Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Chris]

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

What I've been discussing is the specific point you raised about the witness's ability to refuse to give evidence.

I said at the outset that I was sceptical about Anderson's claims - particularly the claim that the witness did make a definite identification. I think it's more likely that something happened which was interpreted by the police as recognition - perhaps mutual recognition.

The likeliest reason for the witness to "decline to swear to him" would be that he wasn't sure whether or not it was the same man he had seen on the night of the murder. Perhaps he did go on to say that as he wasn't sure he wasn't prepared to take the responsibility of sending him to the gallows - perhaps he even alluded to the fact the man was a fellow-Jew.

But what I don't believe happened is that he said "This is definitely the man, but I will not testify against him because he is a fellow-Jew".

[jason_c]

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".

A very plausible arguement if the police were to try the witness for not testifying. The witness only got a brief glimpse of the suspect, it was dark, and it was a number of years previously. All these points made by a defence council would surely have resulted in a not guilty verdict against the witness who refused to give evidence.

[Varqm]

In the first place the witness, I think, had at best a weak conviction/recollection the man paraded before him was the man he saw .
The witness probably showed his affinity for his fellow jew ,probably gave off an indication that he would have required even more info than what
he had because he was a fellow jew and Andersson made a mountain out of it.

They would have interrogated the witness and if he had something stronger than what he had (perhaps plus other evidence from other sources) they would have forced him to testify.
I think Andersson would have alluded to more things the witness said or did if there were more.

[Jeff Leahy]

They would have interrogated the witness and if he had something stronger than what he had (perhaps plus other evidence from other sources) they would have forced him to testify.
I think Andersson would have alluded to more things the witness said or did if there were more.

Not necessarily. Not if he were protecting an informant who had helped him get the suspect there.

If he had given his word to a Lady, then Anderson was a man of honour, I dont think he would go back on his word or revealed her name later on.

Pirate

[Howard Brown]

Whether we think the witness was this way or that way, with all due respect, the fact is that both Anderson and Swanson state with definitiveness that the witness recognized the suspect and have the same version of events to relate, albeit few in number. It would suggest that Swanson had the same inclination as Anderson to make a mountain out of a molehill or rather, it would suggest that Anderson was the only one to make a mountain out of a molehill which is not the way things panned out due to the Marginalia.

Your points do make sense, Varqm, but it is important that we remember that the Swanson marginalia does corroborate what Anderson said transpired.

Both officials state that the mutual Jewishness of the two men was the deciding factor for the witness's noncompliance and both stated the witness could identify the suspect.

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"the fact is that both Anderson and Swanson state with definitiveness that the witness recognized the suspect"

This is very true. The wording "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him" could not possibly leave us in any doubt. It is not a description of a man who SEEMS to recognize a suspect - it is a description of somebody who IMMEDIATELY and with NO HESITATION professed to recognizing the man.
In fact, it is almost as if Anderson anticipated that the questions asked on this thread would arise - or as if he had had the discussion - perhaps even on numerous occasions - before he wrote it down in his memoirs.
He takes every precaution to ensure that we do not get him wrong on the point: the witness did not need any time to consider whether it was the right man or not, and he never displayed any doubts at all. We are faced with testimony pointing out that the witness said "Yes, that´s him alright, no doubt about it" the moment he laid eyes upon the suspect.

And - not to forget - we are also faced with the fact that this is extremely hard to reconciliate with Lawendes assertion that he did not believe that he could point HIS man out with much of a certainty. So either Lawende was NOT the witness - or we have a identification that is not nearly as strong as Anderson will have us believe, no matter how it was worded.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Thats probably because Lawende was some distance from the suspect, where as, if my measurements are correct, Schwartz was possibly only feet, even inches from the suspect when he crossed the road. Hardly surprising they recognosed each other.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"Thats probably because Lawende was some distance from the suspect, where as, if my measurements are correct, Schwartz was possibly only feet, even inches from the suspect when he crossed the road. Hardly surprising they recognosed each other."

That, of course is a valid point. But did not Anderson suggest that it was the Ripper he held incarcerated...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Its a valid point Fish. Anderson may only have had the person who killed LIZ.

I know it's a view many have hit me on the head with.

All I can say is, possibly

Pirate

[robhouse]

Regardless of what Anderson and Swanson said, it seems there is only one possible solution.... The witness was not very certain of his identification.

And as has been pointed out, it seems possible that Kozminski's reaction was more convincing to Anderson/Swanson of Kozminski's guilt, than the witness's identification. ("and he knew he was identified"). Swanson also adds that the witness refused to testify because "his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind." Legal issues regarding insanity aside, this seems to suggest that the witness's testimony would be the primary piece of evidence used in convicting the suspect.... and once the witness learned this, he may have declined to testify, given that he was not certain of his identification.

Likewise, "unhesitatingly" does not to me, indicate certainty. It simply seems to indicate that he answered quickly.

He may have at first "unhesitatingly" identified Kozminski, then changed his mind after he found out the suspect was Jewish. Or he may have changed his mind simply because he was unsure. Anderson may have interpreted this as the witness not wanting to testify against a fellow Jew.

In any case, it seems clear that if the suspect was certain of his identification, he would have been forced to testify in court. So he must have said he was not.

Rob H

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Moaning...

Hardly surprising they recognosed each other.
Pirate

Good moaning Pirate Jack...

Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

[Sam Flynn]

Good moaning Pirate Jack...

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Stewart!

Sorry, Jeff

[perrymason]

I think one thing is clear and that is that Lawende did not portray his sighting as a good or reliable one I believe just a few weeks after he first gave his statement.....so an ID of any kind seems improbable if he was the witness.

If he was hesitant, I can understand that. But I dont see some kind of sign coming from him that he recognized the man but willfully denied it....I cant see how he could have.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

Rob writes:

"unhesitatingly" does not to me, indicate certainty. It simply seems to indicate that he answered quickly."

But in all fairness, Rob, would you not agree that those who answer in the blink of an eye that "Yep, that´s the guy" are people who - though they of course may be wrong - actually feel pretty certain about things?

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

the fact is that both Anderson and Swanson state with definitiveness that the witness recognized the suspect"

Howard Brown

This is very true. The wording "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him" could not possibly leave us in any doubt.
It is not a description of a man who SEEMS to recognize a suspect - it is a description of somebody who IMMEDIATELY and with NO HESITATION professed to recognizing the man.

Fisherman

I think if the witness was absolutely sure the suspect was the murderer the police would not have accepted his reason that he won't testify because he was a fellow Jew.I think more pressure would have been done to compel
him to testify and that the rest of the police higher-ups would have known. I believe there have to be more to this story if it was true the witness was absolutely sure.