The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[Sunny Delight]

Anderson seems to imply that the witness identification at the Seaside Home was pretty much the smoking gun for their case against the suspect. But since neither Schwartz nor Lawende witnessed an actual murder how could this be? Certainly Schwartz's testimony would carry more weight since he allegedly saw the B.S. man attacking Stride but all a defense attorney would have to do would be to produce Swanson's report talking about the possibility of another murderer besides the B.S. man and his client would walk.

So do you think Anderson was just blowing smoke (assuming the story is true) or did the police have substantial evidence against the suspect at the time and just needed the smoking gun of an eyewitness testimony to seal their case? If so, what do you think that evidence could have been?

c.d.

It must have been a great disappointment to Robert Anderson that his name would become synonymous with the failure to catch the Whitechapel Murderer. For a man who was a senior Police officer and a man who clearly thought very highly of himself it would surely grate. I think there is every possibility the identification took place, however we do not know the circumstances under which the accused and witness were presented to each other. It is impossible to tell how the identification was conducted. One thing we do know is that on our current evidence there is absolutely nothing to tie Kosminski to any of the crimes bar an extremely tenuous identification. Anderson may have convinced himself that the ID was rock solid. Undisputable. It is hard to fathom how or why he felt this way. Of course with our modern techniques and methods we would view an ID as a wholly unsatisfactory form of helping to convict a culprit. In 1889-1890 things were different of course. In the end though to claim the case as solved was nothing more than a self soothing claim designed to massage the ego of a man very reluctant to see his name appear in the annals of history as the most senior investigator on the most infamous of unsolved cases.

[Monty]

I interpret it as personal knowledge of the Identification, which to me is not hearsay, but it's something to which we have no conclusive answer.
But that's simply my view.

Steve

Still Hearsay Steve, which is effectual in Court but far from conclusive as you suggest.

Monty

[Monty]

And unless Anderson or Swanson was present at that ID parade what they said or wrote after that is hearsay.

And what puzzles me about this mythical ID parade is the fact that we have no evidence from anyone directly involved in the setting up of the parade or how the parade was conducted. An Inspector or above would have no doubt been responsible for organising the parade and for the running of the parade yet we see no evidence from any police officers who would have to have been directly involved in later years.

It reads like a direct confrontation which irrespective of the final outcome would have been of very little evidential value as there were guidelines in place to ensure fairness to the suspect see below extract from Sir Howard Vincent Victorian police codes on identifications

(a)	The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
(b)	The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
(c)	The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
(d)	The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
(e)	Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
(f)	Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is citation is from the 15th (1912) Edition of the Police Code and therefore not in effect during the 1890 identification (some 22 years previous) we are looking at.

Again, we are assuming the ID parade was an official one as opposed to an informal fishing expedition, to use modern police parlance.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

This is citation is from the 15th (1912) Edition of the Police Code and therefore not in effect during the 1890 identification (some 22 years previous) we are looking at.

Again, we are assuming the ID parade was an official one as opposed to an informal fishing expedition, to use modern police parlance.

Monty

Well perhaps you would be so kind as to post the earlier version so comparisons can be made

We have zero evidence from anyone who actually witnessed this procedure.

The police would not carry out a fishing exercise as you put it as any such exercise would likely jeopardize any future chance of a prosecution that might follow

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Well perhaps you would be so kind as to post the earlier version so comparisons can be made

We have zero evidence from anyone who actually witnessed this procedure.

The police would not carry out a fishing exercise as you put it as any such exercise would likely jeopardize any future chance of a prosecution that might follow

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sure

Howard Vincent's Police Code 1889



Mere two points long as opposed to the 1912 version with its six points.

Yes they would, as Im sure you are aware. Again, you (like Anderson) assume this ID parade was purely for prosecution purposes as opposed to the opening up of another line of enquiry or, alternatively, to place pressure upon the suspect.

Monty

[c.d.]

The police would not carry out a fishing exercise as you put it as any such exercise would likely jeopardize any future chance of a prosecution that might follow

True, but what if that was not their primary intention? Maybe they realized that even with an identification they still lacked sufficient evidence for a trial and conviction. What if they simply wanted to confirm that this is most likely our man and now we can scale back our investigation and start taking police off the streets? That could also account for their not doing things "by the book" if that was the case.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

The police would not carry out a fishing exercise as you put it as any such exercise would likely jeopardize any future chance of a prosecution that might follow

True, but what if that was not their primary intention? Maybe they realized that even with an identification they still lacked sufficient evidence for a trial and conviction. What if they simply wanted to confirm that this is most likely our man and now we can scale back our investigation and start taking police off the streets? That could also account for their not doing things "by the book" if that was the case.

c.d.

