Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

You can both shout elephants are pink as loud as you like.

The simple fact remains that Martin Fido, who is after all an expert on Victorian literature, doesn’t believe that Anderson would have invented the story.

And as Anderson’s story is supported by Swanson in the marginalia, (which no one has ever provided a logical explanation for NOT being genuine) It seems most probable that some sort of Identification occurred.

The problems then start from a number of contextual contradictions.

I think it probable that your correct that there is more to this ID than meets the eye.

But for me the simple inclusion of an inside informant and Anderson protecting someone, makes the most sense. Given what is known about his personality.

Pirate

[Monty]

Harry,

Amen to that.

The whole Seaside Home ID story is an extremely dubious one.

In my humble opinion of course.

Monty

[harry]

The witness would first have became such on the night he witnessed the person,and would at that time have been aware of who the person was.As the person to be identified was also known by name to the police,I see no reason why the witness had to be taken to a seaside home to make an identification.All that needed to be asked,was if the witness would stand in court and state his knowledge.He could then have stated his reluctance to incriminate the said suspect.No need then for a wasted journey.That is of course,if there ever was a suspect,and an identification,which I very much doubt.

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Rob!

I see what you are getting at, and are of course correct; the "unhesitating" identification may have looked in many different ways.
What I turned against was just the notion that you suggested that a lack of hesitation would not necessarily point to a larger certainty in the mind of the witness, and technically, I do believe that a lack of hesitation must be considered a good sign of a perceived certainty!

Of course, if we accept that there was such certainty about, we need to move on to the question about why the witnessed was not forced to testify, but that lies beyond the part I was commenting on - that it actually seems like Anderson took every precaution not to leave us with much of a chance to accept that the witness would NOT have been sure about his identification.
There are so many elements involved that we are left with a very hard nut to crack here. Maybe there was an element of swaggering in Andersons assertion, maybe th passing years had had an impact on his picture of things - you and me are even interpreting the mentioned lack of hesitation in radically different fashions, obviously. And if you say that you have a nagging feeling that there was much less certainty involved in it all than what Andersons words seem to imply, well, then I must side with you to a very large extent!

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Hello Fisherman,

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I think it is more your own choice of words ("Yep, that´s the guy") that conveys certainty, as opposed to the immediate nature of the response. After all, obviously, we do not know any way near enough to characterize what actually happened. The suspect may have been brought out at which point the witness unhesitatingly:

a. simply nodded his head,
b. said something like "Yes I think so"
c. said something like, "That looks like him."
d. said something like "I dont remember it very well, but yes, I think that's the man."
etc.

Your scenario:
f. "Yep, that´s the guy"

is obviously another possible option, but certainly not the only one.

And given the fact that the witness only briefly saw the suspect, in the dark, probably at a distance, probably a year or more earlier, it seems unlikely that he would have been so sure of his identification.

That does not mean the identification should be discounted of course.

But how else would you explain it? If the witness professed his certainty, he would surely have been forced to testify (as has been pointed out here.) But this did not happen?

So what is the other solution?

Rob H

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

I’ve always read it that the reaction was both ways. They reacted at each other.

Which had me puzzling a couple of things last night?

Firstly: Monty is correct, Anderson must have known the law. And Anderson always chooses his words carefully and has time to amend any errors and be precise..

But by the time the reported ID took place surely the most obvious and worrying thing for Anderson was not the Witness not giving evidence but the FACT that the suspect must have been completely insane?

Secondly, and this one really is only a speculative, out there, off the top of my head suggestion…

What if Anderson was protecting an informant from the suspects family?

If Kosminski’s sister went to Anderson and said ‘I think my brothers the Ripper’

Would that not explain at least Andersons reluctance to use the name Kosminski

Just a thought

Van Clump

[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.

[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

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

[Sam Flynn]

Good moaning Pirate Jack...

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Stewart!

Sorry, Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Moaning...

Hardly surprising they recognosed each other.
Pirate

Good moaning Pirate Jack...

Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

[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

[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

[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]

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