Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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

[perrymason]

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

[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?

[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

[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

[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,

And I can only repeat again that it is not about conviction.

Anderson states he had Jack locked away. The only supporting evidence he gives is this positive identification. Yet he states the witness refuses to testify. So the whole event was a pointless act. However its not. The witness can be forced into testifying.

As you state, on its own the testimony is flimsy. However coupled with other evidence its potentially a final nail.

Monty

[Chris]

Monty

What Anderson said was that the witness "declined to swear to him" (Blackwood's) and "refused to give evidence against him" (Lighter Side).

Obviously what he meant was that the witness wasn't prepare to testify that the suspect was the man he had seen on the night of the murder. And of course the difficulty would be that although legally he could be forced into the witness box, he couldn't be forced to say what the police wanted him to when he got there.

[robhouse]

Monty,

I do not think that we know what the police knew about Kozminski, and since the top officials of Scotland Yard were apparently not supposed to discuss it (at least not very extensively) in public, it seems possible that they might have had other "evidence" against him.

True, what Anderson says in the book does not provide a very convincing case, but this may not be all the police had. We simply do not know what the police knew about Kozminski... There may have been circumstantial evidence, statements of people who knew Kozminski etc... but whatever they knew, it clearly was not sufficient to secure a conviction. I do not think there is any reason (necessarily) to get bogged down by what little Anderson said about Kozminski.

Certainly, the witness may have said something like, "Yes, that looks like the man." And then when pressed, "Well, will you testify against him?" he may have backed off, saying, "Well, I am not certain. It was a long time ago. I only got a brief glimpse at him."

Rob H

[Monty]

Chris,

And what was the reason why the witness refused to swear?

Monty

[Monty]

Rob,

I see your point, and wont argue against it.

However if other evidence existed why didnt Anderson mention that? He seemed so keen to persude all Jack had been captured.

As stated, I question Andersons assurance that they had captured the killer. And with that the Swanson marginalia, and some aspects of the Cohen/Kosminski story.

Monty

[robhouse]

I think the reason Anderson would not have mentioned it is simply that the Police were not supposed to tell tales out of school.

From reading Anderson's quotes on the subject, one gets the impression that he is dying to tell the story of the Ripper, but that he cannot tell it.

In any case, I think it is undisputable that the police must have known a good deal more about Kozminski than we know now.... they must have interviewed him, and interviewed his family. The watched him. Anderson, really, tells next to nothing about Kozminski... including, not even mentioning his name.

He only drops little hints. One gets the impression that was as far as he was willing to go.

Rob H

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me Rob...allow me to add this bit you provided from a previous post and please counter it whenever possible...thank you....

"Certainly, the witness may have said something like, "Yes, that looks like the
man." And then when pressed, "Well, will you testify against him?" he may have
backed off, saying, "Well, I am not certain. It was a long time ago. I only got
a brief glimpse at him." R.House

This doesn't cover the comment of crucial importance by Anderson, that the witness discovered the ethnicity of the suspect ( In Blackwood's Magazine, not the Lighter Side of My Official Life), which is again corroborated by the Swanson Marginalia....and for that reason hesitated in declining to swear to the suspect.

Your suggestion, a decent one no doubt, is a little at odds with the manner in which Anderson, whether there at the scene or by way of hearsay, describes it.

His sequencing is significantly different, it appears, in that he claims the witness did...and he doesn't say how he did...indicate prior cognizance of the suspect to whomever was present at the identification representing the police...and does not mention, nor infer, that anything other than the mutual Jewishness of the two men was the reason for the decision to decline assisting the police any further....

However, if one wished to argue as you seem to be doing that the police had more "goods" on Kosminski...which is a good thought, then it begs the question as to what other goods they had. If Anderson was willing to provide his readers 22 years later with the Seaside story...the witness's refusal to testify due to mutual Jewishness ( according to SRA)... against the unnamed suspect..with the blunders in the text..... in this fashion, then what exactly could they have had that was more convincing than the unsatisfactory,incomplete story he provided?

In short, why wouldn't at least one of those bits of evidence appear in either the Blackwood's article or his autobiography?

Later...

[Howard Brown]

Rob:

Actually, as per usual, I forgot to state that the mutual Jewishness accompanied with the belief that the man would face a undesirable fate is why the witness failed to testify. Yet, it was the ethnicity of the man in question that got the ball rolling, for want of a better phrase.

Sorry for the add on.

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson met with Kosminski's sister?