Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely the whole point is that but turned on its head..

He’s a fellow jew and therefore doent wish to be rejected in his world. Or out cast by family and friends.

Wasn’t the whole reason about NOT wanting to be rejected by his peers not the other way around?

Pirate

[Monty]

No, the point is if procedure was adhered too along with the law, the witness would have no say in the matter on testifying against the suspect should the case get to court.

They would have been summonsed and expected to tell the truth.

Therefore Anderson stating that the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect may be so however, as a barrister, he must have known that it didnt matter what the witnessed wished. Law dictates that they would have to provide this evidence if required.

So this 'Im not testifying against him cos he is a fellow Jew' doesnt wash in the eyes of British law. Its an extremely weak reason and one I question.

I find it hard to understand why procedure wasnt adhered to...if the event did happen that is.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

And if the suspect was locked in an asylum before they could reach a decision or bring the case to court it was out of their hands anyway.

I agree that Anderson must have known the law however, he may have been many things, but stupid wasn’t one of them.

Pirate

[Monty]

And if the suspect was locked in an asylum before they could reach a decision or bring the case to court it was out of their hands anyway.

Yet Anderson doesnt state that. He gives us a differing reason.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

He does indeed.

nothings ever quite black and white in this case.

Pirate

[Monty]

As a reason why the witness refused to give evidence?

No, he doesnt.

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.

[Monty]

Chris,

What dangers?

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]

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]

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

[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".

[Monty]

Jeff,

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

Monty

[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

[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"!