anyone who has followed this conversation for very long can see the obvious schism.
One faction operates under what I might almost call an a priori belief or assumption that Anderson is accurate and trustworthy. Since it is a given that Anderson identified the murderer [or believe that he identified the murderer], and since he was evidently in the best position to know the truth, it is allowable [so the thinking goes] to tinker with various witnesses and suspects in order to reveal what constitued Anderson's certainty. An extreme example in this faction are those that toss out Kosminski altogether in favor of a more palatable suspect.
The other faction goes at the problem from the opposite end. Having identified the most obvious choice for the witness and the suspect--[ie., Lawende & Aaron Kosminski]--they focus on the rather substantial shortcomings of both, as well as what seems to be a completely problematic identification. Reasoning backwards, they come to the conclusion that since the witness & the suspect are so inadequate Anderson must have been lying or exaggerating.
These are the two main 'factions', with minor variations here & there. Oh, and just to make it more fun, there is also at least thirty-six volumes worth of complicated side issues ranging from Anderson's stubborness in supporting those that smeared Parnell to the strange possibility that his witness identified a completely different suspect at a later date. [ie., Grainger].
We could argue until the...
[I'm thinking of a rather distasteful line from John Donne that is very suitable in regards to Sir Robert Anderson, but think I better skip it].
Um, anyway, for the most part, I tend to agree with the second 'faction.'
Yet, do you get the feeling that before long a stranger is going to come out of the East and offer up an entirely new and revolutionary way of looking Anderson & his 'suspect'? I do.
I don't really have the patience or concentration to reason out all these difficult things. My own stubborn method is to slog through a mountain of simple-minded donkey-work in hopes of proving Anderson wrong---in the only possible way there is--- by showing that the murderer was someone other than a Polish Jew.
I have one thing going for me---the murderer read the Star. Could Kosminski have done that?
Cheers, RJP |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 11:59 am | | Dear RJ,
Absolutely fascinating. "The murderer read the Stars."
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 06:00 pm | | "Yet, do you get the feeling that before long a stranger is going to come out of the East and offer up an entirely new and revolutionary way of looking Anderson & his 'suspect'? I do."
See A.R.
David |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 06:39 pm | | RJP draws the schism accurately as the bulk of Ripperologists perceive it. But the bulk of Ripperologists fundamentally mis-perceive what the whole case, in toto, is all about, including the identification. The schism is actually a waste of time--it is like a length of red tape run around a few reasonable observations to keep people from realizing them. There are things we don't exactly know concerning Anderson's role in the finalization of the case, but that doesn't mean we can't understand what he finalization of the case meant.
Suffice to say here: (1) Something did in fact happen to convince Anderson that the murderer had been identified, because this is what he says and no significant reason to doubt him exists, and (2) There are many ways to reason out what the identification meant that are available in the case evidence. The reasons why they aren't discussed are laziness, boredom and fear.
David |
|
|
|
|
