Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Chris]

Monty

I can only ask again, what point would there be in getting the witness to swear to the suspect's identity, if not to obtain a conviction? And if the suspect wasn't going to cooperate, what would be the chances of success?

It may be that I'm no less sceptical about Anderson's claims than you are, but to be fair to him I think an uncooperative witness would in practice have been able to frustrate an attempt to convict the suspect, even though he could legally have been forced to testify.

[Monty]

Chris,

Im not talking about conviction, as I have already said.

The fact is that Anderson stated the witness positively identified the suspect yet the witness refused to swear against the suspect. The witness could not do this and Anderson must have known that. Yet he doesnt point this fact out, no he emphasises the witnesses refusal and gives reason as to why.

Basically he is saying 'we have a lunatic in an asylum, he must be Jack, dont take our word on it but this independant witness identified him, but this witness wont testify in court so dont ask him to, but rest assured we got our man'.

Im questioning the validity of Andersons statement that Jack was in custody and question the reluctance to go to trial.

He cant say they caught the killer if the evidence is none exsistant. Therfore his recollection of events is dubious.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Prehap’s they simply hoped to get more evidence and the rug was pulled from under their feet. I too can not see any great revelation here.

Pirate

[Chris]

Monty

Sorry, but I don't really understand what you're getting at.

What I'm saying is that although legally it would be possible to force a witness into court, there would be very little point if when he got there he said he could not be sure about the identification, because in that case a jury would be very unlikely to convict on his evidence. What other point would there be in forcing the witness to appear, if not to secure a conviction?

Seems to me that the most contentious part of his comments concerning this ID that never was is being neglected....he said the witness refused to Identify the man even though he believed he knew him, because both men were Jews.

That in a nutshell says heaps about Anderson.

He had his head wrapped around an Immigrant Jew without having any evidence of one as Jack, and then he disparages an entire ethnicity by suggesting they would conspire to break the law and withhold an important witness identification, because both were Jews.

"He only thought he knew."

Best regards

[Monty]

Even from a legalistic point of view, "he said that was the man he had seen" sounds like hearsay to me.

But regardless of the legal niceties, I can't believe any jury would convict, faced with a witness who said he couldn't definitely identify the accused, contradicted by police witnesses saying "Oh yes you can"!

You make it sound as if hearsay is completely inadmissable Chris. Depends on if the witness was under oath when he made the ID. And reading Andersons statement, I suspect not...so you would be right.

And if the party was not a Police Official?

Besides, conviction is not my beef.

Monty

[Chris]

If the witness did indeed positively identify the suspect, as Anderson states, then others present at that identification, namely others witnessing the event, would also be summonds to confirm what actually happend.

Even from a legalistic point of view, "he said that was the man he had seen" sounds like hearsay to me.

But regardless of the legal niceties, I can't believe any jury would convict, faced with a witness who said he couldn't definitely identify the accused, contradicted by police witnesses saying "Oh yes you can"!

[Monty]

I mean the danger that after the witness had been forced to appear in court, he might just say "I can't be sure whether it is the same man I saw on the night of the murder".

If the witness did indeed positively identify the suspect, as Anderson states, then others present at that identification, namely others witnessing the event, would also be summonds to confirm what actually happend.

The witness may say one thing in court but others will be called to confirm or counter that witnesses statement.

Therefore the danger is nulled.

Monty

[Monty]

Jeff,

Then your scenario brings into question Andersons statement the authorities knew who the killer was.

Monty

[Chris]

What dangers?

I mean the danger that after the witness had been forced to appear in court, he might just say "I can't be sure whether it is the same man I saw on the night of the murder".

[Jeff Leahy]

Not really Monty it’s the same conundrum.

They bring in a suspect and its obvious when they are bought together that this is the same man. (Remember Schwartz stood only a matter of feet away from BSM and Stride)

However the identifier is unhappy about giving evidence. It doesn’t mean that they cant make him, just that it adds to their problems.

It is by no means certain that Stride was even a victim of Jack the Ripper and on top of everything its becoming increasingly clear that the man you bought in is totally ‘barking’.

You have found no incriminating evidence and you are forced to let him go. His family are aware of the police intent have him removed to an asylum.

P

[Monty]

Not enough legal evidence?

This is what I suspect Jeff, and a different issue in a way.

Yet it brings us back to Andersons reason. Its completely irrelevant as to why the witness refused to testify. I suspect Anderson was letting something else slip.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

No ones disputing that Anderson must have been aware of the law.

H L Adam: ‘A curious combination of theologian and man of the world. What he did not know about crime was scarcely knowledge’

And Anderson clearly wrote: “ I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, but he refused to give evidence against him”

This was changed from an earlier version ‘declined to swear to him’

So Anderson must have had time to consider his words carefully.

L H Adam; ‘ A great deal of mystery still hangs about these horrible Ripper outrages, although in a letter which I have just received from Sir Robert Anderson, he intimates that the police knew well enough at the time who the miscreant was, although unfortunately, they had not sufficient legal evidence to warrant them laying hands upon him..’

Does that not suggest that while the ID might be critical it might not have been the only reason for letting the suspect go. This might make sense if the murder victim was not necessarily a ‘clear cut’ Ripper victim like Catherine Eddows, but a woman who simply had her throat cut in Dutfield yard?

There was and must have been doubt.

Pirate

[Monty]

Chris,

What dangers?

Monty

[Chris]

Sceptical as I am about some of Anderson's claims, I think it would be a mistake to press the narrow, legalistic argument too far. Obviously Anderson would have been well aware that witnesses could be forced to give evidence, but he would also have been aware of the danger of relying on an unwilling witness, especially in a matter of identification.