Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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, thatīs 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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson met with Kosminski's sister?

[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.

[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...

[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

[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

[Monty]

Chris,

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

Monty

[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

[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.

[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