They clearly didn't do things by the book if we are to believe in the marginalia. Are we to believe that after this positive identification of the killer, they transported him back to an address and simply left him to his own devices, in my opinion that would not have happened. If he had not been arrested up to the point of the ID then they had the option to arrest him or alternatively they could have had him certified, but they would not have wanted him to be able to slip away and kill again.

I have no faith in the authenticity or the accuracy of the marginalia. The absence of any mention of this ID by Macnaghten adds weight to my belief he was Swansons boss and if this had taken place as documented Swanson would surely have known about it and documented it in one or both versions of his memorandums.

The marginalia states that he was watched day and night by the City police but we have no evidence of the killer being watched by this force, surely if the police were acting in a professional manner the Met and the City would have collaborated in this ID after all the main City witness was Lawende and Major Smith would have been aware. but in his memoirs, he clearly states he had no clue as to the identity of the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Posted in error

[Trevor Marriott]

Sure

Howard Vincent's Police Code 1889



Mere two points long as opposed to the 1912 version with its six points.

Yes they would, as Im sure you are aware. Again, you (like Anderson) assume this ID parade was purely for prosecution purposes as opposed to the opening up of another line of enquiry or, alternatively, to place pressure upon the suspect.

Monty

Thanks for that

[rjpalmer]

Again, you (like Anderson) assume this ID parade was purely for prosecution purposes as opposed to the opening up of another line of enquiry or, alternatively, to place pressure upon the suspect.

Yet, Anderson doesn't appear to be describing an 'ID parade,' per se, but a 'confrontation' style of identification.

He writes: 'The moment he was confronted with him..."

If this is true, the alleged identification wasn't 'by the book' --there weren't at least 5 or 6 others in a line-up--which would leave the whole enterprise with either no or extremely limited and problematic evidentiary value if the aim had been prosecution.

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Anderson's claims are very problematic.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet, Anderson doesn't appear to be describing an 'ID parade,' per se, but a 'confrontation' style of identification.

He writes: 'The moment he was confronted with him..."

If this is true, the alleged identification wasn't 'by the book' --there weren't at least 5 or 6 others in a line-up--which would leave the whole enterprise with either no or extremely limited and problematic evidentiary value if the aim had been prosecution.

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Anderson's claims are very problematic.

I know that before modern-day ID procedures came into play if a suspect refused to co-operate with an Id parade the police had the option of carrying out a "direct confrontation" obviously that had evidential problems and other corroborative evidence of the suspect's involvement would be sought before any prosecution could take place. I dont know if this applied in Victorian times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Very hard to believe that the police would have simply accepted that unwillingness and not make any attempts to coerce the witness into changing his mind. I suppose that could have been done but there is no mention of it.

c.d.

[Monty]

Yet, Anderson doesn't appear to be describing an 'ID parade,' per se, but a 'confrontation' style of identification.

He writes: 'The moment he was confronted with him..."

If this is true, the alleged identification wasn't 'by the book' --there weren't at least 5 or 6 others in a line-up--which would leave the whole enterprise with either no or extremely limited and problematic evidentiary value if the aim had been prosecution.

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Anderson's claims are very problematic.

Agreed. Im with you. It seems we have a confrontational identification as opposed to a line up.

I believe mesrah may have impacted.

Monty

[Monty]

Yet, I can't help believing that the whole spirit of Anderson's statement is that a successful prosecution and conviction had been thwarted by an unwilling Jewish witness. That's what he is implying or trying to imply.

Very hard to believe that the police would have simply accepted that unwillingness and not make any attempts to coerce the witness into changing his mind. I suppose that could have been done but there is no mention of it.

c.d.

Influence a witness? A good brief would destroy that in court.

This, to me, is where Anderson fails to comprehend the police’s objective regarding this event.

He views as a barrister, not as a policeman.

Monty

[c.d.]

Influence a witness? A good brief would destroy that in court.

This, to me, is where Anderson fails to comprehend the police’s objective regarding this event.

He views as a barrister, not as a policeman.

Monty

According to Anderson the witness made a positive identification. I don't see attempting to remove the religious barrier to the identification as influencing the witness as it would not be getting him to change his identification in any way only to come forward with it. So I don't see it as being illegal or unethical or a problem if it came to court.

Now pressure to actually change his testimony is quite another thing and yes, it would not hold up in court.

c.d.

P.S. I don't think I worded this too well but hopefully my meaning is clear